Originally Posted by
Jayand
There are a few ways of looking at it.
Firstly: a realistic fitness test is a good way of assessing an individuals general health and fitness, along with regular medicals, if you don't have a pass mark whats the point in the test? quite reasonably the pass mark takes into account your age, if it's ok to account for age then why not sex? If you make the pass level equal regardless of sex then you are not truly assessing the males! either that or you are penalising the females by making their levels comparatively higher than their male counterparts!
I am not really sure what the problem is?
The argument that one is fit enough to do their job isn't a sound one, I have seen some severely overweight airmen and women do their job perfectly adequately, are they a good example for the service, could they cope in a high tempo, high extreme climate on ops, if they have passed their AFT what is the problem? Might they cost the service money and time and later in life the NHS? It's not new, nobody has just sprung it on you and the levels for both sexes are childlike so just get on with it! If the levels are childlike care to explain the value? There are plenty worse hoops to jump through! If this is what really bothers people then perhaps they should leave and save the need for that third tranche!
Jay,
You fall into the classic trap, like so many others when you assume that anyone who questions the AFT has a bad attitude towards fitness, grow your mind a bit young man and try and see the bigger picture.
The AFT is nowt but a tick chase and proves absolutely jack when it comes down to it, which you happily confirm with your recognition of the "childlike" levels
