View Full Version : Continually failing RAF Fitness Test.


Biggus
4th Feb 2007, 12:58
I am sure I read earlier on a pprune thread that nobody had yet been thrown out of the RAF for continually failing their RAF Fitness Test. Well, I heard the other day that it is about to happen to someone at last.

Is this news to people, or am I behind the drag curve as usual?

By the way, I know it has been mentioned before, but I actually looked at the new RAFFT 'targets' the other day. Under the old scheme a 49 year old man had to perform as well as a 30 year old woman. With the new targets a 49 year old man has to perform as well as a 16 year old girl!

You can talk about different physiologies till the cows come home, but this seems a bit unfair to me. I thought the difference in male/female performance was of the order of 15%?



airborne_artist
4th Feb 2007, 13:14
49 year old man has to perform as well as a 16 year old girl

I can think of plenty of 49 y/o men who love to show a 16 y/o lass how to perform :E

FormerFlake
4th Feb 2007, 14:38
There is a procedure for throwing people out who continuously failing the fitness test. The procedure is very fair and gives individuals every chance to get fit and save their jobs. From memory, I think it would take around 18 months from first failing the test to being thrown out if given all the chances dictated in the guidlines. So, for 18 months you have an admin burden and some one who can not deploy. However, continuous cock-up in the paperwork and Flt Cmdrs not following the guidlines usual mean people get away with it anyway.

Gnd
4th Feb 2007, 15:27
What about the people who are 'un-fit' and don't do the tests, they can't deploy (or be thrown out). We are so short at the mo - let them do the jobs we all hate. Lets be a little forwarde thinking here and help ourselves?

Pontius Navigator
4th Feb 2007, 15:55
Can't deploy if unfit? Not as far as one of our SNCOs is concerned. He failed to show for the test last year and only when threatened did he go sick. He is still sick/excused test but due to go OOA soon.

Another's march to fitness was delayed until he returned from OOA!

Stuff
4th Feb 2007, 16:14
Pontius, I assume Gnd is talking about people who are un-fit medically hence downgraded and therefore aren't able to deploy rather than un-fit as in huffing and puffing.

edit to add the right number of spaces between the words :p

SASless
4th Feb 2007, 16:46
the difference in male/female performance was of the order of 15%?

Except for the muddled thinking of our time....I would hope it would be more like 100% different.

Pontius Navigator
4th Feb 2007, 17:18
Stuff, I think not. If you are medically downgraded then passing the fitness test becomes irrelevant. The failure and discharge applies to those not medically downgraded.

My first case is sick, unfit, but not medically downgraded, so he can do OOA, is presently exempt fitness tests and, as a corollary, will not be discharged for failing his fitness test.

The other was in the process of remedial fitness training which was effectively put back 9 months during his OOA period.

No, failure might get you kicked out but it does not stop OOA.

seven4mankind
4th Feb 2007, 17:40
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't be made permanently Unfit Fitness Test without being down-graded can you?

As in, if you don't have a TMES limitation, then any rule that you're not fit enough to do the RAF-FT must be very temporary and limited, and there must be an end point? :rolleyes:

Pontius Navigator
4th Feb 2007, 18:05
seven4mk,

I am sure you are right but there is a difference possibly between permanently unfit and unable to do ones duty and temporarily unfit while still working.

at the moment it is 10 months. Without wheeling him in every month I don't know what his medical condition is and honestly I am out of the loop - trust me.

To take someone like this, who is time serving, and push him while unfit risks a claim for a disability pension. Keeping him in, and productive, both gives a chance of improved fitness before discharge and gets some work as well.

mbga9pgf
4th Feb 2007, 18:58
I undersatand that the pretty boys down PEd flt are about to up the limits on the fitness test...
So lets get this right, a fitness test I passed last year and be considered fit for ops for the last god knows how long, will no longer be valid and in fact I have now been told that If I fail the new standard, I will lose my job, having done over 180 days away over the past 15 months? So, if I fail, what part of "not being able to do my job" does it cover?
The only thing I gained from my last was a knackered back (syatica) after being told to do maximal sit-ups, a complaint that nearly got me sent home from det 3 weeks later in the middle of a hectic TELIC rip?
What about letting us do our bloody jobs instead of interfereing, and throwing out those who cannot do their primary role as a result of thier fitness? No, that would be too much like common sense, of course! :=

insty66
4th Feb 2007, 19:26
What about letting us do our bloody jobs instead of interfereing, and throwing out those who cannot do their primary role as a result of thier fitness? No, that would be too much like common sense, of course!


Unfortunatley our colleague Common Sense was sick for some time and having failed his fitness test, has now been dismissed from the service as an admin burden!:hmm:

blogger
4th Feb 2007, 20:55
Ref the standards for fittness test.

Male Female.

Same pay.
Same job.

Same level of fittness test or take me to court and kick me out.

Gay rights
Pregnant women rights
Equal partner rights
Age rights

The next legal battle is going to be the levels in the fittness test... You can not be biased due to sex or age so why does the RAF think they can be?

I am happy to work with any race, sex, but don't ask me to do more because I am male.

European court of Human rights might have something to say on this matter.

JagRigger
4th Feb 2007, 21:56
I did once get a stand in civi doc in the med centre to give me a sick chit excusing me the fitness test 'at his (my) discretion'!

Brilliant, absolutley brilliant!

NURSE
5th Feb 2007, 04:18
Yes that always tickled me same job spec and LSN , equal rights different fittness tests hmmm wonder if that constitutes sex discrimination if so the Mod better have a big cheque book.

claude liardet
5th Feb 2007, 07:32
Regarding the 15% difference in male/female performance: there are of course different ways of measuring physical performance, but from what I have seen 15% is way off the mark. The study carried out in the late 90s to determine whether females should be allowed to serve in infantry roles included the stat that you need to get a 99th percentile female to get the same physical performance as a 50th percentile male. Perhaps this is why the RAFFT scores are so different.

Kitbag
5th Feb 2007, 07:47
Most of this was covered in nauseating detail here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=257018&highlight=rafft

The Helpful Stacker
5th Feb 2007, 07:53
Ah, the PTI trade, the quintessential self-licking lollipop.

Some of the RI's (Rehab Instructors) who go through Headley Court are a good bunch but the standard gym queens seem to only be interested in keeping their trade going at the expense of personnel who are perfectly able to carry out the job they are paid to do but can't run between two lines in time with the f$%^ing bleep test.

I wasted 30mins of my time doing the fitness test the other week at Odious. I passed no problem but one of my colleagues, who plays Rugby week in week out and is pretty fit overall, failed the bleep test bit. Apparently he isn't as fit as the 18yo lass who was on the test though I'd love to see her trying to play second row.:rolleyes:

Climebear
5th Feb 2007, 07:57
the 18yo lass who was on the test though I'd love to see her trying to play second row.

HS - you've been watching far to many videos on detachments!

The Helpful Stacker
5th Feb 2007, 08:16
Actually she was a fairly good looking lass and I don't mean after 4 months in Basrah good looking either.

"New out on Det Video, When Girls Scrum Down {cheesy 70's funk soundtrack begins...}

;)

Mr-Burns
5th Feb 2007, 08:35
Wasn't there a largish chap thrown off the premier tiger sqn for failing his fitness test twice?? Sounds harsh but fair to me as I know one of the boys that had to deploy at 5 days notice instead of afore-mentioned chap. Just a thought.

16 blades
6th Feb 2007, 00:16
I'd like to see them try to actually discharge a bloke for failing his fitness test - especially if he could comfortably manage the Female standard for his age group. I imagine the testimony at the ET would go something like this:

"But if I were a woman, you wouldn't be throwing me out right now, because I would have passed. You are effectively throwing me out because I am male, and that equates to Gender Discrimination.....etc etc"

I'm sure a competent lawyer could frame an argument better than I; hell, even a 10-bob-an-hour, no-win-no-fee junior solicitor would clean up on this one!

Get your chequebook out, Gordon - you're gonna need it...

16B

therealdeal
26th Feb 2008, 13:45
From memory, I think it would take around 18 months from first failing the test to being thrown out if given all the chances dictated in the guidlines.



it would be interesting to find out!:ugh:

Mr-Burns
26th Feb 2008, 14:13
I think there should be an associated 'reversing into a car parking space' test. Lets see the girls get within 15% of us doing that.

BEagle
26th Feb 2008, 14:35
As in 'reversing into the planned parking space'....

However, the laydeez can always blame men for causing confusion over accurate dimensional assessment - haven't FJ pilots for years been telling them that something measures 9 inches, when in reality it is only about 4?

Pontius Navigator
26th Feb 2008, 16:16
BEagle you owe Mrs PN an apology. She almost scalded herself swallowing a hot cup of tea. :)

Lionel Lion
26th Feb 2008, 16:33
BEagle you owe Mrs PN an apology. She almost scalded herself swallowing a hot cup of tea

Would she like lessons in swallowing?

:E

rafmatt
26th Feb 2008, 16:37
personaly im in favor of kicking people out of the RAF if they fail there fitness test.

If you have had 18mnths to pass the test and still cannot.
Then either there is something medically wrong or you are a complete fook wit. Who is most prob a burden on your section and your unit.

there are standards there for a reason.
And to be honest if i a 94kg bloke with man boobs can pass im sure the rest can.

Pontius Navigator
26th Feb 2008, 16:47
Lionel := you wouldn't dare say that to her face.

sandbetweenthetoes
26th Feb 2008, 16:58
Ladies & gents, this is my first post so please take it easy on me.
Just to aid all those solicitors in fighting sex discrimination in the armed forces, here is a excerpt from the police federation of England and Wales publication regarding multi-stage fitness test:
FAQ No.1
"1. Why don't we just have a
lower pass mark for women?
A recruitment fitness test must test
for the physical ability to do the job.
Men and women don't undertake
different roles in the police, so they
should take the same tests. If there
was a lower standard for women,
and a male officer passed the test
at the “woman's level” but failed
to achieve the “man's level” he
would have failed simply because
of his sex. He would have a claim
of direct sex discrimination."

whole document is here

http://www.polfed.org/1104testing_times.pdf

Even the police force think it would be sex discrimination. Armed forces must be exempt, or legal action is on the cards for sure.:hmm:

airborne_artist
26th Feb 2008, 17:06
However, the laydeez can always blame men for causing confusion over accurate dimensional assessment - haven't FJ pilots for years been telling them that something measures 9 inches, when in reality it is only about 4?

I believe that the pointy-jet people are also guilty of exaggerating time as well - eg three minutes becomes several hours :E

wg13_dummy
26th Feb 2008, 17:26
I believe that the pointy-jet people are also guilty of exaggerating time as well - eg three minutes becomes several hours

Certainly seems like it when you're listening to one of them drone on.

Alexander.Yakovlev
26th Feb 2008, 17:31
If someone can't pass the bleep test then that is a disgrace. It only shows lack of training. Regardless of what sport you play, you can train for the bleep test and it takes little time to improve to the desired standard. CHIN UP.

bwfg3
26th Feb 2008, 17:40
Mycase was straightforward... I had a spinal operation and when recatted was allowed to fly..go OOA etc but the specialist said I was not to do "stupid sh1t like running around collecting ticks for empire building PTI's" So for my last 8 years in the RAF, I didnt do tests but still did my job.. Permenently downgraded. So , all you fitness freaks,, downgraded does not mean unable to work..and the fitness nazis spent more time off sick than the beer monsters on my sqn.:rolleyes:

No idea
26th Feb 2008, 18:11
To answer the original Biggus post - the answer is yes - approx 5-6 have been discharge for their continued poor attitude to fitness. You cannot be discharged for failing your test, it is only a measure of your attitude towards it. Normally takes around 18 months and the individual would ordinarily have undergone 5 or 6 tests in that period.

glad rag
26th Feb 2008, 18:14
bwfg3 :D

You cannot be discharged for failing your test, it is only a measure of your attitude towards it.

Aaaah the old attitude test!!!!!

therealdeal
26th Feb 2008, 18:25
the answer is yes - approx 5-6 have been discharge for their continued poor attitude to fitness. You cannot be discharged for failing your test, it is only a measure of your attitude towards it.

does it actually say in writing anywhere that you cannot be discharged for failing your fitness test? only your attitude towards it?
What would happen if your attitude to fitness was 100% but was still failing the test?
im intrigued.

musclemech
26th Feb 2008, 19:05
"does it actually say in writing anywhere that you cannot be discharged for failing your fitness test? only your attitude towards it?
What would happen if your attitude to fitness was 100% but was still failing the test?"


It doesn't actually say that you can't be discharged for failing your test (it doesn't need to). What it does say is that you can be discharged for poor attitude towards fitness, and that personnel with a good attitude towards fitness should not be penalised for failing.

In theory, if you have a good attitude to fitness, and exercise regularly it would be unlikely that you would fail the test, BUT the system does allow for discretion at the various points of the procedure. For instance, the Flt Cdr my see that Bloggs has improved his run score on his third failure, and even though it is still a fail may not take the appropriate third-fail action at that time, as he (Bloggs) would appear to be making an effort to pass the test (and therefore showing good attitude to it).

Eighteen months is the theoretical minimum time it could take. In reality, because of the above, plus probably some reluctance by LMs to take action, it will take much longer ("We'll just give him one more chance"!!).

MM

No idea
26th Feb 2008, 19:36
Real deal - it is based along the lines of not being allowed to order someone to do the test but only attend (a subtle difference apparently), it is up to the individual to actually do it, hence why you get given the opportunity to drop out at any time. So, you cannot be discharged for failing it becuase you cannot be ordered to do it - reading back it sounds complicated - will get the chapter and verse tomorrow.

MM you are spot on as well.

BackfromIraq
26th Feb 2008, 19:58
Personally I'm a big fan of giving people enough rope to hang themselves...

Obviously you need the administrative system to back you up and spine to initiate action against people, plus enough slack in the system to be able to allow them to attempt to get themselves sorted without it impacting on tasking and overburdening colleagues.

R 21
26th Feb 2008, 20:24
Wasn't there a largish chap thrown off the premier tiger sqn for failing his fitness test twice

Oh yes but he's still about. Had a spell working on his 'Officer Qualities' but is still in the mob.

waddingtonpete
26th Feb 2008, 21:31
We had a guy thrown out last year for failing his fitness test, or should I say his attitude to improving his fitness. He was admin discharged by the Stn Cmr, all Stn Cmr now have this cfourse of action

Pops556
27th Feb 2008, 06:33
I have a TMES at the mo but it doesn't stop me doing my job (and I've done time in the sandpit as well :} ). For me it was a question of trying to exercise within my own limitations/abilities and then push the boundaries a wee bit. I'm not a gym-monkey (hate the place) so I downloaded an mp3 version of the MSFT (or 'My S*dding Feet Throb'!) test from the ADF web site and I find a quiet patch off the bondhu which I've measured out and rack up there twice a week or more as the mood suits.

Pontius Navigator
27th Feb 2008, 06:59
In theory, if you have a good attitude to fitness, and exercise regularly it would be unlikely that you would fail the test, BUT the system does allow for discretion at the various points of the procedure. For instance, the Flt Cdr my see that Bloggs has improved his run score on his third failure, and even though it is still a fail may not take the appropriate third-fail action at that time, as he (Bloggs) would appear to be making an effort to pass the test (and therefore showing good attitude to it).

We spoke last year. My tub of lard is still a tube of lard, fortunately he is someone else's problem. Even making him the fitness officer failed as he found some excuse not to attend the fitness brief at our parent unit :(

As has been pointed out, there is some exercise that a lard arse with a poorly arm can do. I mean he hasn't been to see the doc in 2 years as I can recall. I bet he will try for a disability pension when he retires. Then he will find the lack of medical reports will weaken his case.

In my case I had medical reports going back 20 years and I had not set out to build a history. I got a lump sum in 2001 and now a pension in 2008 as my back has got worse - I can't break into a run or jog without some serious preparation first like a 5-10 minute warm up. Not talking about the intentin to run a mile but run across a road :(

The Swinging Monkey
27th Feb 2008, 07:36
Pontius,

you must have done some good to get him into a tube!!

TSM

Mr-Burns
27th Feb 2008, 08:14
I also think that females are, on average, 15% less intelligent than males.

What say all of you??

Wader2
27th Feb 2008, 08:46
So the "MR" is just a pseudonym? :}

musclemech
27th Feb 2008, 12:10
PN

We spoke last year. My tub of lard is still a tube of lard, fortunately he is someone else's problem.

I guess that our mutual contact wasn't any help then? That's a shame as I rather thought they would have been.

Your back sounds pretty bad. Did you go through the Headley Court route? Or have you tried other complementary therapies such as osteopathy or chiropractic?

Either way I hope you can get some improvement...

MM

No idea
27th Feb 2008, 18:28
Just checked - the current RAFFT is discriminatory - apparently the legal beagles told the Pedders this, citing the UK Police as an example, but it was taken on risk. They are still waiting the first legal challenge to it!!

formertonkaplum
27th Feb 2008, 18:41
And if someone brings to a legal type discussion, evidence of being more than capable at their job, (in the form of a couple of annual reports), which recommend the said individual for promotion.......

How then can they point the finger of burden ?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to eliminate the need for a level of fitness but increasing to the new levels, basically cause the Army have said so, ( and because those who like mirrors too much said so inorder to justify their jobs ), is just riddiculous.

minigundiplomat
27th Feb 2008, 22:02
As someone advancing in years these days, I think the new system is not too bad. I think the banding is a good idea, but should be more advisory with those in yellow/red advised to get a grip (for their own sake) and those in the blue attracting favourable comment in the all new 'physical stamina' box on the SJAR.

In summary, a better idea but a little too stringent rather than effective.



(And to all those people who ignored the 'don't go mad' on the maximal test last year, because the levels will go up next year...I told you so)

posrep
21st Nov 2009, 12:08
Yes people are now being kicked out, regardless of there trade ability or even ability to deploy. Indeed many have tours and medals under there belts, if they cant meet the beep they are out.. the real issue is that the RAF has set two standards, one for females and another harder one for males.

This I think you will find is illegal under the law, any may leave those whoses names appear as action officers on dismissal forms as well as the MOD, at risk of court action and financial penalty. It will just take the first case to blow this thing wide open.

Of interest also is that some of the people shortly to be binned would meet the RN fitness level which is at the moment lower than the current RAF standard so maybe they should be offered the chance to re-muster.:hmm:

cornish-stormrider
21st Nov 2009, 15:48
Mods please lock now - we don't need this sprouting AGAIN. eat less pies and do some running etc, it's too subjective, fatties v thinnies, so many jockstrappers off injured and the fatboys have to pick up the slack, fit for purpose etc etc different standards for male and female yet they both deploy etc etc.

Its the rules - however bad they are, they are the rules. Either live with it or leave.

(I think I have condensed 9 more weeks of comments down, lock lock)

Jumping_Jack
21st Nov 2009, 15:53
Indeed.....:ok:

vecvechookattack
21st Nov 2009, 16:17
Quite right....this thread is going nowhere. We would all agree that if you are in the Armed Forces then you should be fit enough to fight. The Fitness test is easy enough...if you can't run for a mile and a half in less than a few minutes you should be asked to return your ID card.

5 Forward 6 Back
21st Nov 2009, 16:18
It may be the rules, but rather than bend over and accept them, surely someone should contest them if they're illegal, as posrep mentions?

I'm all for an "accept the rules or leave" attitude, but not an "accept the rules which we've implemented hastily which are actually illegal or leave" one.

vecvechookattack
21st Nov 2009, 16:38
If the rules that you are concerned about are the Sexual equality regulations then the Armed Forces are exempt. Many other organisations, clubs, societies are also exempt. The Houses of Parliament for instance....and of Course Golf clubs and working mens clubs are exempt.

Thats why we can dictate what standards we expect from our men and our women...and those standards can be different.

cornish-stormrider
21st Nov 2009, 16:41
OOOOOHHHHHHH NNNNOOOOOOOO, the mods have let it too late, it's spluttering back into life

serf
21st Nov 2009, 16:44
2 fitness tests, 1 for females and a harder one for males.............I dont think so............it should be read-an easy fitness test and an easier one for females.

Charlie Time
21st Nov 2009, 16:53
If you can't pass what is, after all a very generous fitness test, then undertake the remedial until you can pass it or accept the consequences. Simple.

Alber Ratman
21st Nov 2009, 17:37
And all those who mention the mile and a half run in this thread are retired dinosaurs who are not in touch with what a fitness test for the present day Royal Air Force actually is...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Start of Level One!! BEEP!!:E

I don't have to do it anymore and never failed it.:ooh:

day1-week1
21st Nov 2009, 18:27
I can't believe everyone makes such a big deal over the different levels for 'him and her'. The RAF has handed us on a plate, a 'freeby' in the battle of the sexes and all we do is moan like f@<hidden>#k that its 'sooo unfair' and how we all should be treated the same. Its attitudes like that, that got them the vote in the first place!

If you're a bloke, you should be able run faster, drink more and fart louder. Its as simple as that.

vecvechookattack
21st Nov 2009, 18:51
In the RN we can do the 2400m run or the Beep test. Either of which is fairly straight forward and its up to you which one you do. Most people seem to go for the run as its what most people do during their daily phys (and its better for your knees).

Easy Street
21st Nov 2009, 19:22
Our stn gym has been pretty maxed out since the RAFFT became a 6-monthly event. They therefore instigated a very sensible policy (IMHO) of extending the currency to 12 months if you passed all three elements of the test at the "Light Blue" level. I put in a bit of work on press-ups (not bothered about being 'ripped', so my weakest event) and was very pleased to achieve "Light Blue" in all 3 a few months back.

So it was with much annoyance that I recently found out that they have now changed their minds, and said that anyone who's deployable (surely everyone on my stn?) has to do it 6-monthly, regardless of "Light Blue" attainment or not.

I think that a lot of the whinging about the RAFFT stems not from fat / lazy / unfit people; rather, it comes from those who are tired of the goalposts continually moving on all the pre-deployment stuff we have to go through. I've done 6 deployments in 6 years, and the hoop-jumping requirements have been different every single time (not just fitness tests, but IRT/CCS etc). Please can someone make their minds up? It's not like the demands on us have changed massively over the last few years!

8-15fromOdium
21st Nov 2009, 19:40
VVCA:
If the rules that you are concerned about are the Sexual equality regulations then the Armed Forces are exempt.
Er... where did you get that little gem?

posrep is quite correct:It will just take the first case to blow this thing wide open.

14greens
21st Nov 2009, 19:56
I have no problems doing the fitness test, BUT i do get annoyed when the rules change, told last timer i did the test hit the light blue and i get 12 months, now there is rumblings that i have to go back at the six month point
Fine i will do that!
BUT when i do the test yep for my benefit!! and mine alone i will get to the highest level i can make, for the stats i will state that i reached the minimumn! Why should i give em ammo to increase the levels!
And i am in the situation where bloke doing same job as me, same places same deployments is exempt permenantly from fitness test due to past injury, he does NO SPORT at all and yes is overweight and unfit, but cannot be thrown out for failing as he does not have to do the test!!!
Please explain that one

durty_folker
21st Nov 2009, 20:42
Fitness test - what tosh.

Only need to be fit if yer running away. Keep 'em unfit so they gotta stay and fight :eek:

VinRouge
21st Nov 2009, 20:45
So tell me, what level could douglas bader get to and did that affect his warfighter spirit?

The new rules stink of sorting ourselves out to lower employment levels without having to issue a pension due to discharge... Either way, the RAF is walking a fine line with this one, and I for one believe it sends out the wrong message.

What happens, when chief tech slightly podgy, been in the air force since 16, is threatened with admin action, given a formal written warning and told pass your test or get binned?

Do you think that person is going to be in the right frame of mind to do aircraft servicing, on a formal written warning? Some of these guys are never going to pass the new limit, having spent a lifetime in the airforce, done numerous dets, worked their arses off in the sand, and are now getting told by some body beautiful punk (who will also be discovering a P45 in the post sometime soon as soon as their useless trade is binned) that he is no longer fit to serve?

I suppose that doesnt matter though, that he is going to be distracted at work, because he cant run the bleep test and therefore is useless. Get a grip.

Lets see how far this gets once numerous Admin action paperworks are generated.

By the way, is it the same as a charge, can an officer/SNCO demand court martial if given formal admin action under the new rules?


Its interesting to note that as someone who runs 20-30Km a week, I could piss all over the navy's 2.4Km run by 2 minutes, but due to dodgy knees, have failed the bleep test a couple of times. And probably will again.

Royal Naval Fitness Test : HMS Temeraire : Training Establishments : Establishments : Operations and Support : Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/establishments/training-establishments/hms-temeraire/royal-naval-fitness-test/)

TheMightyHunter
21st Nov 2009, 21:25
What I have never understood is why the RAF and the RN are not the same. We have JPA, DII, and total "jointery" across many areas now. What is the difference with the fitness test. Either both get the mile and a half (sorry 2400m) or neither do, what is going on.

Before anyone says anything about the Army, they need to be fitter and they do a significantly harder test, I think this is correct and necessary, god help the RAF if they ever bring in the Army test!!

RAF TEST this month 12.9/39/56 so light blue I think! Just the way it should be for someone in the RAF!! Tee hee:ok:

VinRouge
21st Nov 2009, 21:26
The army test for my level is only 3 more shuttles. Hardly massively different.

TheMightyHunter
21st Nov 2009, 21:42
What about the pullups and weighted pack-runs etc that I hear about. I have to admit I only know what I hear about the army test but it sounded much harder to me. Boots, pack, pullups.....Stop right there!

Airborne Aircrew
21st Nov 2009, 21:46
Ok... You fat bastiges have convinced me that there is no way you will ever have any real self esteem or physical ability.

So, let's approach the issue from another angle. Let's create four "classes" within the RAF.

1. Those who are assessed as able to carry out their task and who can pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.

2. Those who are assessed as able to carry out their task and who cannot pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.

3. Those who are assessed as unable to carry ot their task but can pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.

4. Those that can't do either.

Then, let's base pay on the four groups. So it will work like this:-

Group 1: Full pay for trade group with full "additional benefits" such as flying pay, parachute pay etc.


Group 2: 80% of pay for trade group with full "additional benefits" such as flying pay, parachute pay etc. But if the additional benefit requires a level of fitness the benefit is lost too if the level of fitness is not maintained.

Group 3: 70% of pay for 6 months. If, after 6 months they cannot do their job they are let go.

Group 4: 50% of pay for 3 months. If they can't get into group 3 they are let go.

Medical issues are taken into account.

Where's the "problem"?

TheMightyHunter
21st Nov 2009, 21:55
Hell yeah!! Write the paper NOW!! I could not agree more!

VinRouge
21st Nov 2009, 22:28
Ok... You fat bastiges have convinced me that there is no way you will ever have any real self esteem or physical ability.Oh, I have plenty. I dont need to run 9.10 on the bleep test to prove it. And since when was physical ability defined by the bleep test? Want to guess as to Jonah Lomu's highest score?

55 situps in a min, 65 pressups, sub 10:30 1.5 mile time, yet struggle with the bleep test due to the turns due to weak knees and a lower back injury that I am not exactly going to fess up to the rafmeds (loyalty to the service and not wanted to get downgraded for ops is really getting repaid hey?) And now I am potentially going to face admin action as a result of a flawed system. Great. :ugh:

Harley Quinn
21st Nov 2009, 22:48
My understanding of the system now is that any failure is automatically awarded MAA (to be commented upon in next appraisal) with 3 months to pass. Failure at 3 months results in Formal Warning (not quite a career stopper but certainly a brick wall). Further failure will result in admin discharge.
I am appalled at the assumption that failure is regarded as evidence of a 'poor attitude' to fitness; indeed this last week I had a guy who has just finished remedial therapy just failed the test 'cos his injury started playing up. He is now useless to me (can't walk) and any chance of advancement is now in jeopardy because of draconian and ill thought out rules.

For me now the issue is that, yet again, leaders are no longer allowed to think for themselves and screw the lazy tw@<hidden> whilst protecting the good eggs.

mystic_meg
21st Nov 2009, 23:05
What I have never understood is why the RAF and the RN are not the same

Quite simple really: Jack sets off on 1st leg of shuttle run onboard one of Grey Funnel Line's finest, quickly followed by "splash" MAN OVERBOARD!!! :E

light_my_spey
21st Nov 2009, 23:06
Ok, so it's easy for all the sport billies to demand 'yeah, kick out all the fat ba$tards who fail the fitness test'. I've just passed mine this week although I will admit, I do struggle with the shuttles, dodgy knees and all that (what was wrong in the first place with a straight forward run anyways:rolleyes:) The point being irrespective of whether I passed or failed, I still would have been expected to, and did, deploy on an operational det, just like a couple of my 'technically unfit' fellow sqn members did this year. The bottom line is, in my opinion, when you become incapable of doing your job, thats when you should be binned, not when you fail to jump through yet another hoop dreamt up by our ever so wonderful policy makers............. Right now there are bigger things to worry about.(Just my thoughts)

Airborne Aircrew
22nd Nov 2009, 01:29
Vin Rouge:

Oh, I have plenty. I dont need to run 9.10 on the bleep test to prove it. And since when was physical ability defined by the bleep test? Want to guess as to Jonah Lomu's highest score?

55 situps in a min, 65 pressups, sub 10:30 1.5 mile time, yet struggle with the bleep test due to the turns due to weak knees and a lower back injury that I am not exactly going to fess up to the rafmeds (loyalty to the service and not wanted to get downgraded for ops is really getting repaid hey?) And now I am potentially going to face admin action as a result of a flawed system. Great.You, Sir, are not the problem... Respect... There are exceptions that prove rules, I'm quite sure you are one.

I agree that the system is flawed - that the beep test is an arbitrary test that, without doubt, is discriminatory against the older and/or heavier men and women. In today's military the ability to prove one's level of fitness in one's own way should be most important - flexibility and all that. Some people work better under some conditions; others under other conditions.

Why does the RAF think they can pigeonhole everyone into a single "corporate" package?

Oh, sorry... Never mind...:ugh:

Toadstool
22nd Nov 2009, 08:49
I am sure that many of the older personnel who huff and puff their way into the light blue category on the RAFT have seen many young 20/21 year old beanpoles banging out at level 6 or 7 but I would think that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I would hesitate to suggest that it is the older and/or slightly more portly individuals who are failing at a higher rate. These people probably have much more experience in their relevent trades. It is these people, who keep us flying, who we can ill afford to lose through administrative action. Can we at least try to give them a fitness test that is both fair and fit for purpose. If they can't do a bleep test because of dodgy knees, then allow them to do a 1 1/2 mile run to prove their fitness? If, because of knees/backs they are unable to do either of these, then give them a slightly harder bike test. If they fail any of these tests, then can we give them a choice to avoid administrative action leading to discharge, but perhaps reduce pay?

I appreciate that this may give the gym personnel more work to do, but this may be a small price to pay in order to retain valuable people.

I await the barage of abuse.

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 09:08
I wonder how long it will be before we get our first report indicating that someone filled up an engine with hyd fluid or worse, distracted, just after their admin interview and formal warning, as they were stressed about getting thrown out of their job during the UKs worst ever recession... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Tiger_mate
22nd Nov 2009, 09:50
Throughout the summer I jogged 3-5 miles daily. To cut a long story short, hurt my knee > Medics > Selly Oak > Royal Orthapedic Hospital (MRI Scan) > SMO debrief = torn cartilage. Damage irrepairable, though keyhole surgery could help if pain persistant. Surgery not required as exercise now managed.

Now I do not have very long left in service before age 55 retirement after a very long job (refuse to use "career" nowadays). ...and am therefore understandibly concerned about medical fitness / status long after I have hung up any uniforms or flying suits. Somewhat concerned that the beep test turning with a torn cartilage may make a bad situation long term worse. Incidently, I would be very comfortable with a timed track based run.
Medics answer... It a test, get on with it, or be grounded.

I will formally have a medical review before my next test and get my 'fit to complete the test' in writing. I will then store document in the 'sue the military file' for as long as is required. FWIW I do not believe that logical response is being applied or at least one with long term thought.

I am quite sure I could achieve blue levels in sit ups and press ups, mainly because I do the standard required daily. I am equally sure that the beep test as an entity puts me at unacceptable risk. An option (be it bike or track) should be available.

BEagle
22nd Nov 2009, 10:00
Despite surviving my first 30 or so years of RAF service without the apparent need for this fitness test, I passed my last one about a month before I pulled the B&Y. Yes, I avoided taking the bŁoody things whenever I could - particularly when within weeks of my 50th birthday they raised the age bar which was just coming into view....:bored:

But from what I've learned since, the main dissatisfaction is indeed at the ever-changing goal posts. I can understand that a Rock gunner needs to be pretty damn fit - but the enforced buggeration on others 'of a certain age' with no real cause seems a bit counter-productive.

Of course if you start people off in the modern 'strength through joy' ways of the RAF, it will be easier for them to maintain higher standards of physical fitness throughout their service. But trying to enforce a large character change on the old, bold and cuddly with the threat of administrative action for failing to run round a gym (whatever that is) after 30+ years of loyal, hard-working service is surely taking things a bit far.

All stick and no carrot....

As for aircrew, you should have seen the enormously fat gits who flew me across on a US Airways flight from Gatwick to Philadelphia! I thought the captain was going to pass out as he wheezed and waddled past my seat on the way to his rest area at the back of the Business Class section..... In 35 years in the RAF I never saw any 'truckies' or others who came anywhere close to being such a lardarse.

The Old Fat One
22nd Nov 2009, 10:23
I will formally have a medical review before my next test and get my 'fit to complete the test' in writing. I will then store document in the 'sue the military file' for as long as is required. FWIW I do not believe that logical response is being applied or at least one with long term thought.

TM - dead right. Without going in to boring detail, if anything during your military career does you permanent damage then you have a claim when you leave (or when you are still in).

Whether you are successful with your claim will depend as much on the "evidence" of culpability that you can provide as it will on the nature of the injury.

I'm no longer prone to naivety, but back when I was in I was somewhat more trusting. As a result I now carry two permanent scars of military medical incomptence, both signifcant enough to affect lifestyle choices, but I have no claim, because I never kept a record of the events leading to them.

I have a pal of the same vintage as me who got a full medical discharge as the RAF destroyed his knees - he now enjoys a full tax free pension as a result - but he had a long hard fight to win his case.

To the inevitable response that claiming against this sort of injury is some form of "freeloading", I would highlight the point that TM and others make; specifically, that these injuries are not occuring in the line of duty, or in the pursuit of health and fitness. They are occuring because an unworkable policy is being pursued using dubious methods at the expense of common sense and pragmatiscm.

By the way...none of this is posted because I'm a couch potato who hates sports and the fitness facists. I'm quite a fit old b*****r myself.

vecvechookattack
22nd Nov 2009, 10:37
Do the RAF only allow you to conduct the Beep test? How about doing the run instead of the beep test?

Remember that you have to be in date for the test to be eligible for promotion.

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 10:43
Chinook, that is the point. Unlike the navy, its bleep test or bust.

The fact that most would choose the mile and a half is neither here nor there; it would solve a lot of hassle. Due to laziness on ped flights part across the air force, we have to do the bleep test as it is "convenient".:hmm:

Jumping_Jack
22nd Nov 2009, 10:51
RAF does allow bike test for those with medical reason....ie dodgy knees. So it isn't Bleep test or nothing.....

glad rag
22nd Nov 2009, 11:22
Funny you should say that but eventually I was "forced" onto the "bike".
I actually enjoyed the beep test as a 40+ old as it was nice watching all the sprogs stopping short as they couldn't hack their levels, levels that I was able to push myself to.
However the "bike" was another matter, absolute purgatory on the thighs, best bit was I used to cycle to/from work via Tentsmuir forest! LOL

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 11:25
Yes, it allows a bike test, with a corresponding medical downgrade. If peeps got the option of bleep vs 1.5 Mile, you can pick your best event. If you meet the standard you meet the standard. Simple really. Unless you are a PTI.

vecvechookattack
22nd Nov 2009, 12:06
Is it a Bleep test or Beep test or both or who cares..?

NP20
22nd Nov 2009, 12:46
vecvechookattack Is it a Bleep test or Beep test or both or who cares..?

Judging by some of the comments on here, I think that it is called the 'Bleat Test'...

newbie20
22nd Nov 2009, 13:13
I agree that the female standards are too low. Male under 30 should be 10.30 1.5 mile run (10.2 bleep test) and female under 30 at least sub 11 mins (I think this is 9.10 bleep test). It is ridiculous that the standards between male and female tests are so great, and just encourages the fatties to get even fatter and lazier. I am no racing snake, but I bother to get off my arse and train, and can comfortably run 1.5 miles in under 10 minutes and do a few push ups and sit ups after that. And Im female.

Arty Fufkin
22nd Nov 2009, 13:15
It all seems quite simple to me really. If we are going to have a fitness test, set the standard, set the currrency period and stick to it. If you fail, you get 6 months to train to pass it. If after 6 months you can't pass it you get booted out - no exeptions. If you are medicaly not able to take the test you get a medical discharge. If your inability to take the test is due to injury that is the attributable to the service, you get suitable compensation and a discharge.

If I were to fail my PME because I did not meet the prescribed medical standards, I would expect to stop flying. If I were to fail meet the rather basic fitness requirements of a military service, I would expect to stop serving.

Now let's stop fannying about, get rid of a few fatties and I'm sure gym attendance will rocket. It might make your average Waaf a little easier on the eye as well.

Rant over.

Airborne Aircrew
22nd Nov 2009, 13:24
It might make your average Waaf a little easier on the eye as well

It's a win-win then... :D

alfred_the_great
22nd Nov 2009, 13:43
there is an awful lot of guff in this thread. The basis for the different standards between male and female is easy - the MSFT is an accurate predictor for your VO2 Max (1). The Fitness Test, RN or RAF, is set at a level for either sex that refers to the quantile that you, as an active service person, should fit in. For Females, the average VO2 Max is 35 - 43 ml/kg/min (2): this equates to a MSFT level of 6.6 - 8.11 (3); the RAF's required standard is 7.2 - 8.6, right in the middle of this 'average' range. The corresponding figures for men are: 44 - 51 ml/kg/min; 9.4 - 11.4 and 9.10 - 11.6 - much the same spread.

There is no discrimination between male and female, merely natural physiological differences. If the RAF, or RN, wished to create a functional test of fitness then there could obviously be no difference the required standard.






(1) VO2 max - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo2_max)
(2) Runner's &amp Triathlete's Web - A Running and Triathlon Resource Site (http://www.runnersweb.com/running/vo2_js.html) [note, this the forst of several you can find via google. I've no doubt there is a journal article you could find if you had the right academic log-on. Alternatively, ask your PEd team..]
(3) Multistage Fitness Test Table (http://www.brianmac.co.uk/msftable.htm)

The Old Fat One
22nd Nov 2009, 13:52
It all seems quite simple to me really


An therein lies the problem AF - life is seldom simple, and simple policies seldom work.

As has already been pointed out - Mr Bader and his 22 aerial victories would have fallen foul of your interpretion. and if you think that example somewhat singular and over-used, how about the rather talented one-legged AEO that served with distinction (is he still in by the way). I'm sure others can think of other examples.

That's the problem with the one solution fits all. Yes, out go the lazy, feckless and grossly unfit (funny thing, as a flight commander I could identify those and take the appropriate action, without any help from the PED staff whatsoever.)

Out also go many talented, hard-working and well-motivated individuals, on the grounds that, for some reason, they don't fit some arbitary PEd inspired assessment of "fitness".

You like simple...here's simple

Let the medical staff decide if you are healthy enough for military service and healthy enough for any extra requirements (flying, diving etc).

Let the command chain report on your performance, standards, bearing etc.

Promote, demote, administrate as necessary.

Airborne Aircrew
22nd Nov 2009, 13:58
Let the medical staff decide if you are healthy enough for military service and healthy enough for any extra requirements (flying, diving etc).

Let the command chain report on your performance, standards, bearing etc.

Promote, demote, administrate as necessary.

Surely that falls foul of your opening statement...:}

life is seldom simple, and simple policies seldom work

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 14:18
Alfred, your figures are wrong. Average vo2 max for under 29s is 38-43.

9:10 on the b. test equates to 46, above the average and well above the 30+ average.

alfred_the_great
22nd Nov 2009, 15:07
Vin - source?

I typed 'male average VO2 Max' into google, and found your result, a result that gave 43-52 (VO2 Max (http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm)), the great god of wikipedia gave 45 (VO2 max - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max)) for an un-trained male, and Cooper gives the range between Fair and Excellent for a 25 year old as 37 - 52. (Powered by Google Docs (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Wz087BMY9CYJ:www.mmu.k12.vt.us/teachers/kefferm/humanbio/fitness/VO2max%2520regressions%2520new%2520values.pdf+male+average+vo2+max&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgbDiiGdUsvASngpRaReKXKyBZrEn9LnGkHKrbQQOqzFaXucy1DzFgQJ1GHOREOqK2LnVRCtICauIbyQIe9B5dCXUGa6xMEMsdS058tzF2DgHgrdGj3jsGysKdIBGO9irQEDtiJ&sig=AHIEtbQHlRN8N1H2DIiYSwsmI-3m7fvNhg))

Perhaps the PEd Branch should publish their methodology to allow us to conduct a true comparison?!

The Old Fat One
22nd Nov 2009, 15:08
AA

Correct.

Both policies are flawed. The one I prescribe should be recognisable to many as what existed before the introduction of mandatory fitness testing and its insidious assimilation into ACRs. Its flaws were down to its subjectivity and the sometimes low standards of the reporting chain.

Its strength was that it was an integral part of the forces ethos - an ethos designed to produce forces that could combine all their parts and all their people to kick arse when needed.

The "new fitness policy" - or whatever it is called now - is flawed because it is narrowly focussed on producing a measureable uplift in fitness levels across the services. It's produced, implemented and managed by sections of the armed forces that have a remit purely to make the forces "fitter". Not their problem if in so doing they make the forces less able to fight.

Wensleydale
22nd Nov 2009, 15:26
And i am in the situation where bloke doing same job as me, same places same deployments is exempt permenantly from fitness test due to past injury, he does NO SPORT at all and yes is overweight and unfit, but cannot be thrown out for failing as he does not have to do the test!!!



Shoot me down in flames, but our medics state that they are no longer allowed to waiver the fitness test for medical reasons - so, if you are like me and have shot knees etc (old sport injury) then you have to jump on the bike and pass. If you don't, then off for a medical downgrading and a potential medical discharge!

Arty Fufkin
22nd Nov 2009, 16:03
Old Fat One,
Sorry, but I still can't see why it shouldn't be as simple as I suggest. You are quite correct in that Bader would not be allowed in, and your unidexter AEO would undoubtedly struggle to pass and probably be invalided out. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be any other way? The RAF is shortly to be reduced to 30000 people is it too much to ask that they are all fit enough to deploy?
A basic level of fitness is all we're talking about here, enough to cope with a bit of heat, a bit of lugging stuff about and a bit of running to the nearest shelter without being no use when you get there.
I am frankly embarrassed by some of the lard arses or sickly children that advertise themselves as members of the RAF.
Yes it's a pain, but the RAFFT is impartial, well within anyone's capability given a little application, and ultimately necessary. The main source of resentment is with the wheeezy folk with a sick chit from matron who will continue to serve and never pass it.

Fatties are unsightly, I don't care how "bubbly" they are.

Golden Legspreaders
22nd Nov 2009, 16:17
Bloody hell, just listen the the whinging and whining in here. You lot are all in the Armed Forces and therefore need to be physically fit. Simple. In my opinion the pass levels are far too low, I'm not saying we all need to be able to speed march across the Brecons with bergans, weapons etc but as a professional you need to be fit to lead and fit to fight. I know as aircrew we all fight sat on our arses (well maybe not Typhoon pilots, one day they may get to join in) but what if you bang out sausage side or the cab goes downbird in the field and you have to patrol out with the pongos!

If you can't pass then do the remidial training until you can. Before I go to Ganners I'm getting in some serious phys training, if I end up in a sticky situation then I'll be bloody glad of it.

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 16:41
A basic level of fitness is all we're talking about here, enough to cope with a bit of heat, a bit of lugging stuff about and a bit of running to the nearest shelter without being no use when you get there.glad of it.Arty,

apart from the fact in the 15 months I have spent out of area, I have never once witnessed a 'lardy' as you so elloquently put it, be unable to do any of those things or in fact be undeployable. Having sat on a flightdeck at 65 degrees C with plenty of lardys in the other seat, you know what, they sweat just the same as everyone else, same down working the back. Want to comment on how many phys fanatics have been evacuated from theatre from overdoing the phys? Or how many have got out of OOA due to 'sports commitments' and injuries sustained whilst playing footy/Rugby etc?

Golden, I take it you havent been to the stan before. Dont overdo it mate. The walk to the boardwalk isnt anywhere near as stressful as you think as for 'if your bird goes down' I suggest you get back to your tom clancy novels mate!

Golden Legspreaders
22nd Nov 2009, 17:08
I take it you havent been to the stan before.


Yep, I have, and taken rounds so I know a hot LZ when I see one. Also a mate of mine was around when the engineers had to patrol from the downed cab with the paras and came under contact. It does happen.

Arty Fufkin
22nd Nov 2009, 18:07
Vinrouge, you've gotta admit, even those who aren't undeployable are unsightly:uhoh:.
On a more serious note perhaps all those lardies you have worked with OOA were able to do all those things I listed because they were all fit enough to pass the RAFFT. Despite their considerable girth. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there would they?
I can't think of a better example of how the fitness test is impartial and effective than your evidence that even the Herk force is able to deploy with all it's people effective and fit enough to do so.:)
We're not talking about SAS selection here, just a trot up and down the gym and a few pressups. I talk to lots of people who hark on about how easy IOT/ITC has become since they went through, but a large proportion of them see no problem with the decline of their personal fitness. If we demand it of our recruits, why not demand it of our experienced people?
As for the jockstrappers being sent home or damaged playing sport, the principle of applying the rules without exception still applies. If I permanently damage my hip playing rugby to the point that I can no longer run, I expect a discharge in the same way that if I loose any eye in the RAF javelin chucking competition I expect to be grounded!

isaneng
22nd Nov 2009, 18:23
Ok, I've read the bit on VO2 etc etc, but I admit to being a little slow (fast enough for the beeps though...) on the uptake. Why does it matter to the forces if people are fit enough for age groups or by sexual denomination, rather than simply by role/task requirement? Can someone provide a reasoned answer, or perhaps explain what I'm missing about VO2 relevancy?

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 18:49
On a more serious note perhaps all those lardies you have worked with OOA were able to do all those things I listed because they were all fit enough to pass the RAFFT. Despite their considerable girth. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there would they?Arty, you really dont know how things ACTUALLY work... do you really think they are about to stop a major op because the aircrew that are due to deploy have just failed their phys test? Think again. I know a couple of guys who struggled to get past level 7 yet would never give up when on ops. Yes, they were sat next to me at 65+ degrees. And as I said, no one stopped them deploying just because of some smegging pathetic irrelavent fitness test.

As for the jockstrappers being sent home or damaged playing sport, the principle of applying the rules without exception still applies. If I permanently damage my hip playing rugby to the point that I can no longer run, I expect a discharge in the same way that if I loose any eye in the RAF javelin chucking competition I expect to be grounded!Hardly helps out our pinch point trades or those of LMF dispositions who will generate an injury to get out of a dreaded OOA... Or are you suggesting, Like I comment above, that passing a test that has little other purpose than justifying the existence of a soon to be defunct trade?

I can't think of a better example of how the fitness test is impartial and effective than your evidence that even the Herk force is able to deploy with all it's people effective and fit enough to do so.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif ha ha! Really no idea of how things really work! Perfectly fit to do the job, but not all can pass the fitness test!

We're not talking about SAS selection here, just a trot up and down the gym and a few pressupsFor some, already mentioned, it is more than just a trot. Significantly more. Yet they can also easily achieve the equivalent requirements for the 1.5mile Run.

Justanopinion
22nd Nov 2009, 19:07
Bit bored so trawled the UK governmants statistics on medical discharges for the Armed Forces in 2001....

Key points


http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/natstats/images/dot.gif Of Tri-Service medical discharges in 2001, 66% were due to injury
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/natstats/images/dot.gifTraining and exercise was the most common cause of medical discharge due to injury, accounting for 36% of injuries (12% of all medical discharges)...

Medical Discharges from the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/natstats/discharges/dischargestab2.html)


...and lets see what some experts have to say about the bleep test

VO2 max is considered the ultimate measure of an athlete's aerobic (cardio) fitness, and the Multistage Fitness Test or Bleep Test is considered one of the best ways to test it.

It is regularly used by sports teams worldwide to monitor the effectiveness of their training. Due to the short turns in the test, it is best suited for players of ball sports, rather than rowers, runners or cyclists.

What do we do with the people who are down graded with cancer/heart disease etc but a couple of years later are fit again and back to normal duties. Bin them at diagnosis? Give them a year/2 years/5 years to sort it out.. do we give expensively trained aircrew a longer time to get better?

The system does the best it can to be fair - we carry on as individuals maintaining our own moral standards and life style choices - and why get upset about those whom shirk and scive - feel sorry for them and rise above it.

Of note - not all fatty folk are unfit.. and not all skinny folk are fit.

Arty Fufkin
22nd Nov 2009, 19:11
Are you a chubber?

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 19:13
No, not really, got chubby knees though. Probably why I cant turn on the bleep test. I just cant tolerate issues being made of something that is completely irrelivant, irrelivant to ops, irrelivant to the majority of the service, irrelevant and dangersous as its going to lead to a lot of truly irreplacable people getting forced out (its already happening). There is much more worth to a man than his fitness test score... Its difficult already to retain decent guys and gals in the service without this added nonsense...

What gets my goat... if you read some of the mentalist P1 paperwork that has come our way of late, it comes across as though people who cant pass the required bleep test are at a level similar to drug abusers and baby killers.

Arty Fufkin
22nd Nov 2009, 20:19
Ernie Wise lives!!

I and am well aware that "hard rules" are frequently flaunted in the interests of operational expediencies. I suppose that is my point. The military either sets standards for people or it doesn't. If it turns a blind eye to Flt Lt X's gammy leg or Flt Sgt Y's obesity because they are experienced operators, why should an SAC, Cpl or WO show anything but distain for the RAFFT, or any other set of military standards we set ourselves? Despite their claims to the contrary, I have not met anyone in my time in the RAF who is really irreplaceable.
My interpretation oft he rules may sound harsh, but I fail to see how you cannot apply the rules fairly and evenly across the board, even if you do loose a few otherwise good people along the way.

VinRouge
22nd Nov 2009, 20:30
I have not met anyone in my time in the RAF who is really irreplaceable.Sounds like blunty speak from someone who has never been on a Sqn with serious dilution problems there.

Serious question, using your 'rules', as an auth, would you send someone ooa to fly or repair an aircraft that you were not confident was 100% up to the task, who is replacing someone binned for a facile tast, and although competent (having passed his fitness test), has question marks over their performance and ability where it really counts?
Suppose this is what happens when we start training for competence rather than excellence... :ugh:

NP20
22nd Nov 2009, 23:30
I support the argument in favour of being able to choose to run either a 1.5 mile or a shuttle run, but some of the comment on this thread is laughable.

To suggest that this is some ruse to cut down on manning numbers and save money by discharging personnel without a pension is ludicrous. Just how many people and how much money would we save by doing this? - utter nonsense.

Likewise the argument that somebody who has failed and undergoing the remedial (reconditioning?) could be distracted at work through fear of being admin discharged. To follow this argument would suggest that we should also throw out disciplinary measures for all breaches of Air Force Law in case such action lead the individual concerned to have a lapse of concentration which may cause an accident later on. To avoid such occurrences we practice good man-management - as you would if one of your subordinates was in the poop for failing a fitness test, drink driving, habitual lateness etc; i.e. interview, counseling, monitoring performance, get their Line Managers (& peers) to keep an eye on them, etc.

Finally, if you have dodgy knees, bad back, weak ankles etc, don't you owe it to yourself to get it sorted through the Medics (or BUPA if you don't trust Service Medics)? I'm sure that the argument has already been made about medical pensions being granted through evidence, which would be lacking if you hid these conditions throughout your career. Additionally, are you able to operate safely if you are covering up having such medical conditions (& can you make an honest, objective appraisal of whether it does or does not affect your performance)?

Some of the posters on this thread are the living, breathing, embodiment of the Daily Mail, given to knee jerk opinions and hyperbole.

Wrathmonk
23rd Nov 2009, 08:30
Just out of curiosity does anybody know if anyone has been declared 'non-deployable', unfit for promotion or even admin discharged because they can't shoot straight? If your back is against the wall I'd rather have a man/woman who can shoot straight than one who can do 'x' pressups/situps or reach level 'whatever' on the b-test ;). Not saying the RAFFT is wrong but if we are going to bin all those who can't deploy because of fitness (and/or medical) then it's only right we should do the same with those who can't shoot straight and/or are crap at 'field' skills.

Besides, if you are trying to swing the lead to get 'discharged' then remedial on the shooting range has got to be much more fun than remedial at the hands of the PTIs!:p

Diablo Rouge
23rd Nov 2009, 08:30
can you make an honest, objective appraisal of whether it does or does not affect your performance)?
Duty of care:
If I had an injury that had justified hospital investigation/treatment but did not effect my daily work regime or indeed general fitness, I may still harbour doubts about the 180 and backtrack required in the beep test. I have never seen somebody executing such manouvres as part of a scheduled fitness program, yet thousands jog several miles daily. Few would argue that a standard of fitness is essential; I would suggest that a run - swim would be a better indicator, but just as my mother used to say, "If he told you to put your hand in the fire, would you", equally we are individually entitled to question a protocol that appears to be damaging to knees. Whilst these threads are invariably repetative in content and dull in tone, if they do keep the same old messages, then perhaps somebody in authority should listen and do something about it.

Arty Fufkin
23rd Nov 2009, 08:53
Vinrouge,

I can assure you I am currently serving on a sqn that is suffering greatly from dilution / experience problems. You imply that all of us 4th /5th tourists struggle with the fitness test, therefore we are in danger of booting out all our valuable experience. Not true.
Sure, one or two experienced guys may go, but I suggest that they will be the ones who share your belief that they are in some way too valuable and Yoda like to be bothering with a test that is so obviously beneath them. Life will go on.

For those who's knees are knackered, do the bike test. For those who are physicaly incapable of riding a bike, you have my condolences, enjoy your retirement.

Oops, almost forgot. In answer to your question I would never auth someone I was not confident in.

BEagle
23rd Nov 2009, 09:00
Fatties are unsightly, I don't care how "bubbly" they are.

Jawohl! Perhaps you'd like any such Untermensch who fail your personal anthropmetric assessment standards to be sent to some form of correction camp? Maybe with a snappy little motto such as Arbeit Macht Frei on a sign hanging over the gate?

Chicken Leg
23rd Nov 2009, 09:45
Oh FFS! Yet again, Fat Crabs whinging about being expected to achieve a very basic level of fitness.

If you struggle to pass that excuse for a test, you need to take a look at yourself.

If you struggle to understand why a 'military' force should be expected to meet a basic level of fitness, You're probably one of the fat ones!

If you get upset about the rules continually changing, you've got too much time on your hands. Who cares, when each of those rule changes leads to another piece of pi55 test?

If some of you spent less time posting whines on PPRune and used that time gaining a little personal fitness, you'd be less of an embarrasment to the human race, let alone the RAF.

Simple message to all society (and yes, that includes Crabs):

1. Fat and unfit generally not good.

2. Less fat and less unfit generally better than option 1 above.

charliegolf
23rd Nov 2009, 10:11
A fun thread this.

Isn't part of the problem that the RAF allows and encourages an 'older' population than the army; and (Rocks aside) they never have been required to be a 'run-aroundy' group? Seems to me that if you want to send a 50 something pilot to war, and his job requires him (no old ladies yet?) to sit on his arse all day, then it makes no sense to use up his heartbeat allotment quicker than necessary. Dennis Leech used to get by, and when Steve Stevenson was crewman, no-one seemed to worry. Not much payload in that Puma though!

CG

startermotor
23rd Nov 2009, 11:51
Fitness is not my issue here. I am not fit by any means, but I have never failed the fitness test either. I do enough fizz each week to carry me through the test.
What does bother me is, if I were to fail, then I get a few weeks remedial, fail again, I get a formal warning. If I fail again, then it is bye Mr S.
However, I know of a few individuals, who through no fault of their own are permanently exempt the fitness test. They are fully deployable, with out the military knowing just how fit they are, and if they could cope with the heat/running away which may be required.
They will go on through their careers knowing they will never have to attend the gym, they will get promoted and have a full career. The poor guy who can't pass the fitness test for what ever reason, whether he is the best in his field, will be sent packing.

fawkes
23rd Nov 2009, 12:05
The bi-annual fit vs fat debate is always entertaining. as ever the two camps are extremes and whilst the fitties are enraged by the special pleading of the fatties on important points of principle, it comes down to a single issue:

The quasi-scientific application of an arbitrary standard will do more damage in excluding the capable but unfit, than in making the fat run (slightly) faster.

Fitness for purpose (as has been stated) is a leadership issue: fitness testing is job creation for PTIs. Above all the process does not give the Jocks the right to be smug. It is this rather unpleasnt posture of unearned (moral) superiority that annoys.

Fitter you may be: better at your job, probably not (unless it is primarily running or lifting heavy weights). Without descending to personal insult, all you racing snakes on this thread who cannot be bothered to correct your spelling are rather more alarming to me than the slow of foot. If your FRAGO or other order contains similar mistakes, your team may run out of fuel or ammunition or end up in the wrong place. I'll use the gym when you use a dictionary. Detail is important: "Spare him!" or "spear him!"

In my last six months sandyside the two serious injuries requiring evacuation in my immediate unit were from broken arms as result of falls playing five a side football!

Blighter Pilot
23rd Nov 2009, 12:11
What if.......

A highly experienced and decorated PAS Flt Lt Instructor on a sqn fails his fitness test because of a long-trem knee injury.
He regular runs 30Km a week and is not a lard - arse.
He is A1 G1 Z1 but fails his test and, according to the rule, is admin discharged.
What about his pension rights and gratuity not to mention who will fill his post and replace his ability, leadership and experience?:mad:

Jabba_TG12
23rd Nov 2009, 12:12
I have to admit , it was a factor, albeit a small one, in my PVR in '99.

Despite playing plenty of football, badminton, indulging in cycling and god knows who knows how many other things, I've never been able to be a runner. So, just squeezing under the mile and half at Swinderby and being part of a largely sendentary trade, plus the fact that between when I joined and when I left that there was no end-to-end phys programme or ethos in the way the army have always had, its hardly surprising that it fell down our list of priorities. The beep test, I found largely no different. Same end effect.

Having said that, considering which direction light blue is going in 10 years after I left, I'm glad I left when I did. The results will speak for themselves in due course... and probably already are doing.

Its perfectly simple, if you want your personnel to be effectively battle fit all the time then you have to introduce and stick to, an Army style continual enforced phys regime. No other way is going to work.

Chicken Leg
23rd Nov 2009, 12:32
As always, the point is being completely missed. Maintaining a basic level of fitness is part of military (and self) discipline. I know that most (Crabs and non Crabs) might debate whether the RAF actually fall into the military description, but it's what you signed up to.

I imagine that most of you don't go to work unshaven, with hair down to your shoulders and mud on your boots (shiny shoes!). If you did, it wouldn't make you any less effective at flying/fixing/storing etc, but you accept that part of being in the military (or RAF) requires certain standards. It seems that many of you don't read that across to basic fitness.

Blighter
I put it to you that someone who is A1, G1, Z1 and runs 30km per week will not fail such a basic test. If he/she does, then it will be becauses they are carrying an injury which either has not been reported (as was mentioned earlier in the thread), or has not been dealt with.

fawkes
ah ha! The old 'I know someone who was fit and were always unfit' chestnut!
I know someone who smoked throughout their life and died at 95. I also know someone who never smoked and died at 50. Which example should I follow if I want to live a long and happy life??

charliegolf
23rd Nov 2009, 12:47
Do generals, admirals and airships do the test? Not asking if they are able to, but are they required to.

EOSM37
23rd Nov 2009, 12:53
Fawkes condescendingly said:

all you racing snakes on this thread who cannot be bothered to correct your spelling are rather more alarming to meThen he made the mistake of saying:

I'll use the gym when you use a dictionaryWhen all along he had a hidden secret.

The bi-annual fit vs fat debate is always entertaining. as ever the two camps are extremes and whilst the fitties are enraged by the special pleading of the fatties on important poinbts of principle, it comes down to a single issue:
Can I suggest that you take your dictionary to the gym with you?:hmm:

As someone once said "detail is important":ok:

fawkes
23rd Nov 2009, 13:20
Thank you FOSM - I can spell, I never claimed to be able to type! At the risk of being politically incorrect it is homonyms that annoy me (principle and principal, their and they're, etc). I'll get my towel..

minigundiplomat
23rd Nov 2009, 13:34
I don't have a problem with the RAFFT, and although the debate over VO2 Max and sport billy's who injure themselves on ops is entertaining, this has, as someone pointed out, resurfaced as the fat v fit perennial argument.

It is not the RAFFT thats bothers me (I see the need to maintain a baseline of personal fitness), it is the assumption by the airships that by introducing a test, it improves fitness.

Going back to when I was at school, I see to remember some lessons in the run up to my O Level examinations. I wasn't just plonked into the exams, and told my future was over if I failed.

I agree with the RAFFT, as long as it is a measure within a clearly concieved strategy; which it isn't.

If we are required to undertake a Fitness Test, we should all undertake organised PT regularly, and the messing arrangements should take account of healthy eating trends, instead of a token salad bar with grated cheese, coleslaw and chopped pork pies.

Some of you will argue that organised PT is already in place, and in some places it is. A welcome and positive step.

However a number of pinchpoint trades have no idea for certain what they are doing tomorrow, and where they will be. In many cases, organised PT is the first thing to slide indefinately right on the programme.

Yes, in the PTI utopia, we would always be working out in our spare time, applying our own motivation and self discipline, but it is important to factor in time with family (for those who dwell mainly East these days), night flying, secondary duties, illness, revision for trade/advancement course, and of course shiftwork, which can completely screw up body clocks and wreak havoc with the body.

I'm not an apologist for anyone who sits on their ass and does sweet FA, but one size does not always fit all, and if the RAF is genuine about improving fitness standards amongst its workforce, it needs to produce more than just rhetoric and an extra bleep test.

Lets see organised PT for everyone, 3 times a week with no get out. Lets see a review of what we are fed, particularly when on ops.

It will play havoc with the way we do business and provide a service, but will increase fitness levels; guaranteed.

CAS needs to get off the fence and provide direction. Which is the priority for those in pinchpoint positions?

5 Forward 6 Back
23rd Nov 2009, 13:38
A highly experienced and decorated PAS Flt Lt Instructor on a sqn fails his fitness test because of a long-trem knee injury.
He regular runs 30Km a week and is not a lard - arse.
He is A1 G1 Z1 but fails his test and, according to the rule, is admin discharged.
What about his pension rights and gratuity not to mention who will fill his post and replace his ability, leadership and experience?

To be honest, I think what happens here is he goes to the docs, has his knee looked at, and is written up as permanently exempt the MSFT, until it can be corrected (assuming it can). The same doc, in conjunction with a physio and the appropriate specialists, will assess his ability to carry out the bike test.

If he's unfit the bike test too, but the docs don't think the injury affects his flying (or subsequent yomping around British hills waiting for rescue/running away from the Taliban), then he'll end up as one of startermotor's people who are fine for their job but can't do the MSFT.

I can't imagine we'll ever get to the stage where someone is disciplined for being unable to complete the test for a reason that's not entirely their fault. I missed a test once because I was injured and couldn't do part of it; I popped to the docs, got a month's exemption, had that extended while the physio fixed me up, then completed the test when I was ruled to be fit again. I've got a squadron mate who's been written up as "unfit the MSFT" for over a year now due to an injury.

If you've got a problem that means you can't complete the test, don't just trog along, fail it, and whine; get to the docs and get fixed.

On the other hand, I'd still like to see the introduction of more targetted branch-specific fitness tests. I was put through the Fighter Aircrew Conditioning Test that the RAF pinched from the USAF during training; lots of muscular endurance exercises where the weight was based on a proportion of bodyweight; and it seemed much more appropriate for a pilot, as it was meant to indicate how likely you were to survive sitting there at high G for lengthy periods.

NATOPotato
23rd Nov 2009, 15:19
I agree with 5 Forward 6 Back.

A similar thing happened to me. I injured my leg this year just before my fitness test was due. I was given plenty of time exempt the test by the doc and help from the physio while I recovered and I passed this years number of beeps/press ups/sit ups with no problems, ending up with some excellent advice on warm-up and cool-down routines to prevent further problems as a bonus. It was a complete non event and I had the impression that the medical and physio 'system' was on-side and not trying to 'trap' me; I could have taken as long as required protected by an exemption until I was repaired and ready. Based on my experiance and that of 5 Forward 6 Back I would suggest that one should have no fear of a short to medium term injury causing a problem.

However, my injury was service related and happened on duty, therefore all of the above seems rather fair and in line with 'duty of care'.

Does anyone know what would happen if one was permenantly unable to do the fitness test due to an injury that happened off duty, for example skiing; something that leaves you unable to do the shuttle run, but still fit enough to fly and ride a bike/keep fit? Does one automatically have the chance to do an equivalent on the bike (after all, one has to do sport to stay fit for the test!) or could 'the system' play nasty games. If so, I suppose the answer is to limp to the fitness test and trip up spectacularly for effect at beep level one, therefore proving in front of witnesses that the injury was service related! Any ideas?

NP

glad rag
23rd Nov 2009, 15:46
As Jabba said....

Its perfectly simple, if you want your personnel to be effectively battle fit all the time then you have to introduce and stick to, an Army style continual enforced phys regime. No other way is going to work.

minigundiplomat
23rd Nov 2009, 16:35
Agree, absolutely.

VinRouge
23rd Nov 2009, 17:05
Yep, me too. How about the whole station get wednesdays off for sport and not just admin wing? How about 1day off for organised phys/Sports events etc to catch up after getting back from routes with min crew rest for a week, sometimes a month?

I love deploying for a month, get 10 hours off between the next crew in, with only 1 day off in ten, usually knackered, before you can contemplate in theatre phys.

Its very easy to get hitleresque regarding punitative measures, but if you arent giving your guys the time to go and do phys, especially the guys that dont work 9 to 5 jobs like most station blunties, then its hardly a fair system.

Sqn runs? Bring it on!

enginesuck
23rd Nov 2009, 20:16
Without wanting to come across as a moaner, if the RAF want warfighters first, there should be provision for training as warfighters, working on a flightline, trips to the gym are definatly low on the management priority list, in fact only when one of my colleagues was on a formal warning, was he allowed suffcient time off to train.
You may cry that it is a persons own responsibility to keep themselves fit, i agree to some extent but it would seem the opportunities afforded to some are not enjoyed by all sections. I was in the Gym this evening and on their weekly booking system the main hall is booked on a permanent basis by PSF, GEF, CQI etc etc twice a week. On my sqn there is no and never has been in the last seven years, any formalized sqn sports/gym hours, there is on occasion an opportunity to pop over the three miles to the gym for an hour, but the majority of the time its just a fight to get the a/c ready for flying. Couple this with a shift system which makes most of us feel like walking zombies then im sure you might understand why gripes start to arise.

Just my 2p's worth

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Nov 2009, 22:16
Stayed out of this debate as it's way too polarised with the ever typical fit v fat slanging match. However what some of the more pious amongst you need to realise there are quite a few folk who simply do not fit into the niches that it's so easy to assign us to.

35 years in and I have played just about most sports on offer. Football at Station level, taken part in just about every inter section/CO's Cup event during my time, played golf, skied, jogged and ridden a bike and never once got even close to failing a fitness test.

Sadly not all of us are able to maintain that level of fitness for ever as for some of us the body simply will not take it. 20 years of rotary and fixed wing flying combined with all that time playing impact sport has now seen my knee give in and I have spent the last year being diagnosed and now am waiting for a total knee replacement.

If everything goes to plan within 6 months I will be fit again, I will pass a fitness test but it will have to be on the bike. Because the new knee will eventually wear out I will be unfit running or carrying heavy weights which means I am undeployable but I will have a flying cat.

So in short I will have passed the RAFFT but will be undeployable due to my bionic leg, I wonder where I would fit with some of the more extreme theories on here :rolleyes:

SCAFITE
24th Nov 2009, 12:01
I read this thread with great interest, having done my bit in the RAF from 1976 to 2002 and keeping myself fairly fit with Hill Walking, running and a bit of swimming, plus passing whatever fitness test was chucked at me. But times seem to have changed and will change even more in the near future for the Royal Air force. I started regular OOA from 1991 onwards, but nothing like what the current folks are doing in some of the most intense period of RAF operations for donkey’s years, coupled with more crap than ever and fitness testing which seem to be organised at the top by folks who have probably never done one. I think we all understand the need for basic fitness in the RAF especially the need to be able to complete OOA or whatever they are called today in a deployable Air Force, but threatening good folk who have given years of service with pass this or you are out on your arse with no pension (roomers on E-Goat) is disgusting and insulting to personnel across all ranks. The latest news on the prospective cuts to the RAF in the Times in which it will be cut from 40,000 to 30,000 will leave little or no time to sh*t never mind spend time down the gym. The country is slowly coming out of recession and jobs will be out there especially for guys and girls from the RAF with skills that industry wants and especially in the logistics field which is the fastest growing sector. I have worked with both the Army and the RAF Regt in my time and both those organisation were on the whole more fitter than the average RAF person, but their day when in barracks or station was quite structured and compulsory PT and battle training was part of the normal working day so they should be fitter. If I was in now and done enough time for my immediate pension I would be calling it a day. A word of warning to all those who love all this fitness testing and would stick their heads in a bucket of Sh*t if the RAF asked them to, you will get older and your body will fail and the RAF will crap on you and there will be little sympathy. Something stinks about all this and the RAF is looking to save money and anybody weak best look out. During the drawdown of the RAF from 89,000 to 50,000 during the 90s the admin trade was kept fairly strong but once they had done the dirty deed they were cut to the bone, so PTIs once you have done all your failing as the test becomes harder and harder you lot will be tossed to one side.
To all the current serving members of the Royal Air Force who are putting up with so much you have my admiration (apart from the ones with their head in the bucket)

Shitfer
24th Nov 2009, 16:46
:ok:What has always been required is dedicated training time allocated in the weekly and monthly program for fitness AND sports. These sessions to be run by a dedicated PEd member and all that are programmed to attend are to attend. This has been needed for many years but unfortunately the horse has bolted on this matter before the door. If only they had thought of this years ago!!!!! Keep up the good work Guys and Gals.

vecvechookattack
24th Nov 2009, 17:57
Exactly right. The powers that be need to encourage the RN Ethos that it is "Time for Sport and Not time off for sport"

cornish-stormrider
24th Nov 2009, 18:23
Told you the thread should have been locked. I shall repeat again - the beep test is not the best solution, it could do with being one of a choice - beep, run or bike. If they set the standards to achieve the target VMO or whatever it is called.

As someone who is on permanent rehab, drugs and a pension with the only outlook to be worsening and probably a wheel chair - Thanks RAF.... I have at times been a little bitter.

The beep test is reknown as a destroyer of knees, the majority of the RAF do not have 9-5 works and far more commitments than a desk driving blotter jotter type.

If the RAF is serious about fitness it needs to give the same time and access to training and healthy food to all - otherwise it is discrimination. all you lineys who never get to the mess for lunch and only get leftovers at dinner step forwards.........

Since leaving I have put on about two and a half stone - I'm not doing any real sport anymore, I'm definately fatter,much crapper at running (I can feel the impacts into my spine) but I am swimming as often as I can. The war pension pays for my membership and last month I swam a mile and a half. (in one session)

Didn't see many racing snakes there either.

Fitness is subjective, either make subjective testing or make the oppertunities for training available for all equally. The arbitary moving of the goalposts does smack of "we need to downsize - what is the quickest way?"

I did like the idea of remedial shooting - yes please....

minigundiplomat
24th Nov 2009, 19:21
I did like the idea of remedial shooting - yes please....


Problem being some on here would shoot their overweight colleagues regardless of ability. Best not, eh?

Blighter Pilot
25th Nov 2009, 06:32
If the proposed cuts to the RAF (31000) materialise then have a look around your crewroom/section - 1 out of every 4 people there will be going!
How's that going to improve our overall fitness if we have less people - surely that means more work and overstretch and less time to go to the gym.
If the RAF are serious about lifestyle and fitness they need to improve the food served across the units and start programming section/stn organised PT. Sports afternoons would also be a welcome return, not just for COs cup competitions!
And how about reducing the number of bars and/or increasing the prices in line with civvy street? Might end the military boozing culture????

Tiger_mate
25th Nov 2009, 08:00
Birthday (50) today, therefore 260 months to go until retirement :ok: ..and of course expectation of my fitness is now less.

Hyperthetically (sp?) I could have failed the test and faced admin action yesterday, but capable of passing it today. Food for thought when your livliehood is riding on such draconian measures as compulsary dismissal. As pensions are 'earned' over time, I cannot believe the rumours of pensions being under threat.

Is there any evidence of dismissal being used beyond people who refuse to attend remedial sessions? ie attitude.

My 'attitude' is that the process is good in principle and flawed in practice. There should be procedures in place that do not give rise to exagerating injury. I know of an individual (not me) who passed the RAFFT and was then grounded for 6 months due to knee injury aquired during the test. The RAF may not care about life after retirement, but I do!

sargs
25th Nov 2009, 08:34
Birthday (50) today, therefore 260 months to go until retirement http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Blimey, Tiger - retiring at 71?

Maxibon
25th Nov 2009, 12:59
There has been a lot of fatties v fitties extremist arguements but it is quite simple. The RAF does not rely on fitness to the same extreme as the army (RAF Reg't excluded) however, it is an armed service and as such should remember this. The fitness test could be Beep/1.5 mile (MSFT) or some kind of bike test, but the fact of the matter is you all take a wage from Her Majesty's Gov't. Given that this is (predominantly) an aircrew thread, the majority of aircrew are officers or SNCOs. Here's a word - leadership - how many of you remember that when not strapped into your aircraft. I was never the fittest in my crab-air days but I never failed a fitness test; now I am in green and we always find time for fiz - 24 hrs in a day and all that. Oh, and in reply to a previous poster, my general attends fiz sessions as he is able to and passes his tests along with the rest of us.