View Full Version : RAF Fitness Test - Soon to be twice a year!
toddbabe
7th Aug 2007, 09:12
I am clearly pissing into wind here and will never change the minds of the dinosaurs amongst you!
It is no wonder the Country and and the Airforce is in such a state with attitudes towards change like yours!
ZH I am quite sure that whenever you joined you did a lot of Phys, testing or not! and why do you need to go fifty miles to the Gym? the pavement is free and you get issued a lovely shiney pair of running trainers by the ever so helpful stackers!!!!
I am clearly pissing into wind here and will never change the minds of the dinosaurs amongst you!
Correct!
why do you need to go fifty miles to the Gym? the pavement is free and you get issued a lovely shiney pair or running trainers by the ever so helpfull stackers!!!!
Specialist equipment is required due to the previous injury, so if I ran on the pavement, I would be guilty of 'self-inflicted injury', so the gym is the only option.
Regarding the trainers, whatever happened to the service issue PT kit, blue and white tops with knee length blue shorts, why did they stop issuing this kit, if they want dinosaurs to exercise, then they should provide ALL the kit, not just bits of it.
toddbabe
7th Aug 2007, 10:03
They do provide all of it! just go to stores and ask for pt shorts, and they already have given you the pt shirts (Green issue T shirt is pt kit)
If you are unable to run outside then surely you are unable to run the fitness test? and are presumably exempt through downgrading.
Chicken Leg
7th Aug 2007, 10:22
Specialist equipment is required due to the previous injury, so if I ran on the pavement, I would be guilty of 'self-inflicted injury', so the gym is the only option.
These excuses get better!
I failed in '97, '98, '99, '00, '01, '02, '03, '05, and '06, but I would have loved for them to 'throw me out' as they caused the injury in the first place.
If you had an injury, you should have been medically down graded and therefore not required to attend the fitness test. If you have been required to do the test for the last 10 years, maybe your 'injury' has not been recognised as such by the medical staff.
Isn't it funny how people never fail fitness tests because they are fat or unfit. It's always due to an 'injury'.
I thank my lucky stars that I don't have the missfortune to command too many people like you. Clive Woodward, in his Autobiography, referred to the likes of you as energy/moral sappers. You infect the people around you with your bleating and moaning and in his opinion, it wouldn't matter how good you are at you primary job (in his example, playing rugby), your overall contribution to the team is negative and therefore damaging. He used to discard them without remorse.....................
fawkes
7th Aug 2007, 10:43
"Morale sappers" possibly: what depresses me is the sanctimonious boll@cks spouted by folk who think that physical fitness is a substitute for professionalism or literacy. Not all fatties are idle. Not all fitties are worth their (increased) oxygen uptake. Morale is a fascinating and delicate plant to cultivate: it is what PTIs should be for, rather than fitness testing.
It strikes me that the posts of the "moaners" (as you inaccurately term those who disagree with you) are almost universally articulate, to the point and well punctuated. Those speaking for the fitties, by contrast, are splenetic, rambling and border on illiteracy. I wonder if there is a correlation?
Chicken Leg
7th Aug 2007, 11:05
fawkes,
I apologise. Missing the 'e' from the end of one word amongst what, 100, obviously detracted completely from the point of the post. Must be down to the fact that I recognise the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. (Note - I have never said that I am slave to such a lifestyle or even abide by it as often as perhaps I should. I do however recognise the benefits of staying active).
Anyway, enough. You win. :ugh:
Chicken Leg, please remember that in the recent past, there was no requirement to actually pass the fitness test, all that was required was to take part. The injury is well documented in my records by the way, but as it did not keep me from performing my primary duties, and I didn't complain, I was not medically downgraded. As for affecting others around me, I don't think I am the only (nor loudest) bleater, and I have a much more purposeful primary job than playing rugby, and work in a better team environment than a bunch of buttock hugging, peanut chasing twerps.
Fawkes, you have a good point there.
toddbabe, at my age, the cycle test was the required thing for the last 6 years or so, but then they changed the rules, and back to the run it was (or wasn't).
I suggest a poll of workplaces around the UK military, of how many people are off work through injury or other reasons, and how many of them are 'sports injuries'. I don't think the outcome will suprise the rotund brigade.
cockneyrock
7th Aug 2007, 15:20
Unbelievable, I swear that I could hear the high-pitched whine coming from this thread all the way from Arrse and e-goat!!!!
The fitness test is all about assessing whether you maintain a healthy lifestyle, ie, can you undertake basic tasks that require a modicum of fitness. Unfortunately, the option of making service personnel undertake a manual task for 30 minutes or an hour to assess their fitness is not practical therefore the fitness test is used (15 mins exercise and it is all done and dusted). The fitness test is not there to assess whether you are fit enough to do your job (with the exception of the RAF Regt Operational Fitness Assessment), if you weren't fit enough, you wouldn't be working would you?! The powers that be have decided that we don't maintain a healthy lifestyle all year round (some people train up specifically for their RAFFT) and have therefore decided that we will be tested twice yearly; the assumption being that you will not loose as much fitness between tests as you currently do under the yearly system.
The RAF wants us to maintain a healthy lifestyle as evidence has shown that it helps reduce, or limit the effects of such illnesses as heart disease, cancer, complications associated with obesity etc etc. All of these conditions can and do have a detrimental effect of the service.
The fitness test targets the unfit population of the RAF, however, to be fair, everyone is tested. If you are fit you have nothing the fear, likewise if you are medically downgraded. If you are unfit due to an unhealthy lifestyle then you might well fail and be subject to the consequences. And yes, I have heard of people being kicked out for failing, 3 in all and all were given 3 opportunities to pass together with remedial trg. All failed and all were admin discharged.
I am not a fitness freak, however, I do like to keep fit. I would say that the fitness monsters around my place of work have no more time of due to injuries than the unfit. They do, however, have more time off to represent their service and fair play to them. If they choose to pursue a hobby that the military wants to support, good luck to them, likewise for other non-sporting activities.
At the end of the day, the reason we have to have these tests is because some people won't keep fit and healthy and allow themselves get into such a physical mess that they do become a burden on the RAF. If you want to blame anyone, blame them. Anyway, it is only a maximum of 1 hour in the gym per year, 2 hours out of the office (or 2 days at the most if you work a long way from your parent unit). I would find it incredible if the detractors on this thread were so indispensable that they couldn't spare a maximum of 2 days out of office per year to take a couple of tests (more like 1/4 day for most of us). I take it that these same people take no leave and work all of the public holidays as well as putting in 25 hours per day.
Anyway, I have said my piece, please keep the whining down to a shrill as some of us are trying to discuss important issues such as TV babe's nipples and which woman was the object of our first wnak!!
Cockneyrock,
The RAF could not care less about your, my, or indeed anyones lifestyle and to think otherwise is very short sighted. The new fitness regime is there to cause a headache to certain groups in the Force.
It seems the MOD has adopted a long term strategy to get rid of all the older members, and to induce a quicker turn around on the newer troops signing up. Create enough of a ball ache to get the older(35-40+) folk to up sticks and leave and churn the rest around in 12 years.
This gives the grand strategist a fitter leaner and more importantly cheaper RAF. I think that is me all out of cynacisim for the night.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Bob the Doc
7th Aug 2007, 19:49
'The RAF could not care less about your, my, or indeed anyones lifestyle and to think otherwise is very short sighted. The new fitness regime is there to cause a headache to certain groups in the Force.'
I think you will find the Service DOES care about your lifestyle. The Periodic Medical Examination has lifestyle questions in it and it gives an opportunity for the MO to advise lifestyle changes that might improve your health. Most young men do not have regular checks with their GP in Civvy Street (most ladies do eg. for smears and Pill prescriptions). When I audited our records at Leeming a few years ago, we had a much higher than expected rate of high blood pressure. This is well known to be related to poor diet, insufficient exercise, smoking and boozing. It is also possible that everyone was SH1tting themselves because they had a PME or that the condition is under-diagnosed in the NHS but the facts remain that your lifestyle will affect your health. Maybe not while you are in the military but I'm sure you would like to enjoy a long retirement rather than drop dead from a heart attack the day after you leave!
MOVAGAIN
11th Aug 2007, 23:03
I have not read all the threads so appols if alreasy covered, From what I have read, the main stream seems to be if we should be doing the test, how often and what level at. My problem is this: if the point is to get the entire Service to a level that is fit to fight then why don't we do that ie all get to one single level. If CAS wishes that, then it should be irrespective of age and gender and based on a minimum level- otherwise the whole concept if false. The police, fire and ambulance Services have a minimum level irrespecitvie of age and gender, why can't we? The fact is, if we are all suppposed to carry out the sme task in Iraq / Stan, then we should all be expected to reach the same level of fitness? Or, as usual, am I missing the point? :ugh:
Might one respectfully suggest that you might with advantage replace one of your weekly physical training sessions with remedial English? You could even try a spillchucker (sic).
:=
The arguement is always lost when it gets down to silly posts about spelling.
Fawkes wrote:Morale is a fascinating and delicate plant to cultivate: it is what PTIs should be for, rather than fitness testing.
It strikes me that the posts of the "moaners" (as you inaccurately term those who disagree with you) are almost universally articulate, to the point and well punctuated. Those speaking for the fitties, by contrast, are splenetic, rambling and border on illiteracy. I wonder if there is a correlation?
Could anyone explain this? :confused:
I'm sure that Fawkes isn't advocating a morale trade group. If so, at what point does he get docked salary for not doing his (presumably) supervisory/managerial role innefficiently?
I shall defer comment on the final paragraph. His pen is obviously mightier than the running shoe.
Chicken Leg, please remember that in the recent past, there was no requirement to actually pass the fitness test, all that was required was to take part. The injury is well documented in my records by the way, but as it did not keep me from performing my primary duties, and I didn't complain, I was not medically downgraded. As for affecting others around me, I don't think I am the only (nor loudest) bleater, and I have a much more purposeful primary job than playing rugby, and work in a better team environment than a bunch of buttock hugging, peanut chasing twerps.
Fawkes, you have a good point there.
toddbabe, at my age, the cycle test was the required thing for the last 6 years or so, but then they changed the rules, and back to the run it was (or wasn't).
I suggest a poll of workplaces around the UK military, of how many people are off work through injury or other reasons, and how many of them are 'sports injuries'. I don't think the outcome will suprise the rotund brigade.
When was this? Has not attitude towards fitness always played a part in an annual appraisal? And I'm sure that you're not really suggesting we don't play sports either now, its probably just the way it comes across. But you need to be careful! Fawkes will be having a go at you for dodgy presentation. And before you start having a go at the sports injuries brigade, bear in mind that you were carrying an injury for 8 years. You're either injured and downgraded having reported sick, or you grit your teeth and soldier on. Apologies if I haven't got a handle on your particular circumstances.
As an aside, I would rather be a taxpayer reliant on an aggresive, youthful and dynamic military where 2.8% of decent sports injuries each year are preferable to a comfier 1.2%, where 'fell out of the bathchair', 'tripped over Playstation cable', 'violent tofu reaction', 'sofa fused to anus' or ' skin reaction: excessive hemp content in underpants suspected' become the norm.
Mildly edited for the benefit of the spelling-stasi. I request that 39,364 similar offences be taken into consideration and beg the board's collective forgiveness.
I totally agree, with everyone who has commented!
YES we all need to be fit for current OPS.
YES we need to increase our fitness as a whole service.
YES it is only an hour twice a year.
YES a proper standard needs to be defined as a minimum for everyone regardless of age or sex.
HOWEVER it is getting to be that a week doesnt go past without going into the red for some currency, CCS, Fit Test, Med, Dunker, WHT, Dinghy Drills, STASS, Abandonment Drills, Swim Test, Day Fly, Night Fly, OP Fit Test, Jabs etc etc. (Im sure some smart arse will say sort out my admin and it is always sorted)
It is just getting a real distraction on our primary jobs. Just my 2 minutes worth! :confused:
Dundiggin'
12th Aug 2007, 06:53
'HOWEVER it is getting to be that a week doesn't go past without going into the red for some currency, CCS, Fit Test, Med, Dunker, WHT, Dinghy Drills, STASS, Abandonment Drills, Swim Test, Day Fly, Night Fly, OP Fit Test, Jabs etc etc. (Im sure some smart arse will say sort out my admin and it is always sorted)':mad::mad:
Dead right!....that's why I'm buggering off into civvy flying. More wedge and none of this crap! :D
Maple 01
12th Aug 2007, 09:39
Has not attitude towards fitness always played a part in an annual appraisal?
No, came in round about 1991 - shortly after a review of the PTI branch under ‘Options for Change’ - not that I'm a big conspiracy theorist you understand
Must admit I liked your comparison/rant with those who do education during work time.
My suggestion is thus:
An RAFET - each year members of the RAF will be tested to see if they are educationally fit to continue their service, naturally, following the precedent of the Fitness test it will be irrelevant to their operational role. Starting off gently there will be a mandatory requirement for all servicemen and women to achieve at least a ‘C’ grade pass in a GCSE subject each year. Remedial night-school and daytime classes will be compulsory – any serviceman that fails to show general improvement in Latin irregular verbs over a three year period will be booted out the service regardless of their operational capabilities. Any complaints concerning this policy will be ignored and those responsible will be punished for ‘thought crime’ through use of the Annual Reporting System
Standards will be continuously monitored and revised with the eventual aim of providing the RAF with a pool of bright alert PhDs that can be employed at a moment’s notice around the world to engage the enemy in a series of high-level debates and discussions that would be beyond the capacities of current service personnel.
There will be no excuse for non compliance with the standards required for the RAFET – no extra time away from the workplace will be provided and all revision will be carried out in the service member’s free time as he/she should be constantly exercising his/her mental alertness within the standards required for the leaner, better educated Royal Air Force. Operational tours are to be arranged around the RAFET and back-to-back tours will provide no exemptions.
Promotion in all branches in future will depend on RAFET results rather than the current arbitrary system of promoting people who are actually any good at their job.
An example of this would be the promotion ban to be enforced on the RAF Regiment trade SAC/Cpl until such time as individuals are able succinctly explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Russian within a delineated time scale which will be age/sex related.
With regards to your RAFET idea, I know its supposed to present you in a sparkling and witty light. But whereas there are those who might spend their entire active service sitting on their backsides simply blanking out data references on sortie videos, I'm sure that equally, there are those who do need to be fit. So, perhaps there could have an unfitness test? Maybe those who have forgotten that fitness was part of the deal when they joined up could tell us exactly how unfit they need to be in order to justify their salary, and if they have no specific military attributes, why we couldn't simply employ minimum wage school leavers to copy and paste IRT briefings from other published sources?
And its funny, but I'm sure that appearance and bearing appeared in my early assessments, long before 1991. Bearing in mind of course, that there is a difference between being medically and physically fit; a chap of poor bearing was a fat slob who never went to the gym.. a metaphor, a little like being 'socially active'. It was always commented upon in the main narrative too, about a chap's attitude to fitness. Perhaps that was just RAF Regt reports mind where there used to be anyway, no creep. If they were never commented upon in yours, that might explain your aversion to activity and lack of focus.
Apart from that, thanks for the effort that went into your reply, I appreciate fine humour.
Al.
PS: I don't do 'rant'. The good lord allocated me a finite amount of heartbeats and I save them for the gym, not messageboards.
Maple 01
12th Aug 2007, 12:01
So I take it you don't approve of the RAFET?
Hmmm......shows a poor attitude towards the RAFET - isn't going to look good on you ACR......
but I'm sure that appearance and bearing appeared in my early assessments, long before 1991.
But no comment on attitude to anything, hence you beloved RAFFT has somewhat Stalinist overtones. I see a strange parallel with the 'Global Warming' mob - anyone who doesn’t accept our credo is the enemy!
Embracing something is generally indicative of an attitude towards it I would have thought. And it is hardly my 'beloved' fitness test.. the existing FT is far too soft. Also, I'm not sure how you got the impression I was never in favour of the RAFET system. But being taught service writing and learning to write in a military manner; with accuracy, brevity, clarity etc, is a quantum leap away from demonstrating an understanding of Shakespeare or being able to 'explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Russian'. I could be wrong mind.
With regard to your final comment, why not leave the strawman debating tactics for lesser messageboards? By all means misrepresent my position and put words into my mouth but remember; they're still your words, and not mine. Finally, if you could stay on topic and leave Einstein out of it, that'd be really cool. :ok:
Cheers.
BEagle
12th Aug 2007, 13:25
"So, perhaps there could have an unfitness test?"
I presume you mean 'they'?
Isn't that why aircrew have to undergo the annual bollock-fondling and AECONHTL test administered by some horny-handed MO every year down at the Quackery?
Isn't it now 'Defence Writing', by the way?
Oh - and from one who was A1G1Z1 until anno domini dictated the need for corrective flying spectacles, who hated any form of jockstrappery with a vengeance and who still holds a CAA Class 1 medical, I believe that you are looking for Ejnštejnovskaja teorija otnostitel'nosti?
Enjoy your 'Strength through Joy' lifestyle in the Brave New Air Force...
Question for the gym queens - which recognised RAF sport is associated with Shakespeare?
I'd be careful of those presumptions if I were you; I meant 'be'.
The annual aircrew medical determines medical fitness, and not physical fitness. A cracking set of nuts and perfect eyesight won't help you if you're pulling G's. When developing parachute harness, the UK g'ment took advice from NASA and AGARD (the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development). NASA/AGARD research indicates 'a serious injury risk at 12.1G, but the differing posture, physical fitness levels, harness attachment location, ’wearer comfort’ and other factors have influenced the advisability of 6G as a maximum for users'. But perhaps you know more than NASA and AGARD? I would love to see data from anyone which says physical fitness is not a factor in determining efficiency levels when flying.
I don't know why the anti fitness lot doesn't just admit it. It has an aversion to the idea and however much you all try to cloud the issue with pseudo mumbo jumbo, you just can't be arsed to waddle to the gym. I bet you a pound do a pinch of p#g**** that all the crabs with an aversion to it would have a different attitude in civvy street. Also, on another thread here, I read the BA job spec with mild interest;
<< www.britishairwaysjobs.com (http://www.britishairwaysjobs.com/)
"Managed Path/RAFCARS (Service Pilot Hold Pool)
Scheme is for experienced high calibre Military pilots who..
You as a Person:
Physically fit and meet the requirements for the issue of a JAA/CAA Medical Licence (Class 1) and able to satisfy British Airways medical requirements. Please note that British Airw..">>
Imagine the scene..
"So, Sqn Ldr, welcome to BA and now that you're out of the RAF, we would like to inform you of some new CAA standards.".
"That doesn't matter to me, my mission with you is to project 216 civilians to Malaga and by God, thats what I'm going to do.".
"So you don't want to adopt the new CAA standard?"
"No. I don't think that I need to be fit to fly passengers.".
"Thank you. Your P45 will be in the post. Don't forget to hand in your pass on the way out.".
"Erm, splutter.. aaah, perhaps I could join a gym.. ".
And it might well now be called Defence Writing now; I trust you'll be embracing the changes to RAF fitness levels with equal eagerness? ;)
Maple 01
12th Aug 2007, 18:19
leave Einstein out of it, that'd be really cool.
To late mate, don't forget, in Russian within the allotted time period please. It's about as relavent as the RAFFT but I'm sure if someone in authority told you you had to do it...
Now what other nonsense FTs do the RAF need to fill up those moments back in the UK between ops? Oh, how about RAFFTCT? Cycling proficiency on stations is truly appalling - I remember one night on two site RAF H**** W*****e two inebriated Officers sailing past me on one of HM's velocipedes with not a care in the world and a complete disregard for the Road traffic Act 1988. My JEMS suggestion is annual fit to cycle tests with shuttle runs set at about the level of the Tour De France
But why stop there? Any other suggestions for pointless tests?
The only people that embraced the 'strengh through joy' mentality Beags mentions were in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany - if you enjoy jock-strappery go for it, just don't expect the rest of the world to fall into line because you like it.
If I was as asinine as many in this thread, I'd suggest that before you start spouting Russian, you might want to crack English.. take a gander at the first word in the first sentence, and the fourth in the second. But I'm not, so I won't. In return, by all means take a potshot at my prose, I'm just a thick ex Rock.. you're the guy who claims to be in Intelligence and you're the guy suggesting that promotion is linked to education and that fitness isn't important in a military.
Ok, to the 'meat' of your case. Are you really, genuinely, honestly, 100%, I kid you not.. actually trying to say that learning Russian is as relevent as physical fitness in our military? And I extend the same offer to you as I did to the other chap. By all means, feel free to post a link to a report that says that physical fitness is not linked to higher military effectiveness and airmanship and I'll reconsider my position.
And now I'm conforming to Nazi standards? Excellent, more straw man stuff. And as to me being a sucker for military discipline, might I remind you that you're the one wanting to join up again? And I'll wager I spent more time inside than you for various insubordination offences.;)
Its the Road Traffic Act 1991, part 7, section 28 by the way. Another case of 'Time spent in recconaisance ..'?
Off you go, I'm waiting for that link..
Maple 01
12th Aug 2007, 21:15
And now I'm conforming to Nazi standards?
well to be fair I'd include any dictatorship left or right, you have to admit the Soviets, Communist Chinese, fascist Italy and the Nazis embraced enforced calisthenics much as you do.......I'm only pointing out your bedfellows...... remember the scene in 1984 where Winston was forced to take part in Ingsoc's early morning physical jerks?
and I'll reconsider my position.
I'm pointing out that the RAFFT is about as relevant to the operational aims of the RAF as any of the silly suggestions I have put up, you could add underwater polo, train spotting or lawn mowing, none (especially the RAFFT) have the slightest bearing on live ops. Only one though is enforced by those with other agendas.
I remind you that you're the one wanting to join up again?
Yes, to do my war role, not join a fitness club, for that I can spend £50 a month and hang out with a bunch of semi-naked gym queens - somehow that doesn’t appeal. luckily my A4 G4 Z5 rules me out on both counts :O
you're the guy suggesting that promotion is linked to education and that fitness isn't important in a military.
No, I'm saying the RAFFT is irrelevant and a waste of everyone's time, I'm glad I was able to correct your assumption
Its the Road Traffic Act 1991
The offence occurred in 1989 so would be covered by the 1988 RTA dear boy but you couldn't have known that- so off to the remedial RAFFTCT training for you! Oh actually I missed a capitalisation......let me see, who said
The arguement is always lost when it gets down to silly posts about spelling?
Dear Mapes,
Although I could roll up that little lot without breaking sweat and was possibly a little too ironic with the spelling crack (sorry if I was), things seem to be drifting a little as well as starting to look fraught and slightly tense. So do you mind if I calm things down and get us back on topic?
(sote voce)
Al pleaded reasonably; "Off you go, I'm waiting for that link.."
Maple 01
12th Aug 2007, 22:04
I can do you one that says the RAFFT is illegal
Applying a different selection criterion to men and women could amount to unlawful direct discrimination. So, for example, in this case, a woman who completed the test in 3.5 minutes would pass the test whereas a man who completed the test in the same time would fail: the man would be able to make a claim unlawful direct sex discrimination to an employment tribunal.
http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=15347
Thanks. I just coughed my drink over my keyboard.
I can offer NASA, AGARD, the NHS, the MoD, the UK g'ment and the DoD to support my arguement that physical firness is a pivotal component of better performance and airmanship and you are reduced to offering us.. a tofu munching, latte sipping ambulance chaser. Was that it? When the going gets tough, the tough get knitting eh? :rolleyes:
The prosecution rests.. its collective pulse rapidly returning to normal.
Lets see them then..................
I'll do you a deal.
If I can offer you credible proof (I don't believe I'm actually saying this to someone on a military messageboard) that physical fitness is an essential component of not only a normal lifestyle, but also an effective military one, will you get down the gym?
http://ohp.nasa.gov/disciplines/fitness/index.html
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforce/a/newaffitness.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforcejoin/a/afbmtfitness.htm
Sorry, I really can't face putting up many more links. I'm sure you didn't really expect me to, but I ask you to offer 3 to repudiate them.
And finally..
"You can use me as a benchmark. I am currently recovering from abdominal surgery and am not allowed to run for another two weeks. I won't be able to do any situps for another month. During the first week in January I plan to lead all Air Force General Officers in the Pentagon and the Washington, DC area in the PT test. During the same week, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Murray will do the same thing with our Command Chiefs in the area. We will follow that with the colonels, the remaining chief master sergeants, etc.
General John P. Jumper, Air Force Chief of Staff"
Jumper was 53 at the time. If he can do it, why can't you?
And finally, this, I have always found amusing.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/airforce.asp
Vortex what...ouch!
13th Aug 2007, 08:39
Ahh nice to see nothing changes. Crabs dripping about having to put a little effort in. It's what you get paid for guys. :hmm:
threeputt
13th Aug 2007, 08:55
My JEMS suggestion
It was GEMS when I was still in.:ok:
3P
VinRouge
13th Aug 2007, 09:20
No, its actually makes us want to leave this sorry state of affairs, fighting two jingly wars for them, and bugger off to the airlines...
Air may support ground, but when you havent got any AT as a result of fr*gging us around, questions will be asked :ok:
Vortex what...ouch!
13th Aug 2007, 09:51
2 hours a year, including shower time is hardly frigging you around. Stop dripping and get on with it. :rolleyes:
samuraimatt
13th Aug 2007, 10:17
Do Senior Officers have to do the fitness test?
cornish-stormrider
13th Aug 2007, 10:41
Mods please close this thread. No one is contributing anything new and its getting realy boring.....
Vortex what...ouch!
13th Aug 2007, 10:59
Hey cornish shirtlifter, feel free not to read it then, you dullard. :hmm: Dripping crabs, worse than bloody women. :rolleyes:
Physical fitness is a vital componant of military service. Tried running around a hide in NBC and carrying your tools, or dragging Don10?
Don't need to tab 40 miles in a day, just a reasonable level of fitness. Half of the fat twits I served with in the late 70's couldn't get up the steps in ATC. Ignoring the sandbagging and the manual digging in of cables across a peri-track at Treblezue. Where one of the the so called equal women (who weren't at the time) broke down crying because she couldn't lift a pick.
Stop whining , get pumping!:ok:
I always carry my tools when running.....
That is the problem with these threads. Eventually it is just the old duffers banging on about how hard it was in their day. Well in your day you didn't actually have to do a fitness test!!!!
ranger703
13th Aug 2007, 14:01
Has anybody actually been to the PEd Flt recently and asked the guys within what the situation is? Thought not.......................
samuraimatt
13th Aug 2007, 14:04
What is the current situation then? Have there been some more changes after the announcement of the changes to the RAFFT?
That is the problem with these threads. Eventually it is just the old duffers banging on about how hard it was in their day. Well in your day you didn't actually have to do a fitness test!!!!
It wasn't hard in my day, because I stayed fit. From where I'm loafing, it seems that I'm seeing a lot of people more suited for the WI, and not the MoD.
ranger703
13th Aug 2007, 14:26
As the current situation is a defence related matter and I have not had authorisation from above, I'm afraid I am unable to comment. However,if you are currently serving and require to know what the current situation is I suggest you pick up the phone to your local,friendly PEd staff and I am sure they will be able to convey the good news.
samuraimatt
13th Aug 2007, 14:27
it seems that I'm seeing a lot of people more suited for the WI, and not the MoD.
I am sure that the boys and girls currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will be glad they have your full support. The links you gave are just a list of exercise routines for NASA and the USAF. They prove nothing. You really need to let go and let those currently serving get on with it.
What are you on about? What has my support for the troops got to do with having a go at some idiots who seem to think that the troops don't need to be fit? Those troops will be serving in those countries a damned site more efficiently if they had a chain of command with the sense to care about their welfare, and presented them to theatre physically fit. How can that be missinterpreted with them not having my 'support'?
YOU show me where military effectiveness and airmanship is improved by NOT being fit. :rolleyes:
samuraimatt
13th Aug 2007, 14:37
what in your view is airmanship?
Also, just when are these people supposed to get time off to go to organised phys ed when they are busy getting aircraft ready to go flying?
Vortex what...ouch!
13th Aug 2007, 14:51
Great can do attitude you've got there samuraimatt. :ok: Whats the saying, those that can do, those that can't drip. Or something like that. :hmm:
RAF, amateurs.
Oi. We're not all like that.
I would say in fact, that the gym averse brigade are probably in the minority now. Its the old codgers who need to be slowly filtered out; the ones who can't handle.. change.
samuraimatt
13th Aug 2007, 15:01
The saying is actually "those that can do. Those that can't teach" I take it from your constant reference to dripping things you are a plumber by trade looking for work?
VinRouge
13th Aug 2007, 15:28
or a PTI.... the most useless trade in the air force.
Airborne Aircrew
13th Aug 2007, 16:23
OMG...
Whiners...
Hey, fatties... Look on the bright side... over a lifetime fitness will save you a small mortgage in soap!!! :D
That is the problem with these threads. Eventually it is just the old duffers banging on about how hard it was in their day. Well in your day you didn't actually have to do a fitness test!!!!
Didn't need to mate; 7.57 mins for the 1.5 mile 2 counties at Wittering and that was at 29. I have the cert to prove it and I was no no athlete.
Practice..
L1A2 discharged
13th Aug 2007, 20:40
Didn't need to mate; 7.57 mins for the 1.5 mile 2 counties at Wittering and that was at 29. I have the cert to prove it and I was no no athlete.
'twas 3 counties when I did it, at the ripe old age of 29, I think we all got a certificate stating 7.57 :)
doing a fitness test 'soon', just before handing in all kit and leaving :D
Airborne Aircrew
13th Aug 2007, 21:53
I still run four miles in under 35 minutes... I'll be 50 in less than six months and I quit smoking after 30+ years just over a year ago, (30 a day for most of that time).
While there is no guarantee you'll live longer by getting off your corpulent posteriors there is a body of evidence that suggests that a certain minimum level of fitness does aid in your longevity. I'd think that that might be, at least, some motivation.
More importantly you chose to join "the military"... Look it up... It means that you are part of the defense of this country. It doesn't mean that you will start training and learning when the enemy attack. It means you'll be ready for them the moment they do. As such, there may come a time when, rather than just stacking shelves, fixing kites etc. you might come face to face with your enemy. The fitter and stronger you are when that occurs the better chance you have of seeing the other end of the meeting. Again, this should be a bit of a motivator.
Lastly, women prefer men... Not gasping, overweight, sexually inept men... Just men... Even you married chaps don't have an excuse... the reason you are w@nking to internet porn rather than boffing your cute little wife is because your wife followed your opulence and became a reflection of yourself... a fat munter who can't manage more that a few minutes exertion before falling flat in a quivering mass of lard.
See, the point here is that there are no good reasons, no matter how much you try to justify it, for being a fat, lazy b@stard... But there are certainly plenty of reasons for not being. So quit pontificating and go for a run... You know your chair will thank you for it...
Oh, and to the moron who tried to imply that "fitties" are a bunch of muscle brained retards and the "fatties" have an IQ that reaches into triple figures... Get F$CKED d1ckhead... That was the most puerile and transparent attempt to deflect an argument away from your inadequacy I have ever come across.
VinRouge
13th Aug 2007, 23:27
AA, the language you use in your post is case in point. IQ of less than 50 if you ask me... Did you learn language like that down the gym with the men? :=
The cut and thrust of witty repartee jus amazes me!
Get real - this new policy is nothing more than an attempt to force those people who do not get fit on their own to get fit.
2 options then -
1. Those who disagree with it either disagree with the extra jobs that we all have to suffer
or
2. They disagree that being fitter increases operational effectiveness.
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 00:01
No... I was in a public school... Which comprehensive were you in?
doing a fitness test 'soon', just before handing in all kit and leaving
I do confess to telling the PTI I wouldnt be taking the test when it first came in as I was leaving 2 weeks later.
I think we all got a certificate stating 7.57
That explains it. I'd never been below 8.30 doing 6 laps.:)
fawkes
14th Aug 2007, 09:12
The childish insults of the muddy oafs are actually in the finest traditions of the British military. Unfortunately they are the traditions of Lord Raglan, Lord Elphinstone and Sir Redvers Buller. These men were undoubtedly brave, but alas they were also stupid and caused the needless deaths of many of their men. Public school men and sportsman all.
“Gentlemen” you are missing the point: physical fitness is laudable, but so is religious faith. “Fizz” it is not, as you suggest, a magic cure all. It is a single element only of personnel suitably trained, equipped, experienced, motivated and sustained for their role. The point that those who are not narcissistic dopamine junkies make is that the policy is unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent.
Those who enjoy service sport (and consequently throw additional work onto others) are not doing it to boost their professional effectiveness, but for fun and personal gratification as well as the honour of their Service. No problem, but don’t imply (or state) that your running fast provides you with either virtue or competence or that those who do not run fast are morally depraved or incompetent.
Next time you fly, consider whether you trust your safety equipment because it was maintained by a racing snake or because it was maintained by a professional who gives a st*ff about your sorry *rse even whilst you are looking down your Aryan nose at him (or her).
The testing policy indicates that lip service is being paid to this issue: if fitness were really important then it would be properly resourced and manning levels would be such to allow regular training during “office hours” and the playing of unit sport. Those who have been in more than five minutes may remember that this used to be the case. The PTIs used to be organising competitions and refereeing, not administering arbitrary tests to justify their existence. It is as if the policy were generated on the basis of Gandhi’s comment on Western civilisation: “I think it would be a good idea”
Since this is not how the resources are allocated, it follows that other aspects of training and fitness for purpose are more important. QED.
Oh, and AA, I think you will find simple posession of a membrum virile does not qualify you as a man. You may find that your "repeat business" may increase if you develop a sense of humour and grow up.
Truckkie
14th Aug 2007, 09:29
Glad to see this thread has descended into the usual immature, purile banter that gives the RAF it's bad name and image.
Man up and dry your eyes - the RAFFT is hardly a challenge. Those that can't manage it should really have a good look at themselves and ask if they are in the right job.
Nearly all stns have a gym and PTIs who, if you ask them, can offer advice and training programmes for those who are unsure.
Exercise will help you live longer and make you more capable of undertaking your primary role in demanding, austere climates.
And before you ask, yes - I am aircrew in my late 30s who likes a drink, good food and the odd cigarette and have passed my RAFFT since it's introduction, unlike the fat weezy 20-somethings who seem to think that the Air Force owes them their jobs.
Rant off:}
Fawkes conceded;
“Fizz”.. is a single element only of personnel suitably trained, equipped, experienced, motivated and sustained for their role. The point that those who are not narcissistic dopamine junkies make is that the policy is unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent.
You seem to be getting the point here, nice one :). On its own, physical fitness won't win wars but it does provide us with one aspect of the ability to do so. The others, as you concede, are training, eqpt, and rationing seems to be alluded to.
I would be interested to know though, how you arrive at the conclusion that the policy is 'unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent'. This might go back to my offer (as yet, one not taken up) that you might like to post some data to support your assertion?
greycoat
14th Aug 2007, 10:56
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6944279.stm
"Fitties" can take solace in the fact that the "fatties" with a reduced life expectancy will subsidise their retirement/pensions by not drawing off the public purse for so long after retirement. Also, surely the incentive to see off the Govt for as much dosh as you can by living longer is as good as reason as any to get fit(ter).
fawkes
14th Aug 2007, 11:56
But remember to go easy on the deep heat as well as the steroids:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12040-musclerub-blamed-for-athletes-death.html
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 12:14
purile banter that gives the RAF it's bad name and image.Yes, the "Crabs" are the laughing stock of the Army and Navy because they come across as a bunch of fat, whining, lazy girls. This attitude spreads onwards to the civilians and then to the politicians by osmosis. Thus, when money is available to be doled out it doesn't go to the lazy, useless whiners that "serve no purpose", (remember, their perception is their reality), it goes to the other two arms leaving you feeling more like the ginger stepchild. It's threads like this one and the infamous "Aircrew rations" issue that have them rolling in the isles pointing fingers at you. Despite that you're quite happy to spend hours sat at a computer typing reasons why you can't and shouldn't have to demonstrate your fitness rather than going out and doing some exercise.
The testing policy indicates that lip service is being paid to this issue:It could, quite easily, also be construed as the policymakers realizing that certain elements of the RAF have become sloth and that some small "incentive" needs to be given. They understand that many will do sufficient to pass because they simply don't like to fail and won't want to be known as lardasses. They also understand that there are a few who are beyond help and nothing short of firing them will get them off their chubby rears but, as stated, the majority will do enough to pass and that's considered enough, period.
Now, rather than exercise your greasy fingers typing some cop-out response try going out and doing a little exercise - you'll feel better, look better and generally be "better" for it.
fawkes
14th Aug 2007, 12:43
AA If this thread were giving the Forces a bad name, then your breathtaking combination of naivite, illiteracy and insult are of far greater concern than a few fatties. Please tell me that you are actually a walt, not a serving individual, much less a matelot.
Is it the Spratleys, the Falklands of the Scillies that you are rolling in? You may mean aisles. I do hope that you do not have control over any anual appraisal. Indeed I hope that you have to bale out over cannibal lands (or possibly a region governed by Lynn Truss) where your inability to think and write would have immediate fatal personal consequences.
I do not for a moment imagine anyone suggesting our brave boys and girls need to be fatter and slower (or indeed more stupid), what was being debated (largely without personal insult) was that the policy was disconnected and set disproportionate store (and effort) into testing rather than training and that much fine work had been done in two world wars and other campaigns without a Fitness Test
Edited for typographical error.
VinRouge
14th Aug 2007, 13:32
AA, I couldnt give a rats monkeys about what the other 2 services say or how they perceive; perhaps if they tried harder at school (like the PTI's) then they could have joined the thinking man's service! :ok:
By the way, been away anywhere hot and dangerous recently? Or have you been too busy in the Gym or recovering from a sports-related injury?
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 13:38
Nope.. Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not a walt. I'm not serving any more either and I was neither a sailor nor a pongo.
When you resort expending 1/3rd of your entire post to picking up a spelling error you have conceded that you have nothing further of value to add to the conversation. Thank you.
Your "disconnected" and "place disproportionate store in testing" policies are your objective view of them. Others see them as the policymakers realizing there is a problem but allow you to determine how you wish to address it. The test is there to see if you got off your duff... Plain and simple. Saying that an annual test is/was sufficient is utter rubbish. I pulled a muscle two weeks ago and took a week off running. I ran last weekend and re-pulled the same muscle so I took last week off too, (I don't heal like I used to). So, I had only run 1.8 miles in two weeks... When I ran on Saturday I was significantly slower and more stressed running two miles than I was just two weeks before. So, if you can't be trusted to stay fit on your own the tests should probably be administered every month since, from my experience, bi-annually would be far from sufficient.
Let's face it, people administer tests to ensure that you maintain a standard. If you could be left to your own devices in this matter they wouldn't feel the need to test you. They don't keep coming back and having you redo your GCSE's do they?
Lastly, before you try to elicit the support of the entire service by trying to imply that I am insulting all of them read what I write more carefully. I place a distinction between those that train and those that don't. You just don't like the way I refer to them... Not PC enough for you? If you're fat then your fat, period. Can't handle that? That's your problem not mine. Fortunately for you it's one of life's little problems you can easily do something about... if you want to. If you don't then you are in the wrong career because, as you have noted, the policymakers have determined that being a fatty is not part of the job description.
fawkes
14th Aug 2007, 14:10
Thank you for a temperate and polite post. Perhaps supporting those (even the fat ones) who are still doing their bit would be appreciated by your colleagues.
Accuracy is important.
There is a difference between "spare him!" and "spear him!"
In Modern warfare inaccurate data can be even more dangerous because it can be trickier to spot.
I think (mirabile dictu) we now agree. If tests need to be once a month, then testing twice a year is no better than testing once a year. Ergo it is a waste of time and resources, and an avoidable embuggerance to test twice a year. Thus the policy has nothing to do with real standards, and everything to do with mistaking activity for action. (See threads about morale/cuts/conditions passim). Incidentally, remind me, how often is the aircrew medical?
I hope that your leg gets better soon: usual advice is to resume gently or try something lower impact like swimming or cycling.
Cheers.
Edited for punctuation.
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 14:34
I hope that your leg gets better soon:
T'is much better now, thank you. I bashed out four miles this weekend at a nice gentle pace and, having taken yesterday as a rest day, (old age is a terrible thing ;) ), I shall run another couple tonight at a more ambitious pace.
Incidentally, remind me, how often is the aircrew medical?
You see, this is the problem. You are comparing two different beasts. The aircrew medical is carried out to ensure that you are medically fit to carry out your job as opposed to physically fit. You know, those pesky things like eyesight, no heart or respiratory issues. No fits or seizures etc.
We got annual flying checks too while I was in. These were tests that were administered to ensure that we were maintaining/adhering to standards. Training was ongoing for that too throughout the year though it was a supervised activity.
You go to the dentist every six months don't you? But you know you clean your teeth every day... So why are you going to the dentist? Is it to see if you are doing the old teeth cleaning bit effectively? Of course it is. So why the drama over a fitness test? You're only taking the test to make sure you are doing your physical training effectively...
Please... Don't tell me you are from Arkansas... :E
:( I wonder what any self respecting civilian would think if he read this thread.
Ironic, that just about every company in the country recognises the benefits of having a physically fit workforce, apart from some of those in the very one tasked to defend the country from aggression in extreme circumstances.
One wonders, what the attitude and resilience will be of someone on active service, who can't even face up to the rigours amd pressure of occasionaly going to a gym?
ZH875
14th Aug 2007, 14:47
Just remember that it is only unfit people that need to exercise :ok:
Maple 01
14th Aug 2007, 18:40
'unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent'.
Link already posted to EO, you dismissed it, sadly for your argument it would take one test case for the whole house of cards to fall down
Prove the test isn't any of the above, if you can, but tread carefully, the Police and Fire service have moved away from the RAFFT model precisely because their versions have been proven in law to be 'unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent'.
http://www.eoc.org.uk/default.aspx?page=15347
http://jaynemonkhouse.co.uk/Fitness_Test_Article.htm
Box 1: Gender-specific fitness test directly discriminates against man.
Mr D V Allcock v Chief Constable, Hampshire Constabulary
Case no: 3101524/97
Mr Allcock was a serving police officer in Hampshire Constabulary. In January 1997 he applied for a vacancy in the dog section. The job description included a requirement that applicants should be able to pass and maintain a fitness standard that included the completion of a 2 mile multi-terrain course in a certain time. The time for male applicants was 16 minutes, and 17 minutes for women. Mr Allcock completed the course in 16 minutes 46 seconds. Therefore, if he had been a woman, he would have passed the test – he alleged that this constituted direct sex discrimination under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Hampshire Police said that the reason that they operated two different standards was because women would suffer an unfair disadvantage if they were required to complete the test run in the same time as male officers. Men have greater aerobic and anaerobic potential than women and they considered that that should be compensated for. The fitness test was intended to demonstrate an acceptable general level of fitness that must be maintained if officers working with dogs were not to suffer physically in the performance of their duties.
The Tribunal said “whether or not the treatment is less favourable on the ground of sex is not saved from constituting unlawful discrimination by the fact that the respondents acted from a benign motive……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 respondents have unfairly directly discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of his sex.”
For the test forces are mandated to use now
http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/HO/circular.nsf/1cc4f3413a62d1de80256c5b005101e4/082d434aa74d681b80256d2800425a3c?OpenDocument
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 18:53
Mr Allcock completed the course in 16 minutes 46 secondsHoly Moly... I'm almost 50 and I'm a lot faster than him...
Maple:
I fail to see how you can use the fact that two different times for men and women being discriminatory makes the benefit of fitness and a test being "of use" to prove that it is unscientific, etc.
You're logic is a tad messed up. Had the report stated that a fitness test does not determine suitability for a specific task, (that would be somewhat equivalent to military activity), then you might have had a point. As it is, your "evidence" states that they "unfairly discriminated" against him by not applying a "gender neutral" test. In fact, if you actually read it the bottom line is that the test, in of itself, is a perfectly viable method of determining whether someone is fit for a task - it merely questions the double standard.
Oh... and Mr. D. V. Allcock is just that... All c0ck... Whining because he's as slow as a girlie... :*
Maple 01
14th Aug 2007, 19:50
In other words the case that RAFFT style tests are illegal has been proven in law, unless you know better? When did you get your law degree?
Care to comment on the plodFT?
I'd be interested to know when you were de-mobbed just so as I have an understanding of the extent of your participation in the RAFFT
To quote BEags from 2002
Funny how the RAF managed to survive its first 70 or so years without the need for such nonsense.....
Personally, I'd bin the $odding thing. Then I'd bin the whole blasted jockstrapping branch as well.....
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 20:30
In other words the case that RAFFT style tests are illegal has been proven in law, unless you know better? When did you get your law degree?Oh dear... You don't need a law degree. You just need basic comprehension as taught in primary school FFS.
It's illegal to set different times for men and women in the test and then deny a man a job when he finishes in a time that disqualifies him but the same time would have a woman accepted. It's a discrimination issue not an issue of whether the test itself is legal.
You should probably hush now before you make yourself look even sillier than you already have...
While Beags seems to be a decent chap I'm afraid you can't base legal or policy decisions on his thoughts that he'd bin it... Sorry Beags...;)
You should probably hush now before you make yourself look even sillier than you already have...
Is that the pot calling the kettle?
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 20:42
Is that the pot calling the kettle?
Ok fat boy... Visited a dentist in the last year...:}
Yes I have. The RAF very kindly give us free dental care and a visit to the Dental Hygienist as well. Thank you for your concern about my dental care.
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 20:59
If you can go to the dentist twice a year to make sure you are brushing your teeth right why the big drama over a fitness test twice a year? By the time you are done the same amount of time has been "wasted".
Well let me just say that the best thing about doing the fitness test twice a year is the way that it encourages us to condemn its hypocrisy. No, wait; doing the fitness test twice a year doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that people think that the PTI's decisions are based on reason. However, a great many decent people are just as distressed about its hariolations.
When all is said and done, interdenominationalism is not merely an attack on our moral fibre. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. As for the average Airman, they have weapons and tactics that are far more deadly: pure light and simple truth. I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that doing the fitness test twice a year is up to, the more shocking things, things like how PTI's want to goad recalcitrant vigilantes into hurling epithets at their enemies. I realise the difficulty that the average civvy has in coming to grips with that, but we are now stuck with a self-centred totalitarianism bunch of PTI's bearing a fitness con -- that of doing the fitness test twice a year. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. Many are sceptical of doing the fitness test twice a year, mixed in with the Ped Branches efforts to produce a supercilious definition of "contemporaneousness", right? Right.
To close, let me accentuate that if we spread awareness of the drugged-out nature of doing the fitness test twice a year we shall not only survive doing the fitness test twice a year and the PTI's puerile attacks; we shall prevail.
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 21:32
Forget the fitness test for now son, first you need a psychiatrist... then a nutritionist and then a PTI... Then you can take the test... Cnut!
Maple blustered;
Prove the test isn't any of the above, if you can, but tread carefully, the Police and Fire service have moved away from the RAFFT model precisely because their versions have been proven in law to be 'unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent'.
Now then, regardless of your apparant uncertainty over discrimination legislation (I'm an old Rock, and if I can see the flaws in your arguement, surely, anyone can), have you ever stopped to consider the enemy position towards discrimination? I'm not being facetious, but I understand if you haven't looked at this matter from a traditional military perspective.
If you looked back in this thread, one of my first comments was that no one should be tested until they've been trained ('learning facilitation'). So are you saying now, that to get out of going to the gym, you'd ask to be trained where no girls could see you, or that because some nasty PTi shouted at you in basic training, you're now too good to be put through the trauma of it all again?
Finally, you were tasked with providing 3 links to support your original case that physical firness had no impact on military operational effectivenesss and/or airmanship, and not civpol lardarses complaining about running 2 miles in 16+ minutes. You have failed. It is the last refuge of the exceptionally mediocre I suppose, that they should look for similar personality types to hide behind.
ALr you must realise that most PTI's pronouncements are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of interventionism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like their insistence that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homoeostasis to one's psyche is to run up and down twice a year, the fallacies of their claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of sports injuries.
For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. How many of the Ped branches lieutenants are content to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high.
Yours and Airborne Aircrews intolerance for those assumed to hold different value systems from the RAF's policy on fitness is so great, so mentally debilitating, so handicapping to its thought processes that Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that Physical training instructors's statements such as "We should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy and you need to do proper press ups now Maam" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the pub by any open and honest individual.
In a broad-brush sense, because of the PTI's obsession with authoritarianism, their eccentricity is surpassed only by their vanity. Remember a physical training instructor's vanity is surpassed only by their empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that it can walk on water?)
While reading this, you may have occasionally asked yourself, "Where is all of this leading?" and, "What is the point exactly?" I deliberately wrote in the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions. Therefore, I leave you with only the following: Most Physical training instructors are unable to deal with a world populated by human beings.
pax vobiscum
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 22:04
Most Physical training instructors are unable to deal with a world populated by human beings.
And, in that vein, most chubbies are unable to deal with a world with PTI's in the population...
You have done nothing other than prove that you spend far more time at the keyboard than necessary and that time might have been better spent losing a couple of stone in a gym or on a road somewhere... Just think, if you had done some exercise today you could be asleep now instead of sitting up typing on your computer... :rolleyes:
AIDU,
I am sure you've got a brain the size of the Western Sovereign Base Area, but can you;
a) work as hard as f#ck if the sh#t hits the fan for days on end digging shell scrapes, laying Don10, patrolling and the like, in full IPE possibly
and
b) make yourself a little more understandable?
Thanks.:ok:
Airborne Aircrew all too often, people attempt to make an argument by attacking and insulting those who hold opposing views. Hurling insults in the manor that you do are perfect examples. But before I continue, allow me to explain that in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for hurling abuse at fellow posters. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving hurling insults, but the right thing to do in this case is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional multi stage fitness test involving lanes leading out in many directions. With your hurling of insults you somehow manage to get away with spreading lies (divine ichor flows through its veins). However, when I try to respond, I get shouted down by you faster than you can say "chronocinematography".
Let me end by saying that I know that what I have written will send you or any other so called muscle mechanic (especially any who are big fans of hurling insults) into a tizzy or a tantrum. I am sorry, but I remind you that hurling insults to another human being ends in moral disaster in its neighborhood, political disaster in its country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance.
ALr why on earth would any sensible person want to do all that? Better to sit in an aeroplane far above all of that nonsense and drink tea:ok:.
Maple 01
14th Aug 2007, 22:26
er.....yes, I think.......
a) work as hard as f#ck if the sh#t hits the fan for days on end digging shell scrapes, laying Don10, patrolling and the like, in full IPE possibly
Have a medal, in fact have one of mine, but not the choco one I'm saving that for my elvensies. if I'd wanted to do the green thing I'd have joined the inf!
As the Rocks on ARRSE keep telling us, they have more in common with the army (when not telling everyone they are part of 'the big three') than the RAF which is 'nice' but just because they want to be soldiers doesn’t mean the rest of us should be. Perhaps it's time to let go of our airfield defenders and then they can be full infantry with BFTs, CFTs etc
Airpower projection first - anything else, yer, like, whatever....
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 22:31
AIDU said:-
Let me endI step aside gracefully and with speed to let you pass... Your god forbid that I get in your way as you get your mass up to speed. Did I mention I'm an atheist too... Bet you're really miffed now... But don't bother to come back for a final shot... Start another thread... I'll argue your god there...:ugh:
Maple said:-
er.....yes, I think.......
I really don't think you do...
Maple 01
14th Aug 2007, 22:44
It's illegal to set different times for men and women in the test and then deny a man a job when he finishes in a time that disqualifies him but the same time would have a woman accepted. It's a discrimination issue not an issue of whether the test itself is legal.
er....the current RAFFT discriminates and is therefore illegal, just waiting for the test cast where the MoD will be taken to the cleaners, but the precedent has been set by the ruling quoted earlier - what bit are you having a problem with?
I’ll have a little bet with you, the first time the legality of the RAFFT is tested in a court of law what do you think will happen?
a, Case will be thrown out
b, Test will be modified to be gender neutral
c, Police style Home Office approved Test introduced
d, MoD will be stupid enough to fight and lose ££££ before admitting the error of its ways
Airborne Aircrew
14th Aug 2007, 22:51
I'm sorry, (no I'm not, it's a turn of phrase), but you are so stupid it defies belief.
The ONLY way you could take this to court is if the RAF fire you or discriminate against you because of your clear demonstration that you are such a lazy, fat, fatherless git that a woman has been given advantage over you.
F$cking barrack room lawyers... You will always have a lot to say and nothing to back it up with...
I pity the people you work with... because most of them, (while trying to be nice), are decent folk that despise you behind your back... for your laziness and your stupidity.
Maple 01
14th Aug 2007, 22:59
I pity the people you work with... because most of them, (while trying to be nice), are decent folk that despise you behind your back... for your laziness and your stupidity.
Once more the muscle-mech team is asked to play the ball and not the man........
You don't know me, this is the internet, it's easy to be a 'hard man' from behind a computer - PM me and let's compare service records
Officer and a gentleman?
Meanwhile which part of the ruling is, in your mind, wrong, and why?
Are you angry because you know I’m right, or is something else eating you?
Maple 01 whinnied;
Have a medal, in fact have one of mine, but not the choco one I'm saving that for my elvensies. if I'd wanted to do the green thing I'd have joined the inf!
As the Rocks on ARRSE keep telling us, they have more in common with the army (when not telling everyone they are part of 'the big three') than the RAF which is 'nice' but just because they want to be soldiers doesn’t mean the rest of us should be. Perhaps it's time to let go of our airfield defenders and then they can be full infantry with BFTs, CFTs etc
Airpower projection first - anything else, yer, like, whatever....
Constructing personal defences, laying comms, conducting recce drills in IPE isn't a job just for teeth arm infantry or for aircrew. All manner of support staff in the most worthy of backroom jobs must be able to play their part in STO tasks at times when your help is needed to support us. And you need to be fit for that.
Perhaps you could post the e-mail addy of your union rep who would get you off that kind of stuff? And how does putting bodge tape on stills from video footage tie in with projecting airpower by the way? ;)
Maple 01
14th Aug 2007, 23:13
What did you do with the £4billion then?
conducting recce drills in IPE isn't a job just for teeth arm infantry or for aircrew.
Much NBC play in Z?
And to be honest I don't see how that supports your beloved RAFFT, as we managed plenty of NBC during Tacevals etc without it. Presumably that training would have been more use than shuttle runs come the 'real thing'
If I had 4 Billion, I'd put it ino recruiting more Regs, so that we wouldn't have to rely on old knackers joining back up again because they missed the bar prices. ;)
Maple 01
14th Aug 2007, 23:23
Won’t take me mate, seems operational experience counts for naught compared to med cats in the new Royal Air Force (TM). I’m sure Barder wasn’t A4 G2 Z1
You can train monkeys to give IRT briefings and blank out altitude info on air fots nowadays, thats why. They're cheaper to keep too, and love exercise.:}
DummyRun
15th Aug 2007, 01:40
Yeaah, wotever,
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
15th Aug 2007, 08:52
It's fascinating watching these Light Blue on Light Blue engagements.
Wasn't the original bind about finding time/being provided time to do 2 tests per year as opposed to the broad principle of keeping fit?
Airborne Aircrew
15th Aug 2007, 09:39
Wasn't the original bind about finding time/being provided time to do 2 tests per year
Hence my "dental" reference on the grounds that they must be doing that so why the drama... It was avoided... Like exercise...
Maple:
I'm not usually one to pick on spelling but his name was Douglas Bader. One would hope you could have got his name right out of respect for the man.
rudekid
15th Aug 2007, 10:45
GBZ
You're quite correct, I posted the original thread to highlight and express displeasure (FWIW) with the increased administrative burden associated with an extra RAF fitness test per year.
Sadly, it's digressed into a fatties v fitties debate, with people like airborne aircrew who clearly see that fitness testing should be undertaken every single day and in the other corner, the chaps who wouldn't go into the gym if you gave them three months off and an ice cream for every press up.
I fall into neither of these camps (although I do profess to visiting the gym at least 4 times a week) but I don't believe the increased frequency of the fitness test is just an extra performance indicator for higher command and won't improve our fitness levels one bit. It'll also make life a little bit more difficult on the busy front line units who are already strapped AND having to complete a stack of admin currencies already. What we need is a directive from the very top to ensure we implement extant policy. Give us some time off for physical exercise, not just another stick with which to beat us. Sadly, with our current operational tempo, this isn't going to happen (and rightly so) so let's hold onto our aspirations for extra fitness testing until we're a little bit less over-committed to operations.
And I stand by my argument that anyone who argues that this 'only takes 30 minutes of your year' is a 9-5 warrior. The front line just doesn't work like that...
My Sqn is a fit unit, we have a lot of guys who take their responsibilities seriously, but the number of people raising their eyebrows at extra admin isn't surprising.
L1A2 discharged
15th Aug 2007, 12:36
three months off and an ice cream for every press up
I would even consider staying in if that happened :E
At my age anything free is welcome, especially ice cream. Could I specify full cream Cornish with clotted cream, nuts and strawberry sauce on it. But I only qualify for 8, that being the required number of press ups, or 16 if aggregated over a 12 month period.
So thats 1 and a bit ice creams per month, in exchange for 2 hours of irrevelant attendance at the exercise emporium yearly. :ok:
Airborne Aircrew
15th Aug 2007, 12:48
Rudekid:
The point you are missing is that tests are only necessary for those who don't maintain a certain level of fitness. The problem you face is that, (in this wonderful world where discrimination is a bad thing and everything nowadays is a discriminatory issue), those who do maintain a level of fitness, like yourself, must be treated in the same fashion as the salad dodgers. If you were told "You don't need a test twice a year because you passed this test with flying colors come back in two years" and the porker next to you is told "you need to come back in three months because just changing into your PT kit put your heart rate to 140" the result will be a lawsuit for discrimination just like the fat cop who I can outrun at 50 years old did.
It's people like yourself that should be applying peer pressure to the fatties because it's them that have forced the powers the be to place arbitrary tests upon you because of their failure to maintain even a semblance of physical fitness. All the eyebrow raising at "their Airships" decisions will do you no good. They saw a problem and this is their, (rightly or wrongly), solution to it. Fix the problem by encouraging your rotund colleagues to reach an acceptable level of fitness. Then you have a chance of altering the requirements. If you don't and you let them take the tests and fail them consistently then what do you think the next step will be... You got it... Tests every three months... and you'll have no-one but yourself to blame... :ugh:
Well Once again, I find it necessary to write in defence my beliefs. In the first place, PTI's just cannot tolerate the world as it is. They need to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, we must take away as many of the PTI's opportunities for making personnel do the twice yearly fitness test. PTI's always wonder why everyone hates them.
Apparently, they never stopped to think that maybe it's because they say it is within their legal right to use the fitness test as a system of integration and control. Whether or not they indeed have such a right, we must identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the move to make this unnecessary test twice a year. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we, who suffer when we neglect to observe that the PTI's shell games, opportunism is witting and unremitting,
To say merely that all PTI's get perfervid about the fitness test is a vast understatement. Call me a cynic, but most PTI's are typical of fickle, insane hedonists. If I said that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to the PTI's demands to do the fitness test twice a year, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being entirely honest if I said that they want to be taken seriously, they should counter the arguments in this forum with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.
Take this example: Let's say that even PTI's must concede that those who get involved with their scary brethren are seldom aware of their dealings with the most callow dirt bags you'll ever see. Now let's say that what we need from PTI's is fewer fitness tests and more expeditions. Does that mean that it is better that a hundred people should fail the test than those that should be even slightly inconvenienced? No, because PTI's can fool some of the people all of the time. They can fool all of the people some of the time. But they can't fool all of the people all of the time. Let me close by reminding you that PTI's expect people to bow and scrape before them.
Maybe the RAF should introduce the walking test. Any self respecting person realises that walking burns more fat than running, so to avoid all of those turning injuries caused by the multi stage fitness test maybe the PEDO's could do organised walks.
AIDU,
I find it so infuriating that people will go to such lengths to justify avoiding a little hard work. It has nothing to do with PTIs.. rather it has everything, I suspect, to an inflated sense of self importance or too much positive reinforcement syndrome. Now, you either joined up to take orders or you didn't. I wonder what you would say if one of your erks took issue selectively with some of your directions and orders (or are orders contrary to some human right nowadays too?).
Its a couple of hours a year, so just bite the bullet and do it will ya? This is turning into a shameful thread, what sort of people do we have serving nowadays :confused:
Airborne Aircrew
15th Aug 2007, 21:43
AIDU:
I'm afraid I'm with A|R on this one. There's way too much "conspiracy theory" rhetoric in your last message. With you it goes a long way past a simple fear of work. You have made it a science to blame the people that, while they may beast you in the course of their work, can help you quickly and easily pass that silly little test you have an abnormal fear of.
PTI's are not what you need. A psychiatrist or, better yet, a discharge is probably the preferred method of treatment for your ailment.
No, I'm not taking the p1ss... Get fixed or get out... The RAF will be better for it in the long run... so to speak... :p
OK It's time to tell the truth about ALr and his fitness obsession. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that disrespectful warmongers such as him with stronger voices than minds would always revert to boisterous behaviour. But the basal lie that underlies all of ALr's fitness obsession's pharisaical, superstitious initiatives is that the somehow it will make us want to dig holes and wear our S10's. Translation: He wants everybody to be in the RAF Regiment. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that ALr and his fitness obsession sermons are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most sex-crazed classes of Trotskyism you'll ever see and that this sort of vertiginous paradox is well known to most muzzy-headed, fatuitous masters of deceit. ALr and his fitness obsessed apple-polishers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing:ok:.
Vortex what...ouch!
17th Aug 2007, 13:38
OK It's time to tell the truth about ALr and his fitness obsession. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that disrespectful warmongers such as him with stronger voices than minds would always revert to boisterous behaviour. But the basal lie that underlies all of ALr's fitness obsession's pharisaical, superstitious initiatives is that the somehow it will make us want to dig holes and wear our S10's. Translation: He wants everybody to be in the RAF Regiment. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that ALr and his fitness obsession sermons are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most sex-crazed classes of Trotskyism you'll ever see and that this sort of vertiginous paradox is well known to most muzzy-headed, fatuitous masters of deceit. ALr and his fitness obsessed apple-polishers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing.
Mummy mummy look at the lazy fat man who thinks he's clever. :ugh:
D O Guerrero
17th Aug 2007, 14:44
What a load of old women!
It's not about fitties vs fatties. Its about having a basic level of fitness which can reasonably expected of someone who purports to be in the armed forces. Its about having a modicum of personal discipline and perhaps some self respect. And it really isn't hard...
Stop dripping and get on with it. I wonder what some people were expecting when they joined up. Knitting?
RAF_Techie101
17th Aug 2007, 15:54
I wonder what some people were expecting when they joined up. Knitting?
:ok:
Classic, man - classic...
Admin_Guru
17th Aug 2007, 16:48
Airborne Aircrew is extremely opinionated for somebody who left the service (a long time ago) as an Administration Discharge, and one who had never, ever taken an RAF fitness test himself.
C130 Techie
17th Aug 2007, 17:20
It's not about fitties vs fatties. Its about having a basic level of fitness which can reasonably expected of someone who purports to be in the armed forces. Its about having a modicum of personal discipline and perhaps some self respect. And it really isn't hard...
Probably the most sensible thing seen on this thread in a long while. Absolutely spot on!!!
Airborne Aircrew
17th Aug 2007, 17:26
Admin:
Since you know so much you would also know the circumstances of said discharge and the history leading up to it wouldn't you? I will tell you that it was a resounding Airborne_Aircrew 1 RAF 0 situation... :p
You would also know that I did BFT, (Battle Fitness Test), every year for the first five years of my 10 years. See... That was when I was on II Sqn. RAF Regiment... Oh... You conveniently forgot to mention that huh?
Don't try spreading misinformation with your nasty little innuendos. If you have something to say go ahead and say it. If you have questions because you don't have access to details, ask - I have nothing to hide...
... and since when does when I left the RAF preclude me from opinions?
Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Aug 2007, 17:37
II Sqn Regt................now it's all becoming clearer :rolleyes:
Surely the uniform looks much better on a v shaped torso than a sack of potatoes. Do yourself a favour, get out of the car you drive to the Sqn and get yourself fit.
As a taxpayer I demand it. - Ok I expect it.:=
Airborne chap,
BFT= Basic Fitness Test
CFT= Combat Fitness Test
or it was earlier this year.............
Airborne Aircrew
17th Aug 2007, 18:14
or it was earlier this year.............
When I was a lad.... yada, yada, yada...
I left II Sqn back in 1983... IIRC we called it BFT... :ok:
Admin_Guru
17th Aug 2007, 18:31
Airborne bleated:
No, I'm not taking the p1ss... Get fixed or get out... The RAF will be better for it in the long run... so to speak... :p
How true, and so much irony.
Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Aug 2007, 18:34
How come you only did the BFT for the first 5 years of your time and not for the whole 10 years :confused:
Admin_Guru
17th Aug 2007, 18:39
....because he saw the light and remustered to NCA.
At a time when most NCA were ex RAFP, AATC, Gunner. ....and in fairness he was good at it, but still left under a cloud. Though I can sympathise with his reasons, the logic has done a 180` about-turn nowadays.
Airborne Aircrew
17th Aug 2007, 18:46
Nope... No irony... My departure was a well planned and beautifully executed operation designed to separate myself from the RAF. You'll appreciate that if you know as much as you try to imply you do... :E
Airborne Aircrew
17th Aug 2007, 18:48
the logic has done a 180` about-turn nowadays.
Err.. You lose me there... What are you referring to?
Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Aug 2007, 19:04
So all the time you were aircrew you did no annual fitness test, which to you was no doubt acceptable..........but are now telling us that we should simply crack on and do 2 a year..........was your leaving the RAF anything to do with any sort of cranial trauma :rolleyes:
Admin Guru shamed himself;
.. and in fairness he was good at it, but still left under a cloud.
I know I'm new here, but what a shameful and undisciplined post.:=
Maple 01
17th Aug 2007, 19:58
Quite an insight though, the two staunch defenders of the accursed test, both ex-Rocks, one has never done the 'new' RAFFT!
If you listen closely you can hear their credibility going 'puff'
Is it true that Rocks and PTIs were the same trade group?
I don't know, you were 'intelligence'.. you tell us. :rolleyes:
Why should you have to rely on our comments for an 'insight'? Have you no thoughts of your own? But I think you'll find its more than a couple of ex Rocks who are supporting improved standards.. and are you saying its only gnrs who have the capacity to embrace change? And at the risk of missinterpreting Lord Garden, I rather think he'd happily render a swift kick up the arse for you and your sick/lame and lazy brigade too.
Andrew Brookes/Garden Obit:
He became adept at enquiring, as a newcomer, why something was being done and being rather dismissive of the answer, "Well, we've always done it this way.".
Maple 01
17th Aug 2007, 20:10
They were at one point, now PTIs are 'GDs'
I'm saying Rocks by and large are good-eggs that understand that the rest of the RAF will only take a passing interest in Army-like pastimes and will try and engage their audience rather than trotting out the old ‘shut-up face the front and get on with it’ mentality. Also a lot of them were highly educated, quite thoughtful and were prepared to question pointless rules and regulations
We also had a few knuckle-draggers who hated ‘Guins because they weren’t Rocks and didn’t understand why not everyone saw it as their duty or wanted to go tabbing round camp with a Bergen full of bricks.
Which type were you?
Change for change’s sake? Go check out that quote from AD66
So why edit your post to ask the question? :rolleyes:
Having said that, I don't think they were. Fireman, certainly.. but not PTIs. Can you amplify, and perhaps tell us when the two trades parted company?
Maple 01
17th Aug 2007, 20:20
So why edit your post to ask the question?
It’s called intellectual engagement…….:ugh::ugh::ugh:
And at the risk of missinterpreting Lord Garden,
I sincerely can't let Lord Garden's misinformation and misguided arguments about giving somebody a good kick up the arse, which happens to be assault, go by without comment. As a preliminary, I want to strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation. From what I know of Lord Garden's prevarications, it is saying essentially three things:
This is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organisations.
Embracing a system of twice yearly fitness tests will make everything right with the world.
Unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. Obviously, all three of these are honestly adversarial. Now that you've read this post, let me challenge you, the reader, not just to help me set the stage so that my next post will begin from a new and much higher level of influence, but also to educate others about what I've written.
Airborne Aircrew
17th Aug 2007, 22:26
Maple:
As far as our credibility going puff is concerned, I'd suggest that your logic equates to me having a Masters degree in Mathematics and you having a GCSE in Mathemetics. According to you, since I took GCE's not GCSE's, I can't really comment on mathematics to you... I bet you're not highly thought of in the intelligence field if that's your normal level of logic.
I ran independently every day as a Rock. I ran consistently as a Loadie. I still run 5 days a week 20 years after leaving the RAF and, age adjusted, I'm willing to bet I can pass your silly little test easily... It's not that big of a deal.
Why don't all those who are whinging about these tests go back and read what I wrote earlier about failing them and finding yourselves doing them every three months. Their Airships don't give a flying f$ck about how much you are put out by their policies. They will continue to inconvenience you increasingly until you meet the standards they set for you. Want monthly tests? Keep failing the tests... If this is too complicated for you then you are naive and should probably be listening to people with experience like A|R and myself...
Just a hint kids... ;)
Oh... Sorry AIDU... I nearly forgot... You are rapidly becoming my favorite idiot savant... :p
I ran independently every day as a Rock.
What is that supposed to mean?
I ran consistently as a Loadie
So you were independent as a rock but consistent as a loadie?
I'm willing to bet I can pass your silly little test easily...
I bet you can't. As you are a civvy you are not allowed onto RAF property unless escorted by serving personnel. Health and safety would not allow you to partake in the RAFFT, just in case you sued if you injured yourself.
should probably be listening to people with experience like A|R and myself
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha and what, prey tell, can we learn from a couple of old hasbeens who frequent the RAFA clubs with tales of daring do.:ok:
Airborne Aircrew
17th Aug 2007, 23:00
What is that supposed to mean?
6-10 miles every day with a 50lb bergen on including Xmas day independent of anything II Sqn made me do during the day. IOW, my own training.
Consistently means that I ran when able - which was less frequent and without the bergen due to tasking constraints. IOW, my own training.
...and the rest of your message is what makes you so much fun... :\
PS: There's no RAFA clubs here... :sad:
Seldomfitforpurpose
18th Aug 2007, 08:01
NO RAFA club but you appear to admit to the Hasbeen label :E
Edited to say thank heaven for timezones as it means Prune can have a few hours of normality before the sanctimonious one gets up again :p
Maple 01
18th Aug 2007, 08:40
AA you keep missing the point, (like a WAAF with a SMG) you've never done the RAFFT, therefore you have to accept that those of us who have done it have a better understanding of its true worth - And as you've never been a solicitor and a test case has already proved RAFFT style tests are illegal - you aren’t in much of a position to dismiss the findings of the court.
Make as much noise about physical fitness as you want, carry on you rants if you will. My point is the test is just another pointless admin burden on an already overstretched organization. IF it was so important the support infrastructure would have been made available as would extra manpower to cover, it wasn't, so it's just another badly thought-out waste of time rather like the late and unlamented CFT
silly little test by George, I think he's got it!
akula
18th Aug 2007, 09:37
I shall start with an analogy, if we consider the Army to be standard Coca-Cola then it would be fair to consider the RAF Regiment to be Caffeine Free Diet Coke, a diluted attempt at the real thing.
Our RAF Regiment brethren are full of bluff and bluster, they perpetrate the myth that they are some sort of elite unit and the guardians of discipline and military order within the RAF, something to be aspired to by those less fortunate non Regt members of the RAF.
The truth of the matter is that for some reason known only to themselves, they chose to join the RAF rather than the Army. The cynic in me thinks that they turned up to the careers office seeking to enlist in a technical trade and got routed down the RAF Regt path, other wise if you want to be a soldier then why join the RAF.
My synopsis may seem a little scathing and I would like to temper what I have said by adding that the majority of the Regt chaps I know are thoroughly good eggs and extremely professional in their outlook and indeed their interaction with the rest of the RAF. It seems that some ex Regt members posting here are determined to undermine their currently serving compatriots.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
RAF_Techie101
18th Aug 2007, 09:46
Ok - I'll start this post by admitting that yes, I've currently failing the test and am on remedial training. This is due in simple to me not being fit enough, because I'm not a big fan of fitness and can find it hard to motivate myself to go to the gym when i don't have to. Now, I knew when I joined the RAF I'd have to take the fitness test every year, and I accepted this. During traiing it wasn't a problem, as we did 3 sessions of PT a week taken by a PTI. This meant I was goign to the gym regularly, keeping my fitness up and my weight down. As soon as I completed training over a year later, I passed the fitness test without too much difficulty and naturally found myself going to the gym less and less, simply because I could. There was no-one round me telling me to go, so I ended up losing seeral levels of the bleep test fitness wise and putting on 3 stone (I have a non-existant metabolism...)
In the 6 years since, I have passed and failed it in equal measure, and it's due entirely down to me not keeping my fitness up. To be fair though, the standards aren't that high. You really don't have to be that fit to pass them, and a lot of it is simply a mind-over-matter thing of making yourself stop and start. Even I will admit that. Upping the standards is a good idea if you ask me - however the problem then becomes one of the bleep test being not uited to everyone. Some people would prefer the 1.5 miles, a bike test, or having a choice of what to do. Now, everyone knew the RAF did the bleep test when they joined, (after a certain date...) and I will admit I will struggle with the new standards. I don't like doing the test, but that's my problem. The RAF's problem, however, is that it doesn't have enough staff. Our PEd flight has intoduced lots and lots of new activities to help people get fit, but currently have one PTi and the PEdO to impliment them all.
Closing statement - by all means raise the standards, but give us the training to help us meet them and give the PEd flights enough people to enable them to train us properly...
D O Guerrero
18th Aug 2007, 09:56
What's PEd? Is that a new -ism for PTI?
Do you have PEdOs in the RAF? I'm sure I can't be the first to think that that might be amusing...
RAF_Techie101
18th Aug 2007, 10:00
PEd Flight - Physical Education Flight
PEdO - Physical Eduation Officer
And yes, we all got the funny side of it out of our systems years ago...
airborne_artist
18th Aug 2007, 10:03
What is slightly worrying is when you get a letter about your daughter (a spacey) from the PEdO :uhoh:
Maple 01
18th Aug 2007, 10:15
And yes, we all got the funny side of it out of our systems years ago...
oh no we didn't!
Airborne Aircrew
18th Aug 2007, 11:23
Maple:
I said:-
Their Airships don't give a flying f$ck about how much you are put out by their policies.You responded with:-
My point is the test is just another pointless admin burden on an already overstretched organization.I also said:-
They will continue to inconvenience you increasingly until you meet the standards they set for you. Want monthly tests? Keep failing the tests...All you are doing is whining about something you can't change... When you start "getting it" tell me will you... It'll save my keyboard from wear... :ugh:
Akula:
You said:-
The cynic in me thinks that they turned up to the careers office seeking to enlist in a technical trade and got routed down the RAF Regt path, other wise if you want to be a soldier then why join the RAF.(My bold) Clearly you didn't think because you know you are talking to ex-Aircrew too... which pretty much negates the rest of your drivel.
RAF_Techie:
Nice to see someone here who thinks about this rather than just whining about it. You make one _very_ key point near the end of your post.
Our PEd flight has intoduced lots and lots of new activities to help people get fit, but currently have one PTi and the PEdO to implement them all.Let's be quite honest about this. Getting fit is not rocket science. If it was they wouldn't let PTI's anywhere near it. You know what the test entails - running a certain distance in a given time, whatever - it doesn't take special equipment or anything like that. Other than, (which to be fair you freely admitted to), a lack of self discipline there is nothing stopping you from training yourself. You don't need a PTI to give you direction do you? This is, as you have also "admitted" to, something that you can do on your own. I know it's hard to start, (in the last 20 years I have taken _lots_ of "time off"), but if you get going and do it regularly it becomes a bit of a habit you don't want to break... Really, it does. If you need help tag along with a mate who is doing it himself... Before you know it you'll be passing the tests easily, it won't be the burden they all try to tell you it is and you'll be looking at them and wondering how they face themselves in the shower in the morning as they try to soap between the creases. ;)
Why do I feel so much more respect for a man that accepts his failings and understands their roots than those who just weasel around trying to get out of a task?
Rhetorical question kids, rhetorical...:E
Must go, Saturdays is my three mile run, tomorrow is four... :D
Maple 01
18th Aug 2007, 11:30
Just a reminder AA, this thread is about the RAFFT, not your personal interests, now we discover (although you didn't see fit to mention it) you've never taken the RAFFT, hence no credibility - do us all a favour start a thread 'I'm a physical fitness God, all worship me' but don't do it on PPRuNe
akula
18th Aug 2007, 12:56
Airborne Aircrew,
Your comment in reply to my post adds weight to the essence of what I was saying. You enlisted as a Gunner and then applied for the job you really wanted in the first place:cool::cool:
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Maple's quote:
It’s called intellectual engagement…….:ugh::ugh::ugh:
Not really. An example of Intellectual Engagement in this instance might be an open or leading question, such as;
Maple: Can anyone confirm why the trade groups of Gunner and PTI seperated?
I would then ask you something on the following lines (which is what I tried to do).
· How did you come to that conclusion?
· What is the source of your information?
· What assumption has led you to that conclusion?
· Suppose you are wrong? What are the implications?
· Why is this issue significant?
· How do I know that what you are saying is true?
Your original question however;
Maple: Didn't PTIs and Rocks used to be in the same trade group?
.. required no stimulation of thought and most certainly, no intellectual stimulation as it may be answered 50/50 correctly by simply guessing. IE also requires a little insight into the personality type of the person with whom you are engaging. I'm sure you could come up with an answer about my personality, but in all seriousness, it wouldn't be a very good one.
Cheers. :)
Airborne Aircrew
18th Aug 2007, 13:09
Akula:
If you knew me you'd know how wrong you are...
You wandered into the conversation and started spouting crap that was entirely off topic and then you expect me to be nice to you. You came in for a dig... quit crying like a nine year old girl when someone points out your inadequacies.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Try not to live by your tag line... or everything you say will appear as drivel.
Admin_Guru
18th Aug 2007, 13:29
AA
Your are the best fed Troll I have ever seen in cyberspace. Even you must be getting bored by now.
Doh.... I fed him some more.
I would put money on you having more than a few grey hairs, and a little waist expansion despite the rhetoric.
By the way, the Chinook is a lovely aeroplane to fly, not that you were ever likely to find out. There is more than one way to be 'fit for purpose'.
I shall start with an analogy, if we consider the Army to be standard Coca-Cola then it would be fair to consider the RAF Regiment to be Caffeine Free Diet Coke, a diluted attempt at the real thing.
Our RAF Regiment brethren are full of bluff and bluster, they perpetrate the myth that they are some sort of elite unit and the guardians of discipline and military order within the RAF, something to be aspired to by those less fortunate non Regt members of the RAF.
The truth of the matter is that for some reason known only to themselves, they chose to join the RAF rather than the Army. The cynic in me thinks that they turned up to the careers office seeking to enlist in a technical trade and got routed down the RAF Regt path, other wise if you want to be a soldier then why join the RAF.
My synopsis may seem a little scathing and I would like to temper what I have said by adding that the majority of the Regt chaps I know are thoroughly good eggs and extremely professional in their outlook and indeed their interaction with the rest of the RAF. It seems that some ex Regt members posting here are determined to undermine their currently serving compatriots.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
I couldn't answer for anyone else, but I joined the Regiment because I wanted to, and because I was advised to do so by a Royal Marine. Your syopsis isn't scathing at all, rather a little silly and missinformed. I had 2 A Levels (English and Economics) and decided not to go to University. The chap in the CIO (as was) tried to steer me towards A Tech E (?) but I recoiled in horror at the thought of festering in some servicing bay or (equally as badly) some office. I rather liked the idea of Air Electronics Operator (I still have the blurb, the chap in the photo is sitting in a Vulcan), but just wanted to join up and the delay was minimal for Gunner at the time. I picked the RAF Regiment, the RAF Regiment didn't pick me and I've never regretted it. I am proud of my association with a regular infantry organisation which is the only one in the UK to have been on Active Service somewhere across the globe in every year since 1945 (the Royal Marines took 1967 off I believe).
It goes without saying that those who harbour a grudge against Gunners for shouting at them at some point will understandably leap at the chance for some anonymous Regt bashing. Which is fine.. its a little like going onto Friends Reunited and having a pop at one's old Maths teacher. For my part, I have to say that I have enjoyed the company of just about every single trade group and branch in the RAF, and I possibly wouldn't want to engage in some over simplistic generalisations on a messageboard. We are/were all part of the same team, and all teams have their strong and weak links.
I would never say that I was ever part of an elite unit, rather I worked with some very special people. As to being the 'guardians of discipline and military order within the RAF', I have to say, I never once woke up thinking that. Sure, if some oik ever crossed my path with unpolished boots, I'd say 'Flt Sgt, come over here please. Polishing your boots increases the life of the leather, it prevents the leather from cracking which might keep your feet dry, it inspires discipline within one and with the chaps and it promotes the idea that you are part of a disciplined organisation". And he'd say "Yes Cpl, sorry Cpl!". As you can see, all very low key, all very informal, but an invaluable lesson passed on.
:)
RAF TECHIE SAID:
Closing statement - by all means raise the standards, but give us the training to help us meet them and give the PEd flights enough people to enable them to train us properly...
Agreed, 100%.
Gripper said:
Funnily enough you saw the SAME old faces there day in day out............
Yup. If some can do it, why can't the remainder? Its as much to do with establishing a routine as anything. That of course, and a small measure of self discipline. I understand that nowadays, many have families and working wives to consider, but there's no excuse not to want to do at least some fizz, a couple of times a week.
Airborne Aircrew said;
Let's be quite honest about this. Getting fit is not rocket science. If it was they wouldn't let PTI's anywhere near it. You know what the test entails - running a certain distance in a given time, whatever - it doesn't take special equipment or anything like that. Other than, (which to be fair you freely admitted to), a lack of self discipline there is nothing stopping you from training yourself. You don't need a PTI to give you direction do you? This is, as you have also "admitted" to, something that you can do on your own. I know it's hard to start, (in the last 20 years I have taken _lots_ of "time off"), but if you get going and do it regularly it becomes a bit of a habit you don't want to break... Really, it does.
Agreed, my point exactly. This is where guidance and leadership from SNCOs and Junior Officers is vital.
akula
18th Aug 2007, 13:47
Al R,
An eloquent response, I shall re-read it thoroughly and pick some holes in it later:}:}
Airborne Aircrew,
You take a very confrontational posture in your postings, you should try to relax a bit. Indeed I do not know you and can therefore not know how wrong about you I am. I can only base my opinion of you by what you post here, take from that whatever you will.
Who has pointed out any of my inadequacies?
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Akula,
Listen, don't take things so personally, you have a lot of anger in there my friend. Chill.. its only a messageboard :) .
I'm sure that A Tech E is a fine line of endeavour before anyone has a go at me.. it just wasn't for me, thats all.
PPRuNe Pop
18th Aug 2007, 14:11
Whoa!!!! At least a sensible response.
BUT.............This turned into a slanging match with NO place on here. We do not tolerate it. Some of the posts are confrontational to say the least and everyone has to simmer down.
That's it. No more no less. Wind ups now banned
Please do NOT take this line again or the thread goes.
PPP
1leftright2
18th Aug 2007, 15:33
As mere casual observer of pprune for a number of years I have finally bitten the bullet an signed up. If only to point out that we sadly losing more and more people doing the job they joined up to do, be that flying, providing FP etc, and their passing warrants often scant comment. Yet if the topic be fitness testing, saluting Her Majsty's ensign wearing a growbag, chipbag or stable belt or whether we should summarily execute the Mover who dinked the 747 cowling several posters appear to devote vast amounts of time to the topics are they really that important?
It saddens me to say it but after 24 yrs in I think we need to take a big sniff of the cofffee, wake up and have a reality check. If we're told to do something more often than not it's for a very real reason, whether it be stn guard, BoB parade, 6 months in someone else's very warm toilet or heaven forbid a fitness test. What we're supposed to to is get on with it - it's what set us apart from every other trade union addled organisation going.
Big deep breath in and off the box.
Sand4Gold
18th Aug 2007, 15:37
I would never say that I was ever part of an elite unit, rather I worked with some very special people. As to being the 'guardians of discipline and military order within the RAF', I have to say, I never once woke up thinking that. Sure, if some oik ever crossed my path with unpolished boots, I'd say 'Flt Sgt, come over here please. Polishing your boots increases the life of the leather, it prevents the leather from cracking which might keep your feet dry, it inspires discipline within one and with the chaps and it promotes the idea that you are part of a disciplined organisation". And he'd say "Yes Cpl, sorry Cpl!". As you can see, all very low key, all very informal, but an invaluable lesson passed on.
This I did find amusing.........:ok:
AA