It seems that because a large proportion of the RAF are involved in relatively sedentary jobs, there will always be arguments concerning fit or fit for role. Personally, I think that people putting those arguments up are missing the point - fit and fit for role are not mutually exclusive.
In this sense, I do wonder if the Army doesn't have it right? Why not have a baseline fitness test that everyone has to achieve twice a year as we do now, but then introduce a role based fitness test on top of that testing fitness for operations. The Army's CFT is done on top of the personal fitness test and is graded according to your specialisation, so someone in the AGC will be carrying a lower weight and have higher times than someone in the line infantry, and in turn, the line infantry will be higher than the Paras etc etc.
I'm sure that such a suggestion would no doubt meet with howls of outrage, most of which in my experience has come from a the SNCO section of the RAF who joined up when hard drinking, hard smoking and sport solely through the medium of darts and watching the football on Saturday night was the idea of being physically active. Just because they have so far dodged a heart attack and can lift a pen to sign off what ever bit of paper they need to sign, they argue they are fit for role and that's that. I have been on units in the past where even making CO's PT a formal parade couldn't get some of these individuals into the gym. But equally, the RAF has a part to play in this by freeing up time for individuals to do some phys, so as suggested, let's bring back Sports afternoons and other formally programmed sessions.
But at the end of the day, to my mind, being fit for role and fit for Ops is but a by product. Being fit for life should be the objective and many people seem to lack the pride and self-discipline to keep themselves fit and are happy to be a walking bucket of lard with the Grim Reaper following close behind.
Last edited by Melchett01; 15th Feb 2014 at 10:42.