Females can not march like men.... [Archive]

Jimlad1

24th Nov 2013, 11:12

As I understand it the issue is that in mixed groups the pace is 27". The instructors chose not to follow the clear rules and instead forced the women to march at 30", causing them injuries which led to their being medically discharged.

If an engineer wilfully ignored regulations, putting in place a change which caused an aircraft to crash then people here would be very angry. In this case a group of service personnel in an environment where they have enormous exposure and influence to trainees who are pretty vulnerable people have decided that they know better than the regulations.

Their actions caused physical injury, cost the MOD a lot of money in compensation and presumably wasted the money for not only getting the recruits in, but then having to replace them.

To add insult to injury, some people seem to be blaming those who were injured for trying to rightly in my view seek compensation for loss of earnings caused by what I would personally view as an abuse of position from people who should have known better.

The people at fault here are those who chose to break the rules set up deliberately to prevent this sort of thing from happening and no one else.

Exascot

24th Nov 2013, 11:36

How much for a blister? Just preparing my case.

Force For Good

24th Nov 2013, 11:52

So, they have been compensated by the MOD for nine years of lost earnings and pension perks

Does that mean that in 9 years time, they are eligible to re-pay the amount they actually earned in said 9 years?

They were never going to be able to earn 18 years worth of salary if they stayed in the RAF so why should they now be able to? :=

I know this is off topic, and I'm sure it's not how the legal system sees it, but it does seem absurd! :eek:

SASless

24th Nov 2013, 12:21

Please remember all that Pain and Suffering the poor things went through....why the Mental Anguish alone is grounds enough for ample compensation.:=

http://rt.com/files/news/1e/96/a0/00/k-1.jpg

Two's in

24th Nov 2013, 12:25

Thank you Jimlad!

As I understand it the issue is that in mixed groups the pace is 27". The instructors chose not to follow the clear rules and instead forced the women to march at 30", causing them injuries which led to their being medically discharged.

It was the instructors that chose to disregard written policy, not the recruits. Despite the Daily Wail's usual attempt to inspire anger and outrage on behalf of "Middle Britain" if anyone should be made to pay for this, it should be those responsible for ignoring the policy.

Willard Whyte

24th Nov 2013, 12:29

I always found the 30" stride far too short. Thankfully after leaving Cranditz I never had to march on parade again during the 20 years before I left.

Mr C Hinecap

24th Nov 2013, 13:25

It's the ones who get outraged at stories in the Daily Mail that I feel sorry for.

Edited to add:

Also, those who would use a picture of a nations military known for their shocking abuse of human rights across all of their population to make a cheap point. They also deserve our pity.

Burnie5204

24th Nov 2013, 13:40

I call bull****

I used to be an Air Cadet and then an Air Cadet adult instructor.

I taught and marched alongside hundreds of cadets, male and female, aged 13-20 and not one of them ever complained about having to march a 30 inch pace. Never harmed me, never harmed them and we/they were even shorter than these RAF recruits would be so whats the difference?

Dan Winterland

24th Nov 2013, 14:11

How much for a blister? Just preparing my case.

About five quid. I'd work on that ingrown toenail if I were you. far more lucrative!

Force For Good

24th Nov 2013, 15:28

Never harmed me, never harmed them

Burnie, unfortunately, that's wrong. X-Rays don't lie, as far as I am aware.:ugh: The problem here is surely the value of compensation received and those who chose to ignore training standards as Jimlad1 mentioned.

Shack37

24th Nov 2013, 15:32

[Quote]There are now lots of short men wondering if there is blame is there a claim ![Quote]

In my B/E entry, three of us in D Flight were 5'2" with colleagues over 6'3". I don't recall the pace ever being measured or seeing a pace stick used. Nor do I recall having difficulty staying in step, in fact on many occasions I was the only one "in step"

dervish

24th Nov 2013, 15:41

JimLad

If an engineer wilfully ignored regulations, putting in place a change which caused an aircraft to crash then people here would be very angry.

You SHOULD be right, but unfortunately ......... Chinook, Nimrod, Sea King, Hercules et al.

Shack37

24th Nov 2013, 15:51

Dervish wrote, re engineers:

You SHOULD be right, but unfortunately ......... Chinook, Nimrod, Sea King, Hercules et al.

I would hope you are not referring to ground crew with this comment but significantly further up the food chain!

Al-bert

24th Nov 2013, 16:35

Mad Jock, such eloquence for one so, err, scottish? :cool:

NutLoose

24th Nov 2013, 16:36

Looking at that pic SASless it looks like one of them forgot to remove her love balls before setting off..

mad_jock

24th Nov 2013, 16:57

bog off you taffy sheep shagging git :p pots and kettles.

:D:D Nutloose it takes and engineers eye and attention to detail to spot these things.

wg13_dummy

24th Nov 2013, 17:03

Would it be fair to say that these females have undone equality within the military in a few short steps? Females have been campaigning that they wanted to be treated equally for equal pay but this case seems that they have confirmed they are different and should be treated as such. Is it a height issue or a gender issue? If its the latter, surely we should just put all the females back in the office out of harms way and reduce their pay accordingly?

"She said she had suffered four pelvic fractures and was medically discharged in 2008."

Not trying to be funny here but she was undergoing RAF training, not SF selection. If she falls apart after a bit of square bashing around an RAF establishment, I feel she was never ever going to be suited to a life in the military.

Sort of sets a precedence now. If it is a height issue, all those short arses (male) can bang a claim in?

dervish

24th Nov 2013, 17:20

I would hope you are not referring to ground crew with this comment but significantly further up the food chain!

No, and Yes. Apologies!

If an extra 3" causes 4 pelvic fractures, then I'm afraid I'd want to ask about lifestyle up to that point. Rules are rules and Halton should have stuck to 27" but I'm old enough to think the general inactivity much of today's youth enjoy must have contributed.

Personally, I think Rabbie Burns got it right.....

"The carlin clew her wanton tail,
Her wanton tail sae ready,
"l learn'd a sang in Annandale,
Nine inch will please a lady."

alfred_the_great

24th Nov 2013, 17:24

General inactivity may be the only actual cause, but because some power-happy drill pig didn't stick to the rules (and some pretty poor medical care by the sounds of it), the MoD was unable to prove it was their inactivity, especially as it sounds like there is medical research on the recruits side.

mad_jock

24th Nov 2013, 17:32

If an extra 3" causes 4 pelvic fractures

Can you rephrase that please sir.

vascodegama

24th Nov 2013, 17:39

First time I have heard of a WAAF complaining about an extra 3 inches.

On a serious note when did this 27/30 stuff come in; I certainly don't remember any mention of it.

Pontius Navigator

24th Nov 2013, 17:41

What surprises me is that there were rules and they knew about them.

We were taught all sorts of complete trivia in training but not IIRC, the length of a pace.

Now one of the things that may have led to my later back injury was the 100 yard carry. We were 'paired' up with one carrying the other at a stagger for 100 yards and then swapping and returning.

I was around 5 ft 9 in and 10 st and 18 years old. I was paired up with a mid-20s 12 st plus 6 ft 2 in. Apart from the standard difficulty I had great difficulty keeping him off the ground.

Do they still do that now?

mad_jock

24th Nov 2013, 17:49

Army had it in the 90's.

I believe there is also something to do with heels as well.

There is also a difference if the girls were wearing old dimple boots and putties or combat highs.

Number 1 shoes apparently could give period pains type feelings after a couple of 4 hour sessions with some of the girls and others it didn't seem to affect at all.

smujsmith

24th Nov 2013, 20:04

Surely Jimlad at #7 has it bang to rights. The DIs decided to deviate from the published practices and try to force a male capability on incapable females ? That being the case, there's no surprise at the follow up compo case. Perhaps all in authority should consider the implications of their own vindictiveness in later years.

Smudge

Courtney Mil

24th Nov 2013, 21:37

I'm beginning to see why the Army find the other two services so laughable. FFS, this is a war-fighting service we're talking about. PN, you had to carry a big bloke for 100M. The girls had to step out a bit. "There were rules". How much square bashing do you all think recruits actually do?

Sometimes I wonder how some here survived in the Air Force without having to run home to Mum so she could kiss it better.

Burnie5204

24th Nov 2013, 21:52

Erm....

Hate to say this but the Daily Mail has misled you it would seem (shock horror, Daily Mail misleading? Surely not?)

The BBC Website has worded it slightly different to make it clear that BECAUSE of the claim the NEW policy on female recruits is 27 inch pacing. The DIs were not to blame and did not breach policy at that time.

BBC News - Female RAF recruits paid compensation for marching injuries (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25078544)

My opinion - the RAF Medics messed up but my belief is that the injuries were pre-existing (even if the women didnt know about it) and that military training has exaserbated, but not caused the problems.

In 9 years with 2 cadet forces and 3 Units, including being SNCO I/C for a Wing parade with roughly 500 cadets and staff on parade and training upwards of 100 cadets or staff to march from new, I have not once heard, or heard of, a single cadet or staff member (female or male) say that they have to stretch to reach a 30" pace.

If they couldnt manage it for 9 weeks then they would have had much bigger problems further down the line. And I certainly dont think they should have been entitled to loss of earnings - they couldnt hack phase 1, this isnt like they were phase 3 trade training but phase 1 BASIC training.

Yes its a shame that their injuries got so bad that they were discharged but the medics are at fault for that, not the RAF in my opinion (although I imagine that the RAF Halton medics see hundreds of recruits a year with 'pain caused by marching' which normally mysteriously goes away when told to carry on).

Courtney Mil

24th Nov 2013, 21:55

The war was so unfair. I was expected to run to the shelter as fast as all the tall people. But they bombed us anyway and some of us didn't make it to the shelters in time.

Burnie5204

24th Nov 2013, 22:06

Indeed, the 'we arent frontline, we were going to be ATC' doesnt wash with me either. I know a Flt Lt ATCO who has had to fire his SA80 in anger whilst on deployment in Afghanistan.

NutLoose

24th Nov 2013, 22:15

Good, I hope the by now probably ex WRAF that was at Halton when I did my fitters course is reading this..

She hobbled around for about three or more weeks on a injured leg that she had picked up during basic training weeks before, the med centre had told her it was a sprain and she had repeatedly gone back about it, that was UNTIL getting out of bed one morning 5 weeks later, the hairline fracture she actually had finally gave up the ghost.....

Force For Good

24th Nov 2013, 22:18

They have been paid based on the fact that their lives may be 5 years shorter as a result of suffering from Pelvic Stress Injuries (PSI). That is clearly not going to happen and is therefore ridiculous.:ugh:

It is impossible to prove what caused the PSI and it certainly can't all be pinned on one person, one section or one practice. Perhaps the girls are all avid Pogo stick users in their spare time.

It may be to do with stride length, it may be to do with the hilly terrain at the camp, it may be to do with over pacing around camp to march quicker to meet tight deadlines during their days. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that a key factor was a lack of preparation for an intense (albeit bland in comparison to historical courses) military training course. Whether that may be through poor nutrition or insufficient physical preparation, which is even harder to prove.

DX Wombat

24th Nov 2013, 22:19

Time for the gentlemen to wear high heels? ;)

Mr C Hinecap

24th Nov 2013, 22:29

a) 'It wouldn't have happened in my time'

b) 'We were tougher then'

c) 'Pfft. Women in the Forces? Since when?'

d) 'My experience is XXX & XXX and that cannot possibly have happened!'

e) 'I'm outraged!'

f) 'WRAFS? They love it up 'em!'

This should save a lot of time for 75% of the posters in this thread. Just print this out and select a - f as your future answer for anything similar. If any of the less misogynistic or plain younger residents want to add to the list the tartan knee blankets might a little less ruffled in future outrages.

chippy63

24th Nov 2013, 23:05

Gosh, they still do marching?

servodyne

24th Nov 2013, 23:06

Nice try CH! I do see your point od view that this appears to be another example of some taking advantage of a poorly organised military legal system and its yet another poor joke at the expense of our forces Whether these WRAF have a valid reason or not is not the issue, they have medical problems and these have to be addressed.

Prior to our "equality" in the forces the WRAF marched together and the RAF did the same, it was the preferred option and to be honest looked a lot better on a parade ground. In addition although there were obvously tall women overall this grouping made it easier to march and I never heard of any complaints on over stepping.

If the RAF has to spend time on solving this issue then deal with the cause rather than having to provide compensation.
Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel lets accept this issue, deal with the claims, adopt the tried and proven methods (dare I say old fashioned) to correct the problem before a band wagon comes rolling in.

baffman

24th Nov 2013, 23:11

...Yes its a shame that their injuries got so bad that they were discharged but the medics are at fault for that, not the RAF in my opinion (although I imagine that the RAF Halton medics see hundreds of recruits a year with 'pain caused by marching' which normally mysteriously goes away when told to carry on).

Eh, Burnie5204? Please explain how RAF medics were at fault but not the RAF and MOD?

...They have been paid based on the fact that their lives may be 5 years shorter as a result of suffering from Pelvic Stress Injuries (PSI). That is clearly not going to happen and is therefore ridiculous.

That's equally bonkers, FFG. With respect. How on earth did you conclude that the compensation is based on shortened life expectancy?

Burnie5204

25th Nov 2013, 00:04

Baffman - they raised the issue of being in pain and the DS sent them to see the medics to get checked out (so there is clearly an expressed concern for recruit welfare amongst the DS) and it was the medics who then said "you'll be fine keep going".

Having been to Halton almost all training prior to Force Protection takes place on the upper section of the site, the area occupied exclusively by RTS, so not huge amounts of Marching between locations as the barrack blocks are almost directly next door to the classrooms and both border the parade square with the recruits cookhouse on one of the sides of the square. Having been to Halton and had to march around it everywhere the main camp is not that big in terms of marching distances.

30 inches has been the length of RAF marching pace for years and years (probably since before WWII) no-one has previously raised this so why is it only now becoming an issue?

For female recruits and those struggling with PT and fitness they have a Halton Pre-Foundation course in which they give you extra training to help with fitness and medical standards and during which they make it VERY clear what it will be like for the 9 week phase one training, reasonable adjustments will be made for recruits who require them and the fitness test is also broken down into age and gender categories with female candidates having a lower fitness requirement than males and the older candidates having a lower fitness standards than younger recruits - that says to me that the RAF and MoD recognise the differences between recruits and put in adjustments to help them manage and that it is not an endemic problem of unneccesarily forcing people to do what they are not capable of doing - so why is drill only now being raised as an issue?

Of the hundreds of thousands of recruits (probably millions since the RAFs inception) that have passed through RTS why have there only been these 3 cases. Thats a very, very low percentage of the total even if you include the 5 other cases that the BBC say they are aware of that the RAF/MoD are going to take to the courts to defend.

For those interested this is the RAF Halton RTS training schedule taken from the RAF website
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/rafcms/mediafiles/A0863B05_5056_A318_A829D2649FA630FA.jpg

Mr C Hinecap

25th Nov 2013, 00:31

Of the hundreds of thousands of recruits (probably millions since the RAFs inception) that have passed through RTS why have there only been these 3 cases.

Erm, because it's' a conspiracy?

I should add that to the list as well.

Robert Cooper

25th Nov 2013, 03:38

So the poor dears are getting more than folks blown up with IEDs because they can't march? Something wrong there!

Bob C

Al R

25th Nov 2013, 04:15

Bob,

Good reminder.

We get so obsessed about 'equality' though, we think that it is the same as 'identical'. It isn't. I see nothing wrong in using a little common sense and flexibility in something as simple as marching. But where do you draw the line - shorter people don't have to clear the 9' wall? Fine, but what if there is a 9' wall to be cleared on ops? Slightly built people don't have to carry so much weight? Great, who carries the extra instead then?

vascodegama

25th Nov 2013, 05:44

Good points above about equality - what I find difficult is that the short men seem to have managed . Another perhaps more obvious solution would be a standard 27 inch pace?

Haraka

25th Nov 2013, 05:52

or simply increase the minimum leg length criteria?
( as was done for aircrew following spin recovery incidents on the early J.P.)

lj101

25th Nov 2013, 06:41

Article here;

Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/#!po=37.5000)

The MOD were aware of this issue years ago - with our new era of risk assessments and being pro active rather than reactive to events, our personnel will hopefully be looked after a bit better.

It's a new world out there. At a conference at Cranwell a few weeks ago the night porter told us cadets don't do restrictions at weekends anymore as its against their human rights. I did assume she was telling me the truth.

Al, you're a good guy, thankfully most of us don't have to clear 9ft walls in the RAF. If we did I'm sure you'd give us a leg up.

dctyke

25th Nov 2013, 07:44

I see nothing has changed since I was there in 2000. If you look at the syllabus of training chart you will see we still attest recruits before the medical and fitness tests. This means they are already in when you find out there are issues, the odd pregnant girl was one, health problems not revealed was another. Quite a number has issues with drill due to only ever wearing trainers and lack of fitness.

Ken Scott

25th Nov 2013, 07:49

In my time at Cranwell (80s) Med Holding Flt was chock full of guys & gals who were injured during training, including some who never recovered. There were plenty of people who picked up injuries, were given a fist full of Brufen & told to 'get on with it'. A number were med discharged as a result of being forced to carry on whilst injured.

I'm not suggesting this scenario was correct but it is possible in a military force that an individual might have to press through pain (fighting whilst injured on ops?). One of these ladies ended up as a legal secretary so she probably earns more than she would have in the RAF so should she in fact have to pay the difference back to the RAF? What precisely are they being compensated for? Loss of earnings? (See above). Injury? (possibly, but does it still hurt after all these years?) Emotional trauma? (they couldn't make the grade anyway).

It is too easy to say 'I was going to be ATC not frontline infantry' but we're all a military force & no one gets a by on doing CCS because they work in an office. Tens of thousands of ladies had marched before without 'life changing injuries' so it's ridiculous to pay compensation at these levels, the original payout (£3000 ish) was sufficient for their level of injury & it's the legal system now robbing the taxpayer (not a victimless crime in my opinion).

Standing by for all those crippled ladies & gents from the 80s to start filing their compensation claims.......

Al R

25th Nov 2013, 08:02

I hated that 9' wall. I used to practice on it on my lonesome, Sunday mornings and in the evenings. Now, I wouldn't be allowed.. elf n safety!

39 Squadron

25th Nov 2013, 08:10

I wonder how long the 'claims' have taken, compared to some of the PTSD from others in the mix……….ISTR that claims attributed to PTSD have taken more than a year, and the recipient really needed attention….

lj101

25th Nov 2013, 09:12

39 Sqn

5 years apparently.

Shack37

25th Nov 2013, 09:40

lj101 said
The MOD were aware of this issue years ago - with our new era of risk assessments and being pro active rather than reactive to events, our personnel will hopefully be looked after a bit better.

RAs are new in name only, even back in the 60s common sense usually prevailed. In 1960 we had Boy Entrant summer camp on Dartmoor which included a quite strenuous march across the moor with back pack. Our flight was the first to go and all made it albeit with some effort. As a result, those following behind had their packs delivered by truck at the end of their stroll.

Can't remember if we did 27" or 30" thoughhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Lightning Mate

25th Nov 2013, 09:54

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/Russianwomensoldiers_zpse9430e20.jpg

baffman

25th Nov 2013, 10:38

Baffman - they raised the issue of being in pain and the DS sent them to see the medics to get checked out (so there is clearly an expressed concern for recruit welfare amongst the DS) and it was the medics who then said "you'll be fine keep going"...

Burnie 5204, thanks for your post, all noted.

However, I am still struggling to understand your now-repeated view that "it was the medics" who failed to diagnose correctly and told the recruits "You'll be fine keep going" -

but the MOD somehow has no responsibility for clinical negligence by their employees or contractors in a care service provided by the MOD to its recruits?

NutLoose

25th Nov 2013, 11:12

I still cannot get my head around there being an anatomical difference in that a woman cannot open her legs as wide as a male counterpart, especially when one considers that during child birth the manage to pass a child out between them.

What has changed, there have been women in the services from almost day one, why now an issue? Surely if it's because as in that report the opening up of jobs previously undertaken by male colleagues only, surely they need to simply say no and close it again due to the possibility of injuries or get them to sign a disclaimer prior to undertaking that specific role, that injuries may occur as previously found and documented and that by signing the waiver they accept the risks with no liability come back on the services.

Incidentally, reading the Attestation stuff, I was attested into the RAF at the Careers Information Office.

Mr C Hinecap

25th Nov 2013, 11:35

I still cannot get my head around there being an anatomical difference in that a woman cannot open her legs as wide as a male counterpart, especially when one considers that during child birth the manage to pass a child out between them.

Just how do you imagine people march or women give birth? The mind boggles at what you are thinking!

Either you are trolling or you've never noticed some of the differences between boys and girls. Hips for example.

lj101

25th Nov 2013, 11:51

between the male and female
The female pelvis ....
• The bones are more delicate – thin and light
• The pelvis is less massive
• The pelvis is more shallow
• The ilia are less sloped
• The anterior iliac spines are more widely separated – thus the greater prominence of the hips laterally
• The superior aperture of the lesser pelvis (pelvic inlet) is larger, more nearly circular and has greater obliquity
• The cavity of the pelvis is shallower and wider
• Sacrum is shorter, wider and the upper part is less curved, so the sacral
promontory is less imposing into the pelvic cavity
• The obturator foramina are triangular – oval in shape and smaller in size than
the male circular foramina
• The inferior aperture of the lesser pelvis (pelvic outlet) is larger and the
coccyx is more moveable
• The sciatic notches are wider and shallower
• The spines of the ischia project less inward – hence not protruding as much
into the pelvic cavity
• The acetabula are smaller and look more distinctly forward
• The superior pubic ramus is longer than the width of the acetabulum
• Ischial tuberosities and the acetabula are more wider apart
• The pubic symphysis is less deep
• The muscle attachments are more poorly marked
• The pubic arch is wider an more rounded than in the male where it is an angle
rather than an arch. (~ 90o c.f ~ 60o)

All required to get our big fat heads through nice and safely. Mother Nature, what on earth was she thinking of.

mad_jock

25th Nov 2013, 11:52

I will try not to get this post removed this time.

http://www.pregnancy-and-giving-birth.com/images/pelvis-labelled.jpg

Is the female pelvis. The symphysis pubis is the problem. Its allows the pelvis to flex during child birth.

Pelvic girdle anatomy (http://www.edoctoronline.com/medical-atlas.asp?c=4&id=22097)

This is a comparison between the two. The top one is female and bottom one male.

The forces involved on the pelvis walking and running are completely different between male and female. The muscles and ligaments are different as well. I only know this from designing replacement hips. But as far as I could tell a bloke is about 10-15% more efficient at walking and running than a woman just purely by the way they are built. The forces on the joints are different and also the re distribution of forces through the pelvis are different as well.

And Nutloose is a ginger beer. I suspect apart from an amateur interest in female anatomy I suspect it was missed out from his trade training. I would like to think though that it would be included in the training for PTI and also DS staff who are in charge of training recruits.

Unchecked

25th Nov 2013, 12:58

I'd just like to add my tuppence worth here. I can tell you on absolute authority that the injuries suffered to this young woman were not caused by big- standard drill and marching, it was the march up and down Armoury Hill each day, with webbing and Bergen, that did it.

Since that particular Halton course and this subsequent occurrence, that practice has now been stopped, I'm now reliably informed. (A sad watering down of standards to cover the arse.)

The girl was in a lot of pain for a long time. The medics did what they could AFAIK. Whoever allowed her to claim for such a large amount of money without looking at the whole picture are the ones to blame IMHO.

The Legend

25th Nov 2013, 13:39

WTF - Maybe FJ aircrew will be able to claim for saggy tits after pulling too much g !

Mr C Hinecap

25th Nov 2013, 13:43

Just in case anyone would rather understand the topic rather than getting all internet angry. For those not used to such things, the link does contain pictures of ladies wearing sports attire and indeed some photographs where naked ankles are visible. Do not click if these may excite or offend:

http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

Musculoskeletal injuries in military women are common. Prevention and management of such injuries are very important to sustain the fighting force and maintain military readiness. this monograph provides information about the incidence, risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and rehabilitation of common musculo-skeletal overuse and traumatic injuries sustained by women in the military.

lj101

25th Nov 2013, 13:58

WTF - Maybe FJ aircrew will be able to claim for saggy tits after pulling too much g

Aye Legend - and that's just the blokes.

goudie

25th Nov 2013, 14:30

Maybe FJ aircrew will be able to claim for saggy tits after pulling too much g

Well I read somewhere, many moons ago, that Lightning pilots suffered from piles. LM will confirm or deny, I'm sure,

MrSnuggles

25th Nov 2013, 14:57

The female pelvis is anatomically different from the male pelvis. This can lead to improper walking techniques and subsequently pelvis pain or stress fatigue if forced to exceed its limits.

It has nothing to do with height, that's why short blokes manage perfectly well.

AFAIK a female would be just as proficient at walking excercises if attention was paid to the anatomical differences - to shorten the stride is one example. The main goal is to keep recruits healthy and getting there on time can be achieved very well although the stride is accomodated to the difference in pelvis anatomy.

Willard Whyte

25th Nov 2013, 15:18

If one shortens the stride too much it becomes more of a mince.

Lonewolf_50

25th Nov 2013, 16:01

mad_jock, with your points in mind, should we cancel all running and competitive walking for women in the Olympics? :confused:

NutLoose

25th Nov 2013, 16:02

And Nutloose is a ginger beer. I suspect apart from an amateur interest in female anatomy I suspect it was missed out from his trade training. I would like to think though that it would be included in the training for PTI and also DS staff who are in charge of training recruits. Far from it, unfortunately I removed part of the text which said something along the lines of as a male I would struggle struggle after a hard night out to pinch off a loaf.... that deletion made it sound serious as opposed to humorous..

The only WRAF I had dealings up with close and personal could probably claim for RSI, although the Strain would be replaced with Sha***** so to speak.... Ahhh she was fun while it lasted ;)

Lonewolf, don't forget the hop, skip and claim...

tucumseh

25th Nov 2013, 16:13

I'd just like to add my tuppence worth here. I can tell you on absolute authority that the injuries suffered to this young woman were not caused by big- standard drill and marching, it was the march up and down Armoury Hill each day, with webbing and Bergen, that did it.

Unchecked - was the issue the load carried or the incorrect use of Bergen/webbing? If the former, you may have got to the bottom of why MoD succumbed with high awards, because it is well known that the loads carried during training were agreed by Arms Directors using a vague wave of wet fingers at a meeting in 1997, but no-one was quite sure where the figures had originated nor if they were based on any methodology. The programme that was mean to to formalise this using scientific means, didn't, and ever since MoD has been hoping nothing would happen. A well known MoD risk reduction strategy!

MrSnuggles

25th Nov 2013, 16:43

Don't act silly chaps, you know very well that female athletes do very well in competitions where it is allowed for them to adjust stride lenght etc to the female anathomy(sp?).

It would be equally difficult for a bloke to adjust to female anatomy, just consider females have no erhm... lower delicate parts to save from crunching, you know.

We're anatomically different, ladies vs gents, so no need to make remarks like that (looking at you lonewolf). Just some attention re differences and everyone's happy, no need for mockery or over exaggerating.

Onceapilot

25th Nov 2013, 17:01

Yes, females are different! It is amazing how a 55 year old male has to virtually match the performance of an 18 year old female in the VO2 max beep test :ouch:.

OAP

Danny42C

25th Nov 2013, 17:28

Quote:

Musculoskeletal injuries in military women are common. Prevention and management of such injuries are very important to sustain the fighting force and maintain military readiness (Mr.C.Hinecap #63).

Might a possible solution be to exclude women from the fighting force ? (we seem to have got along pretty well without them for quite a while until now, and our Forces have not done too badly on the whole).

In the matter of length of step: in my experience that is decided by 'im in front, the rest of us had to follow on behind.

Yes, I know, I'll get my hat....

Unchecked

25th Nov 2013, 17:42

Tucumseh - I'm not sure, but I do know that the Bergen was literally about 2/3rds the size of her in length. It did look kind of ridiculous to see her struggle with it up and down that hill.

TomJoad

25th Nov 2013, 18:12

So the poor dears are getting more than folks blown up with IEDs because they can't march? Something wrong there!

Bob C

You are so right there Bob. The folks with IED injuries should be getting far higher compensation than they presently do.

NutLoose

25th Nov 2013, 18:18

Though to be fair Tom, a shorter stride means they have to take more steps with an increased chance of setting off a pressure related IED.

Basically it all seems to boil down to a right Royal F up. Nothing agInst the award, it just is disproportional to those folks injured in harms way get, personally I think theirs should be doubled at least.

Courtney Mil

25th Nov 2013, 18:25

Unchecked

25th Nov 2013, 18:29

And is that the fault of the selection system? We should be better at selecting the right people so that everyone's time and money is no longer wasted.

Unchecked

25th Nov 2013, 18:31

Oh, and if that means "discriminating" against those that cannot hack the military (it's pretty obvious who won't before they even start) then so be it.

dervish

25th Nov 2013, 18:48

Or should someone be appointed to carry her bag wherever she goes?

Closer than you realize CM! Proposed and rejected in about 2000, the idea has made a comeback and the "Personal Robotic Support Vehicle" is being considered again. The original name was the Mule, but the general idea is a robotic vehicle that is remotely controlled by the soldier or a rear echelon via video link and which carries most of his load. Not one each, but one per section in the original trials. No one involved will ever forget the accompanying US Army video. :yuk:

NutLoose

25th Nov 2013, 18:57

I thought the RAF employed Nav's for such things.

TomJoad

25th Nov 2013, 18:59

It sounds very much like she was not anatomically suited to the physical requirements of the training. The training, of course, being dictated by the requirements of the fighting force in question. If she was incapable of meeting the training standards, she would unlikely to meet the performace requirements of operations. Unless one can alter the physical demands of operations, one cannot be justified in reducing the training standards. Or should someone be appointed to carry her bag wherever she goes?

Courtney,

Sorry this was an own goal for the RAF. If they/she was unable to meet the training performance standard (TPS) then there is an obligation on the RAF to have a system in place to detect that and remove the individual in a suitable manner. You do not wilfully subject them to a system which will cause lasting physical harm - why in God's name would you do that? Neither, as you say, you do not simply alter the TPS - it must be informed by the operational performance standard (OPS). But the TPS must also be matched to the physical limitations (male and female) of your trainees! That the anatomical differences between male and female, in particular musculoskeletal load limits, translate to different load bearing characteristics is blindingly obvious. Even more shameful, that the RAF already has a system in place to recognise this but choose whatever reason to ignore it. Don't doubt for a second that these girls will most likely be carrying the effect of these injuries for the rest of their lives - how will it affect them in say their 40s. If they had been my daughters, I would have been pissed off to say the least. They were not at war, there were no extremis pressures, this was basic training.

Nutloose, as I said I agree entierly our war wounded are not adequately recompensed. My big concern for those carrying IED wounds lies 20 years from now. Once the "help for heroes" campaign has faded into memory and the politicians have all moved on, the specialist medical support shelved under future Defence Reviews, and the Christmas singles are no more what then? Look at how we treat the FI vets and those who served in WW I /WW II - how many of these poor sods ended up living their lives in penury, alone and forgotten. In my humble opinion, anyone severely wounded during combat ops should never need to worry about their financial future. I don't mean we should write them all a blank cheque, but they should never be homeless, never lack the means to feed clothe and keep themselves warm. Maybe then the debt we owe would be manifest real and concentrate the politicians minds when they send HM forces off on these adventures. None of this detracts from the damage done to these young ladies, it is a separate issue IMHO.

NutLoose

25th Nov 2013, 19:19

Totally agree, by the time those disabled purchase a house to suit their needs, there won't be a lot left for anything else.

Onceapilot

25th Nov 2013, 19:26

Sorry folks, the official answer to the different physical capabilities is that "it is a team effort". So, if you meet the basic criteria, the rest of the team have to carry you.:hmm:
I feel that this has some implications where the basic criteria are allowed to have a large range due to age or gender.

OAP

TomJoad

25th Nov 2013, 19:31

Nutloose,

Perhaps then the politicians will have a better understanding of the true cost of war.

Tom

1.3VStall

25th Nov 2013, 19:36

Just a thought, but I bet Jess Ennis could manage a 30" pace or two!;)

endplay

25th Nov 2013, 19:52

Currently in my sixties and met up with my old DI (in his eighties) on the golf course. Had a bit of banter where I threatened to sue him for making me march with too long a stride. He was adamant that he, and his ilk, took the height of the midgets (me) into account and adjusted the pace of the squad accordingly. He was actually affronted that I had called his professional standards into account. The old bu##er still scares me but it's a sobering thought that the awareness of this potential problem was widespread over 45 years ago.

TomJoad

25th Nov 2013, 20:13

It begs the question then endplay why did it happen today? Like I said, if they were my daughters I would have been livid. If the system is stupid and incompetent enough to let it happen then the girls deserve every penny - after all, it treated them with contempt.

Xercules

25th Nov 2013, 20:27

As endplay said there is nothing new under the sun.

In the very early 80s I was on the DS at DIOT Cranwell and had both male and female cadets. The males went from the very fit to the weak and, dare one say, useless. The females did likewise although in the main I tended to be impressed. In those days the women did not wear full CEFO for the LAT runs because the webbing was known to cause long term problems. However, in one flight I had a useless male and a strong female who carried his CEFO for him and then kicked him round the course.

In another flight one young lady was very p..... off that she could not have a gun and, whilst at Camp 2, really wanted to use the LMG. (Against the rules) I said she could so long as she carried it throughout the exercise - she did.

At that time we had lot of cadets of both sexes complaining of shin splints, apparently caused by excessive wearing of trainers instead of real shoes during their teens. The SMO at that time was one Ian McC...... who developed his own test for shin splints (which in essence are small fractures or cracking of at least the surface of the bone). He used to give the putative patient a small shot of ultrasound on the affected limb. Those truly with shin splints quite definitely let him know. The others carried on.

And a very much later example from much nearer home - my own daughter did a TA commissioning course at Sandhurst. She is a bare 5 ft and a smidgeon tall and elsewhere was a rowing cox who struggled to make herself heavy enough for the minimum cox weight of 50 Kg. On her Sandhurst course she was known as "Bergen with Boots" but I never heard her complain of any problems or demanding any special treatment. I know this does not justify damaging treatment elsewhere but maybe helps cast doubt on how that happened.

NutLoose

25th Nov 2013, 20:54

One that impressed me was young female Air Loadies dragging the VC Ten life rafts from the rear of the cabin to the centre door, they were not small nor light, and they had a time limit to do it, watching one 5 foot nothing girl dragging the thing to the door impressed the heck out of me.

TomJoad

25th Nov 2013, 20:58

I know this does not justify damaging treatment elsewhere but maybe helps cast doubt on how that happened.

And discerning what does and what does not is the domain of the medical experts. One said medical expert was commenting on the situation today on Radio 2. His opinion was that the nature of the extended stride would not result in damage to the pelvis by default. Rather damage would be expected in a percentage of females. This takes us full circle then to why, when the risk was known, and mitigating procedures available (placing smaller cadets at the front, adjusting pace as necessary) were these not observed. Let's hope they learn and we don't necessarily deprive ourselves of the very individuals we are trying to recruit, train and get into effective posts.

Just as an aside, I wonder if the known ability of females to bear pain (levels and longer) better than males is a contributory factor. Don't know , just thinking.

Courtney Mil

25th Nov 2013, 21:40

If they/she was unable to meet the training performance standard (TPS) then there is an obligation on the RAF to have a system in place to detect that and remove the individual in a suitable manner.

Quite my point. Rather than lower the standards required by operational need, the only reasonable course of action is to remove the individual - for her sake and that of the Service.

MrSnuggles

25th Nov 2013, 22:04

Oh bollocks.

The point is to get from A to B carrying a huge bag. If the female anatomy would benefit from a shorter stride than the male, let the female have it, as long as she gets to point B in due time, I don't really know what you're blabbering about lowering standards. It's not lowering standards, it's just making sure everyone can perform to the max. Measuring stride lenght is irrelevant in that regard. Measuring time taken from point A to point B is one of several much more useful way to evaluate standards.

500N

25th Nov 2013, 22:10

And time taken from point A to Point B with pack sometimes
needs to be worked up to, both in terms of fitness, technique
and stamina. The problem is, once on the course time is not
available to work up to this level.

That's been my experience on Army courses.

So maybe part of the problem is more emphasis needs to be put
on pre course preparation and conditioning so it isn't such a
shock to a womans body. This has been touched on by a couple
of people in the thread.

BEagle

25th Nov 2013, 22:35

In those days the women did not wear full CEFO for the LAT runs because the webbing was known to cause long term problems.

What is a 'LAT run'? Seriously?? Because neither during Flt Cdt training nor during later IOT on a GE did we ever go for runs in anything other than running shoes - and certainly not whilst carrying anything on our backs. For sure we trogged across large areas of Wales, Yorkshire and Northumberland - and Germany as Flt Cdts - wearing ill-fitting packs and boots, CWW or boots, DMS. But no-one ever expected us to be infantry trained. Although we did need to leg it sharpish during the E&E phase of King Rock when the Army got close....

So when did all this running in boots with packs start at basic training - and why?

West Coast

25th Nov 2013, 22:58

Why not?

We did a lot of it. A lot more of a workout in the same period of time. No one died from it, in my presence at least. Threw a pack on the back as well when conditioning was up to it.

ExAscoteer

25th Nov 2013, 23:00

A 'LAT run' was (IIRC) a 5 mile run X-Country through the woods and up 'Cardiac Hill' to the north of CHOM.

When I went through IOT in 1984 both sexes did the run in boots and 58 pattern webbing CEFO (Combat Equipment Fighting Order - ie basic webbing but no 'Large Pack').

I imagine these runs were brought in because they tested basic fitness levels and promoted Flight integrity through the demand of team effort (in much the same way as the Army's BFT run of that time).

Toadstool

25th Nov 2013, 23:04

I wasn't privy to the exact reasons why, but to add to Ex A, we are much more of an expeditionary Air Force now. There will be times where all personnel, wearing combats and boots, will have to carry backpacks containing body armour, helmets etc. As with the areas in which we find ourselves, maintaining a good level of fitness to cope with heat stress while being able to carry said backpacks is very important.

I never used to have to do this during the cold war, but then again the sovs weren't lobbing IDF at me over the IGB. Having found myself both inside and outside the wire carrying weapons, ammo, food, water and wearing Osprey, I am glad that we did training/running beforehand.

SOSL

25th Nov 2013, 23:48

500N I agree with your post #94.

Oh, and by the way more than a couple of us have touched on a woman's body ;)

Rgds SOS

500N

25th Nov 2013, 23:52

" Oh, and by the way more than a couple of us have touched on a woman's body ;)"

Really SOSL ?, I thought you were a Navy boy ;) :O

West Coast

25th Nov 2013, 23:57

"Oh, and by the way more than a couple of us have touched on a woman's body"

Mustn't be married

mad_jock

26th Nov 2013, 00:06

We never did a BFT in fighting order. It was just gutties and shorts. And was in squads for the first part and solo for the last 1.5k.

CFT though was fighting order and 12kms with weapons.

BFT was no great hassle

CFT was a bit of bitch. Until I moved mine to the winter. Then it didn't kill me for days afterwards due dehydration and hyperthermia. It was ok during the summer if they did it at night but if some bright spark decided to do it after lunch we lost about 20% of the guys and 50% of those left weren't much use to man nor beast for days afterwards.

I might add I did the CFT twice with a GIMPY I really really don't know why, it was never my weapon, I had zero interest in firing it. We had the CFT finishing at the range and then a 50 round snap shoot on pop up targets at various distances with 3 second exposures. I actually quite enjoyed that.

Did see one unit doing there's in NBC kit which seemed a bit silly to me in the middle of summer in wales. I think I would have gone in the meat wagon before half way semi conscious.

vascodegama

26th Nov 2013, 06:11

I seem to remember that there were 2 distances for LAT runs i.e. 5 and 10 miles and only the 10 mile version involved cardiac hill. As stated before the girls didn't have to carry the CEFO or whatever.

BATCO

26th Nov 2013, 11:53

Beags (and others)
I went through RAFC on 58 IOT (Nov 81-Apr 82).
IIRC we did about 5 or so 'LAT runs' (LAT= leadership, agility training?). Route was from by pavilion at west end of north field to rear of CHOM, turn left and head north to field boundary, follow boundary until entrance to woods, through woods to road that lead to the bigger OMQ, almost double back and follow northern edge of woods, sharp right - go down hill - avoiding turnips - up hill and turn left along field margin, a few short turns followed by a dip or two, turn south before Ermine St, into woods, couple of slopes, through woods up a couple of slopes, turn left and emerge from woods by wooded avenue leading to WH and pavillion.

First run was just boots, DPM trousers and shirt. All others were with CEFO (RAF), as 1st run for WRAF. Not sure about SLR (memory blurs with subsequent J Course).

I do not recall doing more than a single lap of above route, and I don't think it took too long - so would doubt 5 mile claim above.

BATCO

PS More fun to be had giving piggy-back to WRAF around Orange, albeit Martin Cole (NZ) was a champ at that.

teeteringhead

26th Nov 2013, 13:52

PS More fun to be had giving piggy-back to WRAF around Orange ... and perhaps even more fun for her!! :E

Fg Off Bloggs

26th Nov 2013, 15:09

I refer to wg13 dummy:

Would it be fair to say that these females have undone equality within the military in a few short steps? Females have been campaigning that they wanted to be treated equally for equal pay but this case seems that they have confirmed they are different and should be treated as such. Is it a height issue or a gender issue? If its the latter, surely we should just put all the females back in the office out of harms way and reduce their pay accordingly?

I did a spell at DIOT as a senior instructor and policy maker there in the late 90s. We argued long and hard about the problems of integrating female cadets into what was a pretty male dominated environment. On the one hand, we had a policy being thrust at us by the higher-echelons of the 'sorority' encouraging sexual equality for women in the training environment - 'Gender Equal' - and, on the other hand, medical advice -'Gender Fair'! Analysis of 'Gender Fair' suggested, as the Naval Orthopaedic Consultant stated on Radio 2 only yesterday, that the likely number of injuries that would be caused by 'Gender Equal' was minimal and so, in an effort to embrace the feminist view, we plumped for equality, and pleased the sorority, as the way ahead. It worked and out of the roughly 2500 officer cadets that passed through Cranwell in my time I know of only one female cadet who suffered a pelvic fracture and that was suffered during the 22km Ultimate Challenge exercise over Otterburn and not on the parade square - she refused to quit, despite being in pain and staff encouragement to do so, and crossed the finishing line with her cohort.

MOD policy was eventually changed in the mid '00s but whilst the Navy and Army adopted the changes the RAF stuck with Gender Equality for fear of a feminine uprising! So the RAF were buggered if they did and buggered if they didn't!

So,

The instructors chose not to follow the clear rules and instead forced the women to march at 30", causing them injuries which led to their being medically discharged.

Jimlad1: Get off your high horse, learn the facts and don't take a swipe at the instructors who were doing nothing more than following RAF policy, whether that was misguided or not!

Weren't you a cabin boy once?:=

Bloggs:E

vascodegama

26th Nov 2013, 15:58

Since there were girls at Sleaford Tech in the v early 80s why did it take so long to argue about policy?

Fg Off Bloggs

26th Nov 2013, 17:23

Vasco,

I didn't say that that was the case, I just said that when I was there in the late 90s we addressed the issue that we faced at that time!

Bloggs:cool:

vascodegama

26th Nov 2013, 19:23

Bloggs

Surely the integration had (or should have) taken place long before. That is my point.

ShyTorque

26th Nov 2013, 19:52

My teenaged daughter is in her ATC Sqn banner drill team. She came back from the Corps drill championships on Saturday to read this news. Her response wasn't at all complimentary to the ladies who have claimed compensation and she is concerned that it could impact on ATC regulations and spoil their fun!

Aggamemnon

27th Nov 2013, 15:14

There won't be a rule change to AP 818, only that DIs may have to check their risk assessments for foot drill.

What might be affected in the ATC are road marching events such as Nijmegen.

Haraka

27th Nov 2013, 17:19

Since there were girls at Sleaford Tech in the v early 80s why did it take so long to argue about policy?

I seem to recall they were there a decade before that.

"Oooh , Flight Sergeant... I saw you hiding behind that tree, clutching your rifle! " ,

" Beg to differ Ma'am, but that was not my rifle."

BEagle

27th Nov 2013, 18:34

I seem to recall they were there a decade before that.

I seem to recall a certain Flt Cdt Haraka being pulled up early one dark and misty morning in 99 Entry days for greeting rather a tasty little Plt Off(W) engineer student* with the words "Morning, love!" whilst marching up to College Hall for yet another session of drill?

"Don't you normally salute officers?"

Shortly followed by "Err, sorry sir...I mean ma'am"?

Perhaps this thread also refers to 'combat flaps'....:ooh:

(Sorry, you know who you are.....;) )

* A view which all those weeks of confinement in the SBLs might perhaps have made rather generous? Actually no - I thought she was gorgeous!

cuefaye

27th Nov 2013, 19:37

The girls suffered training injuries, and were treated. I assume that they were then discharged as no longer suitable for their choice of military service, or elected to leave. Either way they were paid statutory compensation. All then recovered and went on to successful alternative careers. Case closed.

Enter today's greed fraternity. Family, friends and legal teams. Now, not only are the three individuals very financially content, but their supporters are also a tad wealthier. Good? I hope they've made a nice contribution to HfH.

How I wish I'd worn ear defenders around the flight line when crewing-in. Nobody told me to do so, so I developed a deafness, which debarred me from my preferred follow-on career. Visit to DHSS - statutory compensation. Choose another option. Case closed.

Duty of care applicable in both cases. But so was self-awareness. That's how it was Hinecap. BTW, do you allow your children to climb trees? Silly me of course - not if there's a sign at the base with disclaimers from all concerned.

How further will this culture develop? It is though, we read, daily.

gsa

27th Nov 2013, 20:47

So when did all this running in boots with packs start at basic training - and why?No idea about the RAF but a friend of mine who was head of Army recruit training at Catterick resigned his commission the day they said he couldn't run the recruits in boots.

vascodegama

28th Nov 2013, 05:35

It was certainly the case in 1980-trainers luxury!

Old Bricks

28th Nov 2013, 10:23

We certainly didn't have problems with female stride length as flight cadets at Cranditz 68-71, although certain short-legged cadets undoubtedly suffered on parade. Trenchard was still rolling in his grave when 1 and 2 GEs arrived in 1970 with, if memory serves, two female officers. I remember a loud voice from the back of the room at the first Mess Meeting that they attended when they were introduced and facilities for the females were announced - "Good grief, they're sending us boys!"
More worrying, reading everyone's comments is that now, aged 63 and retired for 8 years, is that I'm not sure that I was ever really qualified for a commission. In two and a half years we never lifted a pine-pole, put on a gas mask, ran in boots or anything like that. We did a fair amount of PT, played lots of sport, ran the appalling Knocker Run around the North Airfield and did occasional exercises like King Rock. I think that if one had been asked to move pine-poles, the advice would have been to fill in a 658 and leave it to the experts. When did physical exercises start to replace officer training?

Heathrow Harry

28th Nov 2013, 10:35

ahh but you were obviously a Gentleman

NutLoose

28th Nov 2013, 11:57

There was a PTI at Halton had a interview no tea and biccies, he had the first all female course and was putting them through their paces in the Gym, he had them doing various exercises and they eventually ended up on their backs, legs raised in the air wide open and holding in that position, he then walked down the line and went haircut, haircut, haircut.......

Shack37

28th Nov 2013, 14:46

"How I wish I'd worn ear defenders around the flight line when crewing-in. Nobody told me to do so, so I developed a deafness, which debarred me from my preferred follow-on career. Visit to DHSS - statutory compensation. Choose another option. Case closed."

cuefaye

How I wish ear defenders had been available around the flight line back then. The rest of your post applies.

Mr C Hinecap

28th Nov 2013, 18:46

We certainly didn't have problems with female stride length as flight cadets at Cranditz 68-71

I take it that you were not one of the female flight cadets.
Very noble to say that you didn't have problems with their stride length.

Danny42C

28th Nov 2013, 18:46

Old Bricks,

Quite early, it seems. I had three years commissioned service in war and twenty-three in peace, and wouldn't know a pine pole if I saw one.

And I escaped and evaded all manner of escape and evasion exercises, and all the other Babes in the Wood bright ideas, with the sole exception of G/Capt. Wallace's infamous Grins Hill Walk at Shawbury in the '60s (and managed to drop off the tail of the column on that early on).

Who remembers the "Ale and Dominoes" letter, which appeared in "Air Clues" (?) in the '50s, and probably did the writer's career no good at all ? (for it ran strictly counter to the Air Ministry's Mens Sana in Corpore Sano ideas at the time).

That's how you get to last till 92. Gentleman ? - matter of opinion !

D.