RAF to encourage Fat WAAFs [Archive]

tier2commando

21st Dec 2006, 00:13

It does not matter what the levels are set at, people will still biff it. The thought of remidial pt with lots of days of is tempting at thr current op rates, plus if i biff the swimming test more remidial swimming hence more time off! Why keep fit?
The beep test was designed for professional athletes not your average air person, hence the levels reflect some vo 2 thing that is beyond me, based on gender stuff. Why do you think the Operational fitness test was binned? because if you biffed it not eligible for deployment out of uk, likewise if you biff the fitness test you cant deploy to hot and , duty of care matters ( but you can get mortered in your tent)
Lets get real if you cant pass this easy fitness test 3 strikes and your out rule should apply if that is legal!
at least this one is trying to get fit
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=507732229697832036

LFFC

21st Dec 2006, 00:36

Lets get real if you cant pass this easy fitness test 3 strikes and your out rule should apply if that is legal!

So, if you're aircrew and want to leave the service without having to PVR and loose 50% of your flying pay for 18 months, maybe this would be a gift!

Think again Commando, life isn't that simple!

D-IFF_ident

21st Dec 2006, 05:02

This is worth a read:

ET 3101524/97:

Allcock v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary (1997 ET)

Mr Allcock was a serving police officer who applied for a vacancy in the Dog Section. Candidates were required to pass a physical fitness test which involved completing a two mile long multi-terrain course. The course had to be completed within 16 minutes for male candidates, and within 17 minutes for female candidates. Mr Allcock completed the test in 16 minutes and 46 seconds and so failed the test.

Mr Allcock complained of sex discrimination to the Employment Tribunal. The tribunal concluded that if a female police officer, who completes the course in 17 minutes, is considered to be fit to carry out the duties of a dog handler, a man who completes the course in the same time must surely also qualify. They found that in failing to conduct a gender-neutral test to establish whether a particular candidate is capable of undertaking the duties of a dog handler, the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Allcock.

Wholigan

21st Dec 2006, 06:40

have to out-perform a 16-20 something woman?

Since the Women's Auxiliary Air Force became the Women's Royal Air Force in 1949, the youngest a "WAAF" could be today is 75, assuming she joined at about 18 years of age. So why would anyone want to be
fast enough to catch a ........... plumper WAAF ???

:E :ok: :confused:

oldbeefer

21st Dec 2006, 06:49

I always thought a recruit HAD to be fat to be a WAAF. Now the Wrens !!!!!

Always_broken_in_wilts

21st Dec 2006, 08:10

Chutley,

Using your logic, a little un PC perhaps so maybe some new year EO trg for you young man, Fat WAAFs or in fact any WAAF's in the Norwich area will be able to be very selective at this time, which is not good news for the more aged and not so fleet of foot of us:E

all spelling mistakes are"df" alcohol induced

formertonkaplum

21st Dec 2006, 08:51

I can just see it now.....

'No No, we don't want flamey pointy things to go and buzz through the clouds with today chaps...we are going for some PT in our plimsoles' :D

Or.... AL1

'Crews walking in 5 for a 4 turn 4 turn 4 turn 4 and then Re-role for tomorrow, the primary needs working, Engine change on and only 3 green on the board.........and you want to go the Gym? :ugh:

If the RAF want this fitter stance to be manageable and to work, they need to allow people time 'On Duty' to train. The Army spend a great deal of time doing Phys when at home. The RAF work on due to the largely Technical nature of what we do. We are not soldiers despite what that Burridge bloke said. He was so sane, he's advertising heating systems;

http://www.iceenergy.co.uk/testimonials.asp,

the term WARFIGHTER FIRST is less heard.....or gone.

anotherthing

21st Dec 2006, 09:12

The bleep test is not difficult at the standards that the forces have set, however, for the head honchos to claim that a 49 years old man is physiologically equal to a 16-20 year old woman (iwith regards to fitness - not man boob size) is complete horsesh*t and anyone who knows a tiny bit about human bodies and sports related performance knows this.

Methinks you are being discriminated against.

With regards the police dog handler above, that was for a specific job. The judgement was that if the job can be done in 17 minutes by a woman and a dog why can it not be achieved in 17 minutes by a man and a dog?

Slightly different measurement criteria, but both using the bleep test. The police example is using the bleep test for the wrong purposes - and hence the reason blokey won his discrimination case.

The forces use the bleep test as it was designed for - a measurement of the bodies ability to uptake and metabolise and use oxygen - i.e. fitness and muscle ability. The way the forces interpret it however is wrong in the case given above. This could lead to a successful discrimination lawsuit.

musclemech

21st Dec 2006, 09:42

FormerTonka etc:

Loughborough simply devised the test to provide a method of determining a level of fitness (particularly, how much oxygen you can breathe in, transport to the working muscles, and use in the working muscles). They didn't set any level at which you are declared 'fit' or otherwise. That's up to the user: that's why the levels can change.

The initial levels were set at quite a low level because it was a new thing and I think everyone was worried that some of the fat old chiefs would have a heart attack if they had to work (sorry, exercise) too hard. Now that most people have been (in theory at least) exercising for some time this is not so much of a worry.

And the physical demands of personnel in the RAF have changed - so too should the fitness levels that one needs to attain to in order to meet those demands.

To answer the original question:

The RAFFT health related and is designed to encourage people to exercise. Research shows quite clear relations between regular exercise and good health, longevity, higher productivity, lower levels of illness and days off sick in the workforce.

So the individual wins and the RAF wins. Because it is designed to encourage people to exercise, it is gender and age FAIR: ie it takes into consideration that females have, on average, around 10% less areobic capcity than males, and that aerobic capacity reduces with age.

The OFA (RIP) on the other hand was task related so it could afford to be gender and age NEUTRAL.: ie everyone needs to be able to do this task in this time regardless of age or gender. Incidentally both types of test have been successfully challenged in court (in the latter case it was 'you know that women have lower aerobic capacity than men so it is unfair to set a test that doesn't allow for this').

BTW this issue of time off in duty time is IMHO a bit of a red herring. The RAF provides free gym facilities, and free advice - both of which are very very expensive outside in the real world. It's funny how those who are already fit seem to find the time during the working day, and either side of it) to maintain that fitness...

Off my soapbox now....
MM

Impiger

21st Dec 2006, 09:57

Something has surely gone awry here.

As I recall the fitness test was not introduced to determine if you were fit for your job but to determine that as an indivdual you were paying sufficient attention to personal fitness as part of a healthy lifestyle. Hence the difference in achievement levels between ages and genders. Otherwise the knackered old F3 navigator would have to be as sprightly as the wet behinds the ears yoof who had just left Cranwell.

I can see why the police dog handler won his case. The Constabulary in question were using the test as a determinator of physical ability to undertake the duties of a dog handler and it therefore formed part of the selection process - clearly discriminatory.

Maybe there is a muscle mechanic out there who can explain current RAF thinking on fitness policy.

Always_broken_in_wilts

21st Dec 2006, 09:58

And with a jump, feet together place, now 10 times round my beautiful body...........:ugh: PTI's........:yuk:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

SirToppamHat

21st Dec 2006, 10:02

BOFFIN WARNING ON:

The Multi-stage Fitness Test (MSFT), as I seem to recall posting before, is not really a measure of fitness in itself, but a measure of something that has a pretty good correlation with a real measure of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max).

The ability to do aerobic work can be measured by working out how much oxygen the body is capable of using. On a cycle in a laboratory, this is done by measuring the ACTUAL amount of oxygen used during the final minute of a period of exercise to exhaustion (VO2 max). This needs lots of equipment for measuring inspired and expired O2 and CO2 concentration levels, the actual volume of expired air (collected using massive 'Douglas' bags), a vacuum pump and a willing volunteer.

If all you want to measure is the ability to move a wheel on a laboratory bike, the actual amount of O2 used will be pretty well related to the work done. So the Sports Scientists (yes I was one) talk in terms of whole O2 uptake, measured in litres per minute. This might be 3.0 to 3.5 for a typical female and 3.5 to 4.0 for a chap (compared to around 5.0 for elite athletes!). This ability, whilst it may be trained, is largely genetic, so how can its measurement be considered a measure of fitness?

When you need to measure someone's ability to move themselves (and equipment) around, body weight comes into it, because the total actual O2 uptake (work done) has to be spread around the weight being carried. For runners,for example, weight is absolutely critical to performance and they measure O2 uptake in terms of mililitres per kilogram per minute. It is THIS figure that the RAF is trying to get an indication of, but far more cheaply than by providing proper training for its PTIs and money for equipment.

This was achieved at Loughborough in the late 80s by measuring the actual VO2Max of a wide range of healthy people, then having them do the MSFT. The intention was to provide a cheap measure of VO2 max requiring nothing more than a space the length of a tennis court and a readily available equipment (ie a tape player). When split according to sex, the results correlated so well that even the academics were surprised, and the product was released (IIRC) to enable sports clubs, schools and colleges (without money for the expensive equipment) to conduct their own measurements.

This splitting of the subjects into separate groups according to sex is important because it helps to explain why the males and females in the RAF have separate standards. If you want to examine whether the actual levels are really fair, then compare the indicated VO2 max figures in the MSFT booklet for the set levels. Irrespective of sex, I believe the VO2 max (in ml per kg per min) should be similar for both sexes in the same age group if the targets are to be considered fair.

Plans for the RAF to use the test were initially developed in 88-89, though it didn't come in until a few years later. I don't know why the required levels keep changing, and I am not entirely convinced about the case for the test's employment except it keeps the PTIs away from the dangerous (and expensive) Adventurous Trg, and I suppose the field sqns of the RAF Regt could use it as a performance indicator.

Indeed, it has long been argued that a person's aerobic fitness is a limitation to G-tolerance. The USAF recognised this in the mid-60s and took steps to maximise any advantage they could gain in this area. I remember visiting Woodbridge in about 1991 and being amazed at the amount of shiny weights machines the crews had to play with. I also seem to recall most of the A10 crews being wider than they were tall! But I don't remember seeing too many bikes or treadmills!

BOFFIN WARNING OFF

Finally, because I've banged-on quite enough, the essential thing the RAFFT is measuring is whether an individual is too heavy to allow their heart, lungs and muscles to get to a level on the MSFT. Whilst I agree that remedial trg is a good thing, it is something we should all be giving time to. In many cases, those who are failing the RAFFT actually need to lose weight, which appropriate rem trg should help to achieve.

"Pot calling kettle, come in kettle!"

STH

Edited to add Musclemech got there before me, but as it took me so long to write my bit, I will leave it in unless anyone objects ...

Ordynants

21st Dec 2006, 10:17

young bit of plumper WAAF
Vage,
We both know the EO correct term for these ladies is
"Women who are genetically predisposed to eat that extra slice of cake"

Hoots

21st Dec 2006, 10:29

Even with the level changes, for a 40 something bloke its still easy.

However, if you are struggling you could always go down the transexual route. This seems to be acceptable these days, but one hell of an extreme for an easier fitness test.

LFFC

21st Dec 2006, 10:40

FormerTonka etc:
....... Now that most people have been (in theory at least) exercising for some time this is not so much of a worry.
MM

Unfortunately, someone over the age of 40 may not have done the beep test for years - if at all - and may find it a bit of a shock to the system!

FormerTonka etc:
.......The RAFFT health related and is designed to encourage people to exercise.
MM

Sadly, many perceive it as a threat rather than as an encouragement.

FormerTonka etc:
........BTW this issue of time off in duty time is IMHO a bit of a red herring.
MM

It wouldn't be "time off". If it's your duty to pass the RAFFT, then it's your commander's duty to ensure that you have time available to prepare for it!

toddbabe

21st Dec 2006, 10:57

The tests aren't hard in fact they are a piece of piss at all levels and whilst I would like to see Pt as part of my weekly work routine I doubt /know it won't ever happen.
we are in the military and it's up to you to maintain your fitness, get off your fat arses and do some work, the ammount of people who I see driving quarter of a mile from quarters to work makes me laugh, lazy twats walk! or ride a bike! their should be some financial penaty to people who fail their tests, That would soon see the gym a bit busier.
I for one would like to see the levels raised again to something even remotely challenging.

musclemech

21st Dec 2006, 11:19

I am not sure how to do that lovely quote from previous messages so I have had to do it by copy and paste, sorry!

LFFC: "Unfortunately, someone over the age of 40 may not have done the beep test for years - if at all - and may find it a bit of a shock to the system!"

As I mentioned before, at first there was real concern that over 40s would be in real danger of inducing a heart attack if they did a running test, never having done any exercise before. Now, however, everyone (in theory!!) will have been doing some exercise, so the risk of inducing a heart attack was considered to be much reduced and the running test could be introduced for everyone. And indeed could be taken as a maximal test ie go as far as you can rather than just to the level required.

LFFC: "Sadly, many perceive it as a threat rather than as an encouragement."

Sadly you are correct, but it is a bit of a lame excuse for not exercising, and smacks of I'm not going to do it, because I have been told to do it. I suspect that these individuals also do not like doing CCS, making sure their jabs are up to date and wearing uniform as well.

LFFC: "It wouldn't be "time off". If it's your duty to pass the RAFFT, then it's your commander's duty to ensure that you have time available to prepare for it!"

Ok then time 'away' from your place of primary work. Why should the RAF have to give you time away etc. you get more than 50% of the benefits from regular exercise. The RAF gets some benefits but much less than you do (see my previous post). The RAF already provides free (and generally excellent) facilities and free advice - how about the individual putting something into it?

Hoots: Its is still too easy, but there are people who can't pass at the current standards.

ABIW: Sadly my body is no longer bronzed or beautiful so I can't use that one anymore:\ :\ Thanks for your insightful contribution though...
MM

formertonkaplum

21st Dec 2006, 12:43

It wouldn't be "time off". If it's your duty to pass the RAFFT, then it's your commander's duty to ensure that you have time available to prepare for it!

Exactly. A school or Uni wouldn't expect self teaching before examining. A Pilot wouldn't be given the handbook for a Harrier and be told to be back in a week for a solo? If the RAF wants you to be fit, you should be given time to train.

A W*nker PTI posted on a Station forum a couple of years ago that he had nothing to do day-to-day and would love to see some fat ass techies spend some of their lazy work time in the gym. It quickly escalated as numerous other techies on station offered to show the more muscle than sense 'stretcher bearer' just how much time they have to get to the Gym.

By the way, Toddbabe your language is terrible. Please learn to refrain yourself and go burn some more (brain) cells on a running machine. Preferably one in Iraq.

Mentioning Ops, how come if unfit 'fat arsed' techies are so useless unless they can run marathons, do they manage to knock out 16 hour shifts fixing aircraft? Something maybe to do with Stamina?

musclemech

21st Dec 2006, 15:05

Tonkaplum: "A school or Uni wouldn't expect self teaching before examining. A Pilot wouldn't be given the handbook for a Harrier and be told to be back in a week for a solo?"
No, but I would hazard a guess that you would be expected to do some study yourself in your own time in order to pass the exam. You have had your initial training in how to keep fit during your ab initio and phase 2 training (or whatever it was called then). Now you have to do your homework.
Tonkaplum: "Mentioning Ops, how come if unfit 'fat arsed' techies are so useless unless they can run marathons, do they manage to knock out 16 hour shifts fixing aircraft? Something maybe to do with Stamina?"
It's not as simple as doing a 16 hour shift: it's what gets done in that 16 hours: how many of the unfit ones are the first to have to have a rest in an extended stint of work?
Tonkaplum: "A W*nker PTI "
While I can't condone the behaviours of some of my colleagues, and I think that we bring the wrong type of people, at too young an age, into my trade, the "PTIs are w*nkers" point of view is just another excuse used by individuals who don't want to, or are too lazy to, keep themselves fit.
MM

Bladdered

21st Dec 2006, 15:24

Exactly. A school or Uni wouldn't expect self teaching before examining. A Pilot wouldn't be given the handbook for a Harrier and be told to be back in a week for a solo? If the RAF wants you to be fit, you should be given time to train.

A W*nker PTI posted on a Station forum a couple of years ago that he had nothing to do day-to-day and would love to see some fat ass techies spend some of their lazy work time in the gym. It quickly escalated as numerous other techies on station offered to show the more muscle than sense 'stretcher bearer' just how much time they have to get to the Gym.

By the way, Toddbabe your language is terrible. Please learn to refrain yourself and go burn some more (brain) cells on a running machine. Preferably one in Iraq.

Mentioning Ops, how come if unfit 'fat arsed' techies are so useless unless they can run marathons, do they manage to knock out 16 hour shifts fixing aircraft? Something maybe to do with Stamina?

A former CinC STC when referring to warfighter firsts used to allude to fat chiefs on the line and how we needed to get rid of the fat and lazy. Quite right, TonkaPlum, those fat chiefs are the ones that will work 16 hours a day at MOB or OOA without complaint (actually when they are complaining they are normally happy).

Ed

Vage Rot

21st Dec 2006, 16:36

Gentlemen - please!!!

I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't keep fit - I do and always will.

My point is simple: Why is the level for men SO much higher than that for women? Musclemech suggested a 10% difference so, to repeat my original question, why does a 49 year old man have to run faster/longer than the fastest/youngest woman?

This is simply sexist - maybe the RAF is simply trying to fill ts obligation to have x% women, x% black and x%gay and they know that a higher fitness standard would result in many women being deterred from joining or forced to leave.

formertonkaplum

21st Dec 2006, 16:38

MM

The 16 hour shifts are knocked out if required, by all engineers....cause thats what we do. The young are the ones who fade first if anyone but not through lack of commitment or enthusiasm, more because they are the ones lacking experience who don't drink enough water!!

By your theory then for 'you've been trained once, your turn'-

Ok, so again I'll use the pilot as an example. Posted from the conversion unit, he arrives at the flight line of his new squadron, to go flying.
Oh No you don't sir.... we are not at war, if your going training flying, you have to do that in your own time, at your own expense.:ugh:

The RAF wants fit people, then people should be given time to get/remain fit. People with LIVES do not always have time out of uniform to dedicate to this. The Army has a high requirement for physical ability, what would they do if they were told they could only use the Gym when stood down?

Your argument is not.

Pontius Navigator

21st Dec 2006, 17:06

Burridge bloke said. He was so sane, he's advertising heating systems;

http://www.iceenergy.co.uk/testimonials.asp,

the term WARFIGHTER FIRST is less heard.....or gone.

Mmm. Small cottage though, not much garden. Guess Lady B might have had an effect on his property aspirations.

Talking Radalt

21st Dec 2006, 17:16

Why under the new fitness test standards does a 49 year old bloke have to out-perform a 16-20 something woman?
Not entirely sure as to the exact answer but for future reference, I'd be happy to volunteer to participate in any "research". :E (as long as the "something" in the above description isn't "stone" :uhoh: )
As an aside, that Burridge Heat Pump Thermal Energy Exchanger Flux Capacitor Pump Video thingy....Anyone else spot Jonny Vegas answering the phones at "Pump HQ" right at the start? :}

toddbabe

21st Dec 2006, 17:27

Tonka plum I have done my share of 16 plus hour shifts in all extremes of weather, and that never stopped me from doing some phys, If you want to do it there is always time, the same people who whinge they haven't got time somehow manage to go to the bar for a couple of pints.
You talk about people with "lives" not having time to do stuff outside of work, well you manage to spend a fair ammount of time posting on here, you could be pounding the streets or on the rower instead of exercising your delicate and oh so gramatically correct digits on here!
I am a huge advocate of dedicated pt lessons for all trades and all ranks but instead of whingeing about something that is never going to happen I just get on with it somehow in amongst my ever so busy work and home life.
Whilst undoubtedly there are people that do have difficulty getting to the gym after or before their work commitments, the vast majority of people that don't utilise the gym and are unfit are so because they choose to be.
Giving these lazy people the time to do phys isn't the answer because unchecked they are more likely to bunk off home early or have an extra half hour sat in the mess.
The answer is to have compulsary Pt for each section where people can be accounted for, if that ever were to come about (we both know it won't) then I think you would see a whole lot more people whingeing.

musclemech

21st Dec 2006, 17:47

FTP: "The 16 hour shifts are knocked out if required, by all engineers....cause thats what we do. The young are the ones who fade first if anyone but not through lack of commitment or enthusiasm, more because they are the ones lacking experience who don't drink enough water!!"

OK I have been around enough engineers (and my father and brother are engineers) to have a pretty good idea that 16 hour shifts are not 16 hours of solid work... and age is not necessarily a marker of how fit or otherwise one is.

FTP: "Ok, so again I'll use the pilot as an example. Posted from the conversion unit, he arrives at the flight line of his new squadron, to go flying.

Oh No you don't sir.... we are not at war, if your going training flying, you have to do that in your own time, at your own expense."
Not really a good example because the flying traning is his primary job. However try this: pilot arrives from adv jet training onto OCU. Here you go sir, here's some of the manuals for your new jet. You will need to be familiar with these. Suggest you start reading them - maybe even 'shock horror' in your own time

FTP: "The RAF wants fit people, then people should be given time to get/remain fit. People with LIVES do not always have time out of uniform to dedicate to this. The Army has a high requirement for physical ability, what would they do if they were told they could only use the Gym when stood down?"

It's not asking too much to get people to do 3 half-hour sessions in the gym or elsewhere. As I said earlier the RAF gives you the facilities and advice free (so you can get extra training if yu have forgotten your initial training ) It is funny how so many do manage to find time in their LIVES. Lets put it tis way: if they were told that they would die in a week unless they did exercise 3 times a week, how many do you think would still struggle to fnd the time?

FTP: "Your argument is not. "

Probably so, but it comes down to my dislike of the thought that the RAF must provide everything for us. My ethos is get on and do it, and if the RAF doesn't provide, well sometimes I will have to.

Is this what they call thread drift???
MM

JagRigger

21st Dec 2006, 17:49

I'm about to become both 40 and a civvi. My chosen career route is hopefully the Police. As part of the application you get an 8 page pamphlet on how to train for their fitness test. Having opened it, laughed lots, I then decided opening it was sufficient practice.

Their gender/age same level? 5/4!!

As their PTI said - " as far as I'm concerned, you all passed - you managed to walk from the car park "

Incidently, were I not leaving, what's the new level for age 40?

Maple 01

21st Dec 2006, 19:13

the "PTIs are w*nkers" point of view is just another excuse

No, sorry, exhaustive studies under operational conditions have proven that all PTIs are O2 thieves who exist for no other purpose than to give RAF Coppers someone to look down on. Successive increases in the pass requirements for the RAF FT are there to justify their existence, nothing more.

What exactly is a PTI's war role? GD in a singlet?

LFFC

21st Dec 2006, 19:38

Incidently, were I not leaving, what's the new level for age 40?

I found this on an earlier thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2799953&postcount=56). Anyone know if it's accurate?

If so, then I take it that over 50s don't have to play.

Olly O'Leg

21st Dec 2006, 20:47

That looks the same as the levels posted on the wall of our gym (I did the fitness test only 2 weeks ago - I go to the gym once a year, whether I need to or not!) The PTI who showed us mentioned that they are still only "proposed" but he thought that they would be quite likely to go through. I've gone up from 8-10 to 9-04, even though I go up an age bracket next year!

"Start of level 9.......... BLEEP!" :ugh:

formertonkaplum

21st Dec 2006, 21:13

Maple 01 :D I like your style and totally agree. The levels are going up to justify the Stretcher bearer's in peacetime.

Think of the money saved if they got rid of that trade (if it is a trade, in the meaning of the term). We could maybe then have a trade which is usefull.... Like Painters (Who we are just in the process of getting rid of !)

Madness. :ugh:

In Tor Wot

22nd Dec 2006, 00:29

Roadster280

22nd Dec 2006, 01:21

The RAF Stations I have served on or visited had significantly better fitness facilities than most Army barracks. It always smacked of "more money to spend" to me. However, if the troops get no time to use the gym in their weekly programme, then why expend the money? Barking.

RAF Upavon, in its day, had an aircraft hangar as a gym. As there were no aircraft to speak of, and it was on the "wrong side of the road", why not? However, we Army chaps used it to death, and the airforce chaps paid it lipservice. Of course, there was always the airfield and the Plain to keep fit for the diehards.

A previous post indicated 6 PTIs for 3600 blokes, including the boss. That's a sad indictment of the view from the top. I've never seen PT as anything more than a necessary evil, I'm 6'2 and 200lbs. I hate running with a passion. But even a weekly kickabout, or basketball gets the heart pumping.

In the military, as in all walks of life, there is a skills mix required. The "small-man-syndrome" PTI who can't spell PTI, but is fit as a butcher's dog is as needed as the 300lb techie who fathered a radio set, thus knows exactly whats wrong with it. As long as the PTI lets the radio tech get on with it, and the techie lets the PTI get on with it, we can all go to war and win.

There are no fat WAAFs anyway. They all wear stockings, and as such are forgiven weight sins :)

buoy15

22nd Dec 2006, 02:19

At St Athan (School of PT) in the early 60's I was told the measure of fitness was recovery rate - if you run 100 yds your heart rate should reach about 124 BPM (once a day, this is beneficial according to the experts) - however, the time taken to stabilise back to 60-72 BPM is more important, and is a true measure of your fitness - the lower the better!
Stamina is very different - it's the ability and will to keep going when you feel shagged, and is developed by lifestyle - diet, exercise, determination and aspirations, plus the need to win and succeed
Ranulph Fiennes had a couple of failures in the Antarctic - but later, went on to run 7 marathons in 7 countries in 7 days after a major heart operation
He was lucky though - he didn't have a PTI with a bleep meter shouting "Go for it, give it 10"
Merry Christmas
B15

musclemech

22nd Dec 2006, 08:30

Lots of stuff on here - good and bad and the usual knife-fight in a 'phone box between the fittys and the fattys over RAF fitness standards.
However, I strongly believe that if the RAF is serious over fitness levels it has to support the policies with resources. When the OFT was first brought up I was on a tactical, deployable unit and therefore felt that it was something that we should do, and do well. To that end we requested assistance from the gym in organising PT sessions for the squadron 3 times a week (1 hr each). What we really needed was assistance in setting up a proper training schedule/regime that wouldn't degenerate into a game of football 3 times a week once the initial flush of enthusiasm had died out.
What we got was a blank look followed by a sucking of teeth and a sorry tale that they didn't have enough PTIs (6 on a station of 3600, including the PEdO):ugh: . The result was that we 'organised' the runs, cross-country and weights, but had little idea whether we were achieving anything (constructive towards the OFT), or leaving ourselves wide open to claims should someone keel over clutching their chest :eek:
Personnel have a responsibility for their fitness, true, but so too do the 'management’. The gyms are there, sometimes with staff, but the opportunity to get to it is often limited and where personnel have the choice between being with family or in the gym don't be surprised when the former takes precedence.
As for the 3 strikes and you're out - I totally agree and tried to dispose of 2 such individuals. Unfortunately, whilst the spin sounded tough it folded like a paper tent in a rainstorm when the 'test' button was pressed. To the best of my knowledge both individuals remain in the RAF, unfit, and with little likelihood of being thrown out. Top-tip, don't make sweeping announcements unless you've sorted out the paperwork beforehand - it totally undermines your command chain and inculcates contempt for military discipline. :ugh:
I don't know what the commitments of your PEd staff are but it seems a bit of a poor show that they couldn't offer 3 x 1 hour sessions with a staff of 7. However, I did with the deployable unit at my unit and it vey quickly died a death as everything else always seemed to take priority :ugh: . What was interesting was that the flt cdrs and senior SNCOs were often those who had pressing engangements elsewhere. It didn't take the rest long to work that out, and before you knew it, it was all over... So I don't think that it is necessarily the resources that is at fault; rather, the responsibility lies with the hierarchy of each section/ sqn/ wg etc.

And with the individuals themselves. I don't see huge demands for time in lieu of beer calls which often run after hours!!!

It will be interesting to see whether there there is a change with the advent of the PTL where individuals from your section can take the PT, and not the w*nker PTI. At least it will make the fatties have to come up with another excuse as the 'I hate PTIs' one won't be valid anymore' :D

MM

formertonkaplum

22nd Dec 2006, 08:57

L1A2 discharged

22nd Dec 2006, 11:44

Allegedly the test is 'gender fair neutral' Corrected late in the day ... sorry peeps.. The physiology of blokes is designed to hunt, chase, catch and kill. The phyiology for blokesses is to bear children - they don't need to run, chase hunt etc as the blokes do that bit. Until the human race evolves a bit more thats how it is. Those who have completed gender re-assignment treatment will have either an advantage or disadvantage depending which operation they had.
Not only that its unbalanced but its going to be twice a year - no train and forget it in the future.

Corrected to read 'Gender Fair' as indocated by posts after my original input.

Maybe we could have 'down days' for fitness - but the SEngOs would want all the jets S before releasing engineers for fitness.

formertonkaplum

22nd Dec 2006, 13:50

Maybe we could have 'down days' for fitness - but the SEngOs would want all the jets S before releasing engineers for fitness.

Exactly !! :D

Pontius Navigator

22nd Dec 2006, 14:18

googling for something else I found this link; well worth a read:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdfence/63/63we148.htm

ProfessionalStudent

22nd Dec 2006, 15:06

I know a couple of RAF sqns that have compulsory PT and while a lot of people bitch like mad, there is often no better motivation than to look a complete wheezemeister in front of your mates.

Like a lot of things (including the introduction of the RAFFT itself), group PT would take a culture change across the station in order to be accepted, but accepted it would be. If a percentage of the unit were to partake first thing in the morning, after a while the station would adapt. It's very easy to say "it won't work", but everyone would have to MAKE it work. The Army manages it (even those based on an RAF unit such as Odiham), so why couldn't we?

BEagle

22nd Dec 2006, 15:12

Those'll be the 9-to-5 sqns, I suppose?

Personally, I thought that the biggest danger to one's well-being in the ME world came from sleep pattern disturbance and long hours with multiple time zone changes causing cumulative fatigue..... Going from working to 2300 report time, fly through the night to Gander and/or Dulles, min ground time, then back again was a lot more knackering than being chased around the gym by some whistle blowing kid in a tracksuit.

Same went for night tanker QRA; pager goes at 0-dark-00, check with Ops, in to work asap then up to 12 hours of Bear chasing.

It was a much happier place back when no-one bothered with the levels of niff-naff and triv which existed when I pulled the B&Y!

ProfessionalStudent

22nd Dec 2006, 15:41

BEags

The vast majority of staff at the vast majority of bases are 8-ish to 5-ish, so why not? Those sqns/sections on base that did not fit into this "majority" would then be able to fulfil their commitments at times to suit them. The FJ/RW crews (and just a few of the ME types) should find the thought of being captured and having their nuts put through a mangle sufficient motivation to keep fit (with respect, a large ME accident would have few survivors...?).

Even when I joined a mere 14 years ago, complulsory PT would have been anathema to us RAF types, but I think that even in that short time the fitness levels of entrees into the RAF have been slipping iaw the proliferation of modern games consoles and the anti-competitive nature of sport in schools. Add to that the fact that there is less opportunity for those already serving to take part in recreational sporting activities due to operational pressures and we end up as a fat and wheezy service. On joint operations, I have been staggered by the marked difference in attitude towards exercise taken by the Army and the Navy compared to the RAF. In the RAF there still seems to be more people willing to sneer at a "jock-strapper" than someone who does not frequent the gym.

We are a nation of steadily increasing girth and that is reflected in the services. I have seen personnel unable to carry their deployment kit any distance due to being unfit and/or having a LMF. I am not a weights monkey, a muscle technician or a gym queen. I'm just a normal bloke (and not all that fit) who despairs at the state of some of the people that wear the same uniform as me and go to war with me. Being fat and unfit just isn't bloody military.

Exrigger

22nd Dec 2006, 15:44

A new OC Eng Wg at Gutersloh decided that all Eng Wing personnel would turn up on the taxi way once a week (might have been month, senile moment) to run up and down for exercise. On the day he and his faithfull followers turned up and waited, the aircraft flew, got serviced and they decided that it might be a good idea to get out of the way, the idea was never raised again. Just prior to going to the 91 gulf war we had an ex Army officer posted in as our JENGO his words were 'I joined the Army to go to war, never did, moved to the RAF and now I am. He also said that a Sqd that trained together would fight together, so he arranged weekly PT sessions, the PTI was actually very good and made the sessions 'user friendly' the culmination of this was the mile run and if you failed it you continued the gym rouitnes untill you did. Funny though the only people that went during the lunch break were Sgts and below, the rest had to much work. But it was fun watching them fail the run, unfortunately they did not have to re-train and re-do the run.

Jobza Guddun

22nd Dec 2006, 16:33

Musclemech posted: "What was interesting was that the flt cdrs and senior SNCOs were often those who had pressing engangements elsewhere."

Given the amount of meetings that my lot seem to have to go to these days, I can actually understand that, but I catch your insinuation....:=

In my recent experience, the Heat Acclim Trg was a washout for the sqn guys, I recall us all being yanked out of the gym on 2 occasions due to there not being enough greens on the board. Chap doing the yanking was the Wg Cdr, by way of the Rects Controller. The other sqns in our glorious new Wing had similar experiences, and non of them did more than 2 weeks. This is the type of thing we're up against MM.

Plenty of people I know are up for 3-times-a-week PT. What we're not up for is the inevitable extra time on the night shift to make up for what wasn't done, or what can't be done in the morning, by the day shift.

In short, the ethos of the entire RAF, not just stations, is going to have to change if we want to get the masses fitter. As the ethos is NOT going to change, we'll just drift along and argue about the same things year in year out. :ugh:

Meanwhile I'll just carry on playing football until I'm past it.

Jobza

dwhcomputers

22nd Dec 2006, 16:44

As someone who has been out of the RAF for quite a while now this fitness training does not affect me but it seems to me that the lessons learnt during the Falklands War in 1982 have long been forgotten. Read any book written about the war and you will find that the first people to fail were the super slim fit ones. They had insufficient reserves of body fat to cope with the cold and long hours without food. Not being around for either of the Gulf Wars but having served in the Middle and Far East when we had Overseas Tours it was always the slim fit ones that started to suffer with heat exhaustion first. Lets see how the PTIs cope with jacking up a Vulcan or Victor for a wheel change at Dubai at midday. On a detachment all mucked in including the overwieght unfit SNCOs(Sorry you dont have such big aircraft nowadays) Try them on a Herc in the desert

musclemech

22nd Dec 2006, 17:43

Whilst I can probably imagine some of the referred too SNCO's and Management were utilising excuses available, you should also consider that maybe some did have other places to be. Flying Squadrons do require a certain level of senior presence in order to function legally. (EG More supervision than a medicine ball needs!!)
I suggest you spend some time, following around engineers on a busy squadron and view for yourself, the work required to make even the most modern of airships airworthy. Then, from behind your blinkered veil there maybe a glimmer of knowledge about what the F*ck you preach.
As for the comment about beer calls.... yes people do need time to socialise and unwind; it is essential. Are you saying you want us to hold beer calls in the gym? Get a life.... The beer call is invariably in our own time anyway but that’s fair enough as we are not formally required to drink to specific levels. We are required to have fitness at specific levels and so should be given time, 'with or without the 21yr old Cpl attempting humour' to train and maintain our levels.
Colourful language from someone who admonished Toddbabe for similar earlier in the thread...

Like I said earlier, I have been around long enough to know many engineers on busy squadrons, and some of my family are engineers. And I have found over many years that those who want to, of all ranks, seem to be able to find the time to keep themselves fit, even if it means sometimes doing it outside of normal working hours. Several others have added their comments to this thread as well. And still those who can't be bothered or are too lazy to keep themselves fit keep on coming out with the same old excuses....

Oh yeah, of course I meant come and have your beer calls in the gym. What great idea that would be ::rolleyes: ugh: :ugh: :ugh: The fact that beer calls are invariably in your own time was exactly my point: you don't seem to be complaining about doing that use of your own time.... Instead of everything revolving round getting p*ssed, why not 'socialise and unwind' with a game of football or volleyball? At least that has the added benefit of being good for the health.

My eyes are well and truly open: you're not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to change mine. The only sad thing is that I suspect that your attitude will percolate down to your staff and will then be perpetuated for another generation....

MM

Milt

23rd Dec 2006, 03:33

Obese WAAFs

The secondary secret reqirement is to provide for readily moveable ballast for adjusting the cg on the heavies!!

trap one

23rd Dec 2006, 06:29

Whilst some time within work and some dedication of personal time would be a happy medium for a balanced fitness level that IMHO shoul;d be gender neutral. I MUST say that all the FIT chap/chapesses seemed to be the ones Dying/breaking legs going sick with stress fractures and otherwise being off. The fat knackers always seemed to be the ones pitching up on time and doing the 24 hr shifts. That involved working the full time not as inferred by MM.
As an ex member of the RAF I was able to pass the bleep test but unable to pass the bike test as my slightly high blood pressure (not deemed to need treatment by the Doc's) left me a failure as deemed by the PTI.

Vage Rot

23rd Dec 2006, 10:08

BEags
The vast majority of staff at the vast majority of bases are 8-ish to 5-ish, so why not? Those sqns/sections on base that did not fit into this "majority" would then be able to fulfil their commitments at times to suit them.

.......and that's the problem with the whole situation, policy is made by people who think we are still a stay-at-home RAF. We are not.

I'm not saying don't keep fit - we all should. However, and it's a big however, why is there a difference in requirement between men and women?

I use a local gym as I live miles away from the Station, the Instructors there say that, apart from fat distribution, there is little difference between male and female if they both train and eat the same. As we all have to do the same job, it is not acceptable that a woman has to prove a lower level of fitness than a man to get the same job. My advice to any male recruit that failed his selection on fitness would be to sue on the gounds of discrimination.

musclemech

23rd Dec 2006, 14:13

.......and that's the problem with the whole situation, policy is made by people who think we are still a stay-at-home RAF. We are not.
I'm not saying don't keep fit - we all should. However, and it's a big however, why is there a difference in requirement between men and women?
I use a local gym as I live miles away from the Station, the Instructors there say that, apart from fat distribution, there is little difference between male and female if they both train and eat the same. As we all have to do the same job, it is not acceptable that a woman has to prove a lower level of fitness than a man to get the same job. My advice to any male recruit that failed his selection on fitness would be to sue on the gounds of discrimination.
I don't want to disagree with your gym staff, but what they say is just not true. There is well documented research to show that women have a lower aerobic capacity than men. I mentioned 10% earlier in the thread, but having checked, my ex physiology textbook reports 15-30% difference (or higher depnding on how you express it).

Aerobic capacity is a measure of how well you can extract oxygen from the inspired air, transport it to the working muscles, and then use it in the working muscles. Obviously this only works if you compare like for like ie unfit man cw unfit woman/ fit man cw fit woman, but:

Women have smaller lungs so they will inspire less, and extract less oxygen from it. [Probably] Because they don't have as much testosterone as men, they have lower levels of haemoglobin (which is what transports most of the oxygen in the blood). [Again, possibly because of lower testosterone and higher oestrogen levels] women have smaller muscle mass to use the oxygen and perform the work, and higher fat levels which increases weight without giving any benefit to aerobic capacity. Their smaller muscle mass will also make it more difficult to actually move their body through the air. Plus when you are talking about a running test to measure aerobic capacity, women's bodies are evolved for childbirth in that they have wider hips which leads to knock-knees and flatter feet, all of which just aren't biomechanically suited to running. So they just don't have the machinery to be as fit as men.

You should also consider the socialisation of females (tree hugging alert) in that boys are encouraged from an early age to go out and run around and be active. Girls are not. In adolescence the differences are even more marked. Only about 20% of the general population exercise regularly: in women this is reported to be around 5% This is just a very short summary of this. I could go on... but in essence girls are not encouraged to build up their fitness in the same way boys are.

The RAFFT is designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly and reach a certain level of fitness in relation to their capacity (if you like, a percentage of their potential maximum). As women have a lower maximum potential, it makes sense that women have to achieve lower scores than males. For example, 60% of 40 is lower tha 60% of 50 (average figures for females and males respectively from my textbook). Because it does so, the test is known as a gender fair test.

If the test were designed to ensure that everyone could carry out a certain task (I believe that the Fire Service use some of these, such as rolling up hoses, and lifting ladders onto vehicles and carrying dummy's up ladders, but I'm not certain), then the test can insist that everyone, regardless of gender and/ or age, has to reach the samme standard. But the RAFFT isn't designed to test your fitness to undertake a task. Rather, it is designed to encourage you to exercise regularly, and in doing so reach a certain percetage of your potential aerobic capacity.

Hope that explains (what was actually the original question!!!)
MM

formertonkaplum

23rd Dec 2006, 16:08

So, if it is designed not to actually test but encourage........

Why are the levels going up.. AGAIN ?

ZH875

23rd Dec 2006, 16:23

What is the purpose of 'Best Effort'?. Why continue past what is needed to achieve a pass?. Do you get more pay, less guard duties, a day off - No, so there is no incentive to better the pass mark?.

Years ago, it was mandatory to STOP when you had reached the requisite level, just in case you had a medical problem etc.

What would happen now, if a person suffered a heart attack (or slipped on the shiny gum floor) whilst running well above the pass mark, would MOD be liable, as they let him continue, when they have a duty of care etc etc.

The RAFFT is designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly
As far as I am aware, the RAFFT is solely designed to :mad: most people off once a year, passing it or failing it has never affected the way I do my job, or the way those around me do theirs, just a justification to have PT (can't really use the I, as they very rarely instruct anyone) staff poncing about trying to impress the girlies.:)

Olly O'Leg

23rd Dec 2006, 16:33

Oh, we'll be doing it in boots with CS95 next........ :{

handysnaks

23rd Dec 2006, 16:46

So, if it is designed not to actually test but encourage........

Why are the levels going up.. AGAIN ?

...to encourage you more:E

AC Ovee

23rd Dec 2006, 17:10

So, let me get this right. The principle of the test is to see if someone is above a level of fitness in relation to their potential max ability in the areas that are tested (running, press-ups and sit-ups). This principle is confirmed by the existance of varying acceptable levels of achievement, depending on age and sex. It is not job-related, so it has no relevance to what we each do in our daily lives. Due to the foregoing facts, it is not sex-discriminatory, either.

Given all the above, which summarises most messages here, it has to be illegal for any employer (incl the RAF) to use it as a personnel management tool, methinks. This is despite the fact that it is desirable to keep fit. Encouragement is one thing, testing is another. Maybe this is why no-one, yet, has been discharged solely faling to come up to the mark, even after continuous remedial traing, etc.

musclemech

23rd Dec 2006, 18:13

FTP, ZH
The levels have gone up because people were able to pass the test without having to exercise regularly, therefore actually defeating the whole object of the test.
You also have to remember that when it was introduced, an annual test of fitness was a massive step away from what had gone before, that there was a huge worry that someone would have a heart attack if they were pushed too hard. Therefore, pass marks were probably set at a lower level than they could have been. (IIRC the AFB wanted everything to be much harder but were persuaded otherwise by the PEd Branch and the Medics). It's been in long enough now that everyone should (in theory) have been exercising for some time, so standards could be raised to more appropriate levels (in stages, which explains two increases).
The 'Best Efforts' was brought in because people wanted to be able to see how fit they were. Again, now that there was lower risk of people keeling over with a heart attack, it was felt that this could be allowed. You can still stop at the required pass level if you want to. You don't have to go further, but you can if you want to.
AC O
If we just advertised the benefits that one can get from exercising regularly no one would change their behaviours. The RAFFT is designed provide an incentive to exercise - ie if you do, you will be able to pass the tests. The hope is that once an individual begins to exercise and finds out how good it feels to be fit, they will carry on exercising because they want to, not because they have. And in some/ many cases it has worked: in others (obviously including some on these fora ;) ), it may not.
No one could be discharged for failing to meet the level required - or if they were they would likely sue the MOD and win, as previously discussed. The only sanctions now in place are for poor attitude and not physically undertaking the remedial package, rather than for failing to meet the standard.
MM

LFFC

23rd Dec 2006, 20:34

The RAFFT is designed provide an incentive to exercise -
MM

As I pointed out before, the RAFFT may have been designed as an "incentive", but with all your talk about "sanctions", it appears to be more of a threat!

A proper incentive to exercise would be time away from primary duties in order to do it. Or even better, recognition for achieving high levels of fitness, but sadly I can't see that happening.

MM, I really can sympathise with where you're coming from. I like to keep myself pretty fit and got great satisfaction from the last marathon I ran; the training for it was great fun, but it took a hell of a lot of my spare time (that I was very fortunate to have). However, remember the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

PS.

I note your new position with interest:
No one could be discharged for failing to meet the level required - or if they were they would likely sue the MOD and win...

Please remember the goverment's diversity policy. We come in all shapes and sizes and we all bring our own particular skills and qualities. Be very careful; if someone can do their primary task regardless of their level of fitness, then why should they be penalised?

musclemech

24th Dec 2006, 08:36

As I pointed out before, the RAFFT may have been designed as an "incentive", but with all your talk about "sanctions", it appears to be more of a threat!
A proper incentive to exercise would be time away from primary duties in order to do it. Or even better, recognition for achieving high levels of fitness, but sadly I can't see that happening.
MM, I really can sympathise with where you're coming from. I like to keep myself pretty fit and got great satisfaction from the last marathon I ran; the training for it was great fun, but it took a hell of a lot of my spare time (that I was very fortunate to have). However, remember the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
PS.
I note your new position with interest:
Please remember the goverment's diversity policy. We come in all shapes and sizes and we all bring our own particular skills and qualities. Be very careful; if someone can do their primary task regardless of their level of fitness, then why should they be penalised?

There was actually some talk about financial rewards for reaching 'excellent' grades, but I haven't heard of it coming to anything.

I didn't think I had a new position: It's just a fact that if anyone were discaharged for failing the RAFFT they could successfully sue the MOD, which is why the focus of sanctions is on attitude and actually carrying out the remedial package rather than on passing the test.

I completely agree that we all have our own skills and qualities, but remember the RAFFT has nothing to do with how well one carries out one's primary task. Regular exercise has huge benefits to the health of an individual (and some to the employer), which is why the RAF is trying to encourage its workforce to do so. Some people just need a bit more of a prod to get them started....

BTW, congrats on completing the marathon. Much respect :D .

MM

Biggus

24th Dec 2006, 11:33

Why exactly again is the RAF 'encouraging' it's employee's to become fitter - huge benefits to the employee, or the employer......?

The government has made much lately of the need to tackle obesity (which incidently I agree with) - but what is their arguement for doing so? Is it on the basis that the government 'cares' about the well being of it's population? NO!!! It is on the basis of the predicted cost to the NHS - which the government is worried about being able to afford!! While I agree this may be part of the equation - it says much about the governments priorities.

In the same way I have my doubts about the RAF being concerned about passing on 'huge benefits' to myself. The RAF doesn't seem to worry about giving me the 'benefit' of an aircraft armed with suitable defensive aids when flying me into war zones, just to quote one example. I suspect the RAFs approach to fitness is driven by the benefit to the employer rather than the employee - that and the need to show the Army that we make some attempt to stay fit.

By the way, whilst not a fitness 'nutter', I go to the gym more than once a year for my fitness test. I attempt to keep fit, for the health benefits it brings - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE, NOT THE RESULT OF MY 'EMPLOYERS' POLICIES. I only state this so you don't lump me into the wrong 'camp' in this ongoing thread debate.

zedder

24th Dec 2006, 13:27

"Regular exercise has huge benefits to the health of an individual"

In 20yrs+ in the Military I know of 5 people that have died in the Gym in their efforts to 'keep fit'. Have never heard of anyone that has died in the Bar though!

Anyone fancy a pint?;)

handysnaks

24th Dec 2006, 13:35

In 20yrs+ in the Military I know of 5 people that have died in the Gym in their efforts to 'keep fit'. Have never heard of anyone that has died in the Bar though!

Well have a chat with the FAA. I recall a couple of blokes who 'checked out' on a winter tour at Bardufoss during the 80's :yuk:

musclemech

24th Dec 2006, 19:36

Why exactly again is the RAF 'encouraging' it's employee's to become fitter - huge benefits to the employee, or the employer......?
The government has made much lately of the need to tackle obesity (which incidently I agree with) - but what is their arguement for doing so? Is it on the basis that the government 'cares' about the well being of it's population? NO!!! It is on the basis of the predicted cost to the NHS - which the government is worried about being able to afford!! While I agree this may be part of the equation - it says much about the governments priorities.
In the same way I have my doubts about the RAF being concerned about passing on 'huge benefits' to myself. The RAF doesn't seem to worry about giving me the 'benefit' of an aircraft armed with suitable defensive aids when flying me into war zones, just to quote one example. I suspect the RAFs approach to fitness is driven by the benefit to the employer rather than the employee - that and the need to show the Army that we make some attempt to stay fit.
By the way, whilst not a fitness 'nutter', I go to the gym more than once a year for my fitness test. I attempt to keep fit, for the health benefits it brings - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE, NOT THE RESULT OF MY 'EMPLOYERS' POLICIES. I only state this so you don't lump me into the wrong 'camp' in this ongoing thread debate.

Biggus

I can assure you, as I was around at its inception, the RAFFT was designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly because of the potential health related benefits to the individual. I only mentioned the benefits to the RAF as some of the benefits of regular exercise include less time off sick and greater productivity, which, in theory, are of benefit to the employer.

MM

ZH875

24th Dec 2006, 20:53

Biggus

I can assure you, as I was around at its inception, the RAFFT was designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly because of the potential health related benefits to the individual. I only mentioned the benefits to the RAF as some of the benefits of regular exercise include less time off sick and greater productivity, which, in theory, are of benefit to the employer.

MM
So in my 30 years, never having a day off sick, having failed to pass the RAFFT for the last 8 years, I have always been at work, whilst the 'fit' people have time off due to injuries gained whilst participating in sport, let alone, them having time off to represent the station at underwater basket weaving etc, I would suggest that due to my 'unfitness' I am actually MORE productive than the sporty types. And yes, I have been deployed in that period.

I wonder what percentage of PTIs can fix aircraft, more or less than Techies who pass their :mad: 'fitness' test.

RAFFT is little more than an excuse to keep PTIs in a job.

musclemech

25th Dec 2006, 00:12

So in my 30 years, never having a day off sick, having failed to pass the RAFFT for the last 8 years, I have always been at work, whilst the 'fit' people have time off due to injuries gained whilst participating in sport, let alone, them having time off to represent the station at underwater basket weaving etc, I would suggest that due to my 'unfitness' I am actually MORE productive than the sporty types. And yes, I have been deployed in that period.

I wonder what percentage of PTIs can fix aircraft, more or less than Techies who pass their :mad: 'fitness' test.

RAFFT is little more than an excuse to keep PTIs in a job.

I'm sorry ZH but that post doesn't even warrant a response....

Maple 01

25th Dec 2006, 13:20

I'm sorry ZH but that post doesn't even warrant a response....

Or in other words you can't refute any of his points so you chose to ignore them, well, nice to see the same style of senior management that has been bu@@ering up the real Air Force has infected the insulated world of the PTI:ugh: :ugh:

Again, what is your war role? Most of us actually have/had one and have performed it well regardless of the RAF FT, therefore it is an irrelevance

PTIs in direct support of air ops? I don't think so - bin them

Tourist

25th Dec 2006, 18:17

The pass level of the fitness tests is so laughably low, even after the pass bar raise that I truly consider anybody complaining to be an embarassment to the military with no personal standards whatsoever.

Stop whingeing fatknackers!

dallas

25th Dec 2006, 18:35

PTIs in direct support of air ops? I don't think so - bin them

Notwithstanding the reason for the RAFFT, argument over suitable levels for age/gender and the commitment or otherwise of the Service to fitness, Maple has asked the question I always ask about PTIs - why bother having them in uniform? The market is full of fitness instructors who would do it for a lot less - ie. no pensions to pay - and they'd contribute just as much to the war effort. Currently I estimate their contribution to be roughly zero.

Wrathmonk

25th Dec 2006, 19:58

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but don't the army take regular soldiers etc (who admitedly are keen/good at fitness/sport), "train" them as PTIs and then return them to front-line service and effectively be PTIs as a secondary duty? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

On my last sqn we looked at trying to get a couple of our groundcrew trained in providing fitness classes etc (on the HAS site so we didn't all have to troop to the gym - a lengthy trip when your the wrong side of the airfield or when PTI support was unavaialbale (end of a night shift)) but the opposition we got from certain areas, well known for wearing singlets, was incredible. Before you ask they had to be "formally" trained to comply with H&S and insurance regulations!

L1A2 discharged

25th Dec 2006, 20:32

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but don't the army take regular soldiers etc (who admitedly are keen/good at fitness/sport), "train" them as PTIs and then return them to front-line service and effectively be PTIs as a secondary duty? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

Thats (allegedly) the planned way ahead :D , civilian 'leisure centre' management of facilities. Formally trained section 'pt reps', extra duties to main trade so maybe 2 or 3 on a shift to do fitness test prep.

Specialist quals for pji (why do the RAF still do that??:E ), exped leaders and remedial phys ed.

ZH875

25th Dec 2006, 21:00

Formally trained section 'pt reps', extra duties to main trade so maybe 2 or 3 on a shift to do fitness test prep

And just how will they ensure that sections have a 'pt rep', and what happens when SEngO decides that servicing aircraft take priority over PT. Perhaps the secret wiltshire airbase will get 2 or 3 more riggers, so that they can fix, role change aircraft and still get a man on pt.

No I can't see that happening.

Maybe if they took the posing mirror out of the fitness suites, the fatties might just turn up.

No I can't see that happening either, what will the vest wearing adonises known as PTI's pose into then.....

musclemech

26th Dec 2006, 15:54

Or in other words you can't refute any of his points so you chose to ignore them, well, nice to see the same style of senior management that has been bu@@ering up the real Air Force has infected the insulated world of the PTI:ugh: :ugh:
Again, what is your war role? Most of us actually have/had one and have performed it well regardless of the RAF FT, therefore it is an irrelevance
PTIs in direct support of air ops? I don't think so - bin them

Not at all. I had just come in from the pub on Christmas Eve and thought the points he made and the questions he asked were just digs at the PEd branch. Perhaps I should have ignored it but I had had a bit too much of the amber nectar and so I was simply making the point that I wasn't going to get into that sort of slagging off trades discussion.

And once again, the RAFFT is nothing to do with how well or otherwise you can perform your war role.

On that subject, I don't know what my war role is - but I know PTIs are out on OOA dets as we speak. When GW I was going on, I was trained as a rehab therapist and then later helped rehab guys who had been injured during operations. Despite all of the questions regarding why PTIs exist, someone high up seems to think they are a good idea, otherwise I would be out of a job. In the past 20 years or so, while the RAF has cut to a third its size, the PEd Branch has actually slightly increased in size. Plus, although obvioulsy my sample pool is a bit biased, but there have been plenty of people who have come into my gyms over the years and praised PTIs and what we do.

On the subject of PT reps, the Physical Training Leader qualification is now available. PTLs will be like the Army Assistant PTIs (AKIs) Wrathmonk alluded to, but (as far as I know) there are no plans to have the civilian leisure centre managers L1A2 mentioned. BTW Wrathmonk, I am surprised that in this day and age you were amazed that the people you wanted to take PT sessions for you had to be formally trained. But you will be pleased to know that it was requests from people like you that prompted the development of the PTL.

ZH, I am not saying that PT should come ahead of aircraft servicing, or any other primary task that a section might have. But it's very interesting that when a Boss who likes fitness comes into a section that has previously been 'too busy', the section suddenly seems to have time...

MM

Jobza Guddun

26th Dec 2006, 16:08

ZH, I am not saying that PT should come ahead of aircraft servicing, or any other primary task that a section might have. But it's very interesting that when a Boss who likes fitness comes into a section that has previously been 'too busy', the section suddenly seems to have time...
MM[/QUOTE]

Got some experience of this and, as I alluded to earlier, we paid for it on the night shift. :ugh: Thank you Wg Cdr -----------. Therein lies the problem.

FFS let's do it properly or not at all.

Vage Rot

27th Dec 2006, 10:14

I mentioned 10% earlier in the thread, but having checked, my ex physiology textbook reports 15-30% difference (or higher depnding on how you express it).
If that is the case then surely the female level should be closer to the male level? Even at 30% it cannot simply be men at level 10, women at level 7 as the hiher the level the more shuttles you run, so 30% off 10:5 must be around 8:7 - a rough guess.
Aerobic capacity is a measure of how well you can extract oxygen from the inspired air, transport it to the working muscles, and then use it in the working muscles. Obviously this only works if you compare like for like ie unfit man cw unfit woman/ fit man cw fit woman, but:
Women have smaller lungs so they will inspire less, and extract less oxygen from it.
And smaller muscles, with a smaller frame that require less oxygen! Quid Pro Quo, the same! (work = ass times distance moved, ooops - Freudian slip!)
and higher fat levels which increases weight without giving any benefit to aerobic capacity. Their smaller muscle mass will also make it more difficult to actually move their body through the air.
Have to agree with this based on some of the WAAF/WRAF that I've seen about!
Plus when you are talking about a running test to measure aerobic capacity, women's bodies are evolved for childbirth in that they have wider hips which leads to knock-knees and flatter feet, all of which just aren't biomechanically suited to running.
So why do we let them fight on equal terms?
but in essence girls are not encouraged to build up their fitness in the same way boys are.
-they would be encouraged more if their fitness test was more demanding.
The RAFFT is designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly and reach a certain level of fitness in relation to their capacity (if you like, a percentage of their potential maximum). As women have a lower maximum potential, it makes sense that women have to achieve lower scores than males.
A cripple could complete the ladies test to a satisfactory standard!
Hope that explains (what was actually the original question!!!)
MM
Cheers - it did - but still wasn't a satisfactory answer!
Like I said - we all need to be fit, not arguing that one, but my grandmother could do the ladies test ...........and she's dead!:ugh:

wannabe87

23rd Nov 2008, 18:26

Putting the scientific/genetic differences between genders to one side, I wouldn't or couldn't care less if the expected levels of fitness were the same for females... In fact I think I would prefer it if they were the same- then we there would be no need for threads like this! :p

brit bus driver

23rd Nov 2008, 21:18

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the 'What is the Role of the Air Engineer' one?:}

Airborne Aircrew

24th Nov 2008, 14:10

Magic... someone dragged up a two year old thread about fitness in the RAF...

Do we get to insult all the fat, lady boys again? :}

Charlie Luncher

24th Nov 2008, 20:41

Vage
Now you have retired from the frontline of moa I thought a slower WAAF would be easier to catch in your slippers, hope they are tartan:eek:. I am trying to ensure the RAAF's summer pinny for the girls is only available in size 12 and below:uhoh: much to the disgust of a few air engineers:=
Keep safe
Charlie sends
from the land of Kylie

Pontius Navigator

24th Nov 2008, 21:35

Charlie, what bait are you using? That sprat you just landed died 2 years ago.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

25th Nov 2008, 21:39

I suspect WAAFs have a fair way to go yet;

http://usera.imagecave.com/Aljames2/3015802494_7930c04819_b.jpg

FATTER GATOR

27th Nov 2008, 06:22

Christ on a bike mate. I'm having breakfast.

mad_jock

27th Nov 2008, 08:07

Is that ginger lad looking at her bum?

GolfSierra

27th Nov 2008, 08:37

Is that ginger lad looking at her bum? Not intentionally, it is down to gravity.

brakedwell

27th Nov 2008, 09:37

Is that ginger lad looking at her bum?

I bet her bum is looking at the ginger lad!

unclenelli

18th Dec 2008, 22:06

I have recently failed the RAFFT due mainly to a 4yr sedentary job away from home.
On posting, I ramped up my physical training, as I now had the time for it (all out of hours), rather than spending 10+hrs a week sat in my driving seat.

I passed 1 discipline at better than EXCELLENT (Dark Blue) for a 17-y-o, but because I MARGINALLY (Yellow) failed the other 2 disciplines for a 35-y-o, I am deemed a failure.

Before being put on remedial, I was given "Lifestyle Counselling", which was a waste of time: I was never asked about my lifestyle, smoking, drinking, diet, exercise etc. It was merely a chance to sign my career away if I didn't attend the compulsary PT!
So I started remedial training, but binned that after 2 weeks as I'm OOA.
What hope is there for anyone who really doesn't care about their fitness. I'll have climbed Everest by the time I return from OOA