SAS eases entry tests for women

[sidewayspeak]

Times reports today that the SAS are planning to ease the entry tests for women - less weight and more time allowed for the speed marches. It didn't take long did it?

[ORAC]

The headline is misleading, the article says they are considering doing so.

To quote the article for those who don’t buy The Times, and because it is behind a firewall, I enclose the text of the article below.

SAS to ease entry test to woo women

...”Britain’s special forces are considering modifying their notoriously tough selection tests to ensure women have a “fair” chance of joining the elite units.

It is understood the possible changes will be made to the initial phase of the SAS and SBS (Special Boat Service) selection, which is when recruits are expected to march over hilly terrain carrying increasingly heavy loads. On some of the longer marches, The Sunday Times has learnt, female soldiers may be allowed to carry less weight and will be given extra time to complete the tests. The changes are being considered because the first female soldiers could apply for special forces selection in just over a year, defence sources say. Soldiers from any unit in the armed forces can apply to join the special forces, although they traditionally recruit heavily from the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines.

Members of the SAS have been told that the selection standards for the regiment, which prides itself on running one of the most demanding military recruitment courses in the world, will not be lowered. But the proposal is believed to have caused dismay among some of the warrant officers and sergeants, who see themselves as the custodians of the regiment’s reputation for excellence. While the modifications to special forces selection are still only being considered, the mere discussion of the subject has led to heated debate among officers and warrant officers, it is claimed.

The move follows an announcement in July 2016 by David Cameron, then the prime minister, that women would be allowed to serve in close combat units. By the end of next year, all armed forces roles will be open to women. Research conducted by the Ministry of Defence before the decision found that women were twice as likely to suffer musculoskeletal injuries during initial military training. An analysis of recent army recruits found only 4.5% of women would meet the physical standards required for joining the infantry or Royal Armoured Corps, which have lower physical standards than the special forces.

Sources say special forces commanders are considering changing only the first of several phases of selection, which involves marches in the Brecon Beacons in south Wales over a four-week period. “There is a determination to get women into the special forces,” the source said. “There will be changes to the selection of women but it is not about lowering standards — it’s about levelling the playing field. For a woman to pass special forces selection, she will have to be very focused and very fit — exactly the same as her male colleagues.”

Few countries have female soldiers in their elite special forces. The first woman to enlist to become a US Navy Seal dropped out of training earlier this year. In 2014, however, Norway formed the world’s first all-female special forces unit. The Jegertroppen — or “Hunter Troops” — are trained to parachute from military aircraft and ski in the Arctic.

The MoD said it did not comment on the special forces.”..........

[airpolice]

Perhaps they need a sliding scale of fitness requirements, based on body mass. That way they can give allowances for flimsy wee guys, as well as wee girls, but make the strapping big lasses do the same as the big guys.

Would that not be fair?

[pr00ne]

Cue the misogynists...

[flighthappens]

Cue the misogynists...

At the end of the day the weapon, radio, body armour, food, water, webbing, pack etc that they will carry will all weigh the same, or near enough, as the blokes.

The reality is that most girls are going to be incapable of carrying the same load as far and as fast as the blokes. I’m happy to leave it up to the SAS to decide if they think it’s appropriate though!!!

[Mil-26Man]

The MoD said it did not comment on the special forces.”..........

You can bet your bottom dollar the MOD will be only be too happy to comment on special forces when the first woman does get in. You won't be able to shut them up from commenting.

[West Coast]

Cue the misogynists...

This was a tactic of the left during the Obama administration to shut down conversation. Scream racism and scare those who dare bring up legitimate policy concerns.

[Bergerie1]

I was never in the military, but as someone who has had some dealings with the SAS and who wishes to be protected by them, I say, do not dilute the standards, let the best person (man or woman) win.

[Melchett01]

At the end of the day the weapon, radio, body armour, food, water, webbing, pack etc that they will carry will all weigh the same, or near enough, as the blokes.

The reality is that most girls are going to be incapable of carrying the same load as far and as fast as the blokes. I’m happy to leave it up to the SAS to decide if they think it’s appropriate though!!!

Exactly. Last time I picked a weapon and 120+ rounds up it was a standard weight. To be meaningful equality must mean equality in all senses. Whatever the role or walk of life, when you make adjustments ‘to take into account’ then you don’t have equality. Nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny. Open the role to all who wish to try, set a consistent standard reflecting the role and see who passes.

[sidewayspeak]

Perhaps they need a sliding scale of fitness requirements, based on body mass. That way they can give allowances for flimsy wee guys, as well as wee girls, but make the strapping big lasses do the same as the big guys.

Would that not be fair?

Since when is combat fair? Do we have to ensure that we field the right level of soldier for the expected enemy response?

War is not an equal opportunities employer...

[ORAC]

I believe the point being made here is that the donkey factor - picking those that can carry the most the farthest - has never been the purpose of the first phase of training. Rather it was to stretch those participating to the very limit physically and mentally and see who cracked and who didn’t. In other words it is more a test of character and temperament than endurance.

Yes, it sets limits on weight and distance, but based on the median for male soldiers in order to eliminate the 90%,the same way ejector seats were designed to accommodate the median male 90%. Which proved inadequate when female pilots came along - which didn’t prove a failure of the females involved, rather than a failure in the design.

It may be that the phase 1 test was designed based on a rigorous scientific investigation of the task requirements of the SF in combat, but I doubt it.

If, and I say, if, the initial phase 1 weeding out process can be adjusted so that females who are also of the desired small percentile pass selection; and that the subsequent training and selection process identifies those who have the right qualities, the end result may be a plus.

Not every quality sought in the SF depend on the size of the muscles, much on intelligence, perseverance, ingenuity and courage.

[West Coast]

Bottom line ORAC, you’re in favor of dropping of dropping the existing standards.

[ORAC]

No. The standard is set by those eventually qualify, not those who are allowed to join the class.

When they changed the entry sex, weight and height standards for pilot did they drop or merely change them?

[West Coast]

if, the initial phase 1 weeding out process can be adjusted so that females

Adjusted being the operative word. I’m reasonably sure by adjusted, you don’t mean increasing the task and standards.

Political correctness experiment with no gain to those on the pointy end.

Recall the wise words from earlier in the thread about war not being an equal opportunity employer. You want to stack the deck in your favor, not dumb down the advantage that high standards brings. There are jobs in the military where woman excel, likely exceeding their male counterparts performance at. A job that emphasizes physical endurance and core strength doesn’t play to a woman’s size.

If and only if a woman can pass the same test that a man can (not a gender considerate dumbed down one) should they be allowed in the SAS.

[Pontius Navigator]

While the article is probably correct saying British SF are considering . . . it then goes on to say 'understood SAS and SBS . . . '

Is that true or an assumption by the journos? SF is not only SAS/SBS.

[Bing]

When they changed the entry sex, weight and height standards for pilot did they drop or merely change them?

Did they change the piloting ability standards? That's what's relevant for aircrew.

[ORAC]

A job that emphasizes physical endurance and core strength doesn’t play to a woman’s size. Not all jobs need a hammer, some need a knife. Not all tasks need muscle, some need endurance and other qualities. If you only have hammers in your tool box, the solution to every problem is a nail.

[ORAC]

Did they change the piloting ability standards? That's what's relevant for aircrew. Which is the point I was making. Are the present parameters for phase 1 merely the same as the old aircrew entry standards that females could not pass. What are the SF “abilities” that are required at the end of the course - not the weeding out criteria at the start.

I am reminded of the fact that in NI during “The Troubles” the security and SF required many females to “blend in” and provide intelligence and support and many girls were recruited from all three services and served on many operations where beefy military men would have been flushed out and killed in short notice. I doubt many would have passed phase 1.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

The point ORAC is, I believe making is (and I'm inclined to agree)...

Are the 'phase 1 criteria' for tabbing around Brecon job-spec criteria for physical fitness, or for mental toughness. If the latter then adjust away to achieve an equivalency. I would, however, say if the former then I have to agree with the mob. However, I'd hazard a guess and say none of us are experts in the SF selection process, so how's about we let them make their own professional decisions and trust them to make the right one to enable warfighting to take place in the safest way for our own side and the most dangerous for her majesty's enemies.

[parabellum]

Sources say special forces commanders are considering changing only the first of several phases of selection,


And there you have it, initial selection gets rid of those not worth the effort and expenditure of the subsequent training, often as many as 90%. The subsequent training will continue to identify individuals not considered SF material and they will RTU, no mention of reducing the standard required for women. The training staff are all well experienced SF soldiers and a candidate will be judged on whether the experienced soldiers would be happy to go on an operation with them. Even failing to maintain the standard once 'badged' can be the cause of being sent back to the parent regiment or corps. I have no idea what the 'chop' rate is after selection but there is one, many are called but few are chosen.

[West Coast]

Not all jobs need a hammer, some need a knife

That’s catchy and all, but application to SF? You have to be prepared for both at any given time.

[juliet]

Currently happening within the Green Berets in the US. Long term push to include women, standards lowered prior to actually formally accepting women for training. By the time they are able to start training standards allow them to pass a course that they wouldn’t have a few years before.

There are plenty of women in the forces specifically available for SF duties that require their abilities. I’ve worked with them and they are fantastic. What we are talking about here is not a requirement for more women to fill under resourced roles. This is purely about forcing a politically correct ideal and ignoring the realities of what the role requires.

This is not comparable to women becoming pilots in the RAF. A women is physically and mentally capable of the role. Arguments about having to change ejector seats is not comparable. We’re no talking about not allowing women because we don’t make boots in smaller sizes. A woman is not generally capable of extreme endurance marches carrying heavy weights. If however you can find one then more power to them, I’m sure they would be welcomed as an equal.

Re the idea that the the testing is about mental toughness, sure, but you can be as mentally strong as you like, when your legs give out it counts for nothing. Yes you need a smart guy, but frankly he also needs to be a “donkey” (as someone else suggested) at times. The two go hand in hand.

I’ve worked with SF lads that are 6’6” and others that would be lucky to be 5’6”. The little guy was given no quarter, they carried the same weight and marched the same distance. Ultimately it meant that you didn’t care what the chap looked like, you knew that he could do the job as he had passed the course. If a woman can do that great. Pass the same course and crack on.

[ORAC]

There is also the factor that, with the army shrinking towards 72K, there is a smaller pool to select from; along with increasing demand for their use which lead David Cameron to funding a requirement to increase the size of the regiment in 2015. With the lag between decision being made and the funding and task reaching the frontline the timing seems right.

If you have a requirement for an increased output one method to achieve is to accept marginal candidates and accept the increased failure rate if it produces even only one or two more graduates at the end.

I think a lot of pilots know of the fluctuation over the years when capable students were chopped in one year and marginal ones recoursed and then passed the next.


David Cameron promises to 'beef up' the SAS to take the fight to Isil - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11909488/David-Cameron-promises-to-beef-up-the-SAS-to-take-the-fight-to-Isil.html)

[Top Bunk Tester]

Cue the misogynists...

Cue the ultra liberal PC brigade who get offended by everything and who lead to the reduction in standards across the board thereby leading to a reduction of effectivness across the board. But that’s OK as long as nobody is offended.

[SASless]

There is a role for women in SF Ops....not all women and not all SF Ops.

How the Forces properly arrive at the right combination of the two is what matters.

So long as it is Operationally driven and not politically driven then all should be fine.

But....if this is about letting Muffy wear an odd colored Beret in favor of Political Correctness...there shall be blood...real blood....and a failure of Mission with attendant casualties on our side.

Cue the misogynists...

Some folks are entirely predictable....and the rant shall be...when the failures start occurring is the Standards are unfair to Muffy rather than ever accepting that Muffy did not have the right stuff to quality....and down will go the standards yet again for the entirely wrong reason.

[airpolice]

The point ORAC is, I believe making is (and I'm inclined to agree)...

Are the 'phase 1 criteria' for tabbing around Brecon job-spec criteria for physical fitness, or for mental toughness. If the latter then adjust away to achieve an equivalency. I would, however, say if the former then I have to agree with the mob. However, I'd hazard a guess and say none of us are experts in the SF selection process, so how's about we let them make their own professional decisions and trust them to make the right one to enable warfighting to take place in the safest way for our own side and the most dangerous for her majesty's enemies.

Indeed, perhaps the guys are the sharp end, have identified a need for girls at the sharp end.

[Top Bunk Tester]

There is a role for women in SF Ops....not all women and not all SF Ops.

Let's face it, the Det had female operators for many years, and I think that the Det is most definitely classified as SF. I don't believe they allowed the standards for Det selection to drop for the ladies so why should it now.

Although 'GI Jane' was Hollywood malarki, it did highlight how these things are more often than not politically motivated.

[West Coast]

Female SAS member reveals what selection process is like | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5128399/Could-cut-SAS-member.html)

So far woman are 0-1 with the standards held. Note the article doesn’t say she didn’t make the grade.

[Top Bunk Tester]

Azi Ahmed is a proven Walt and has been called out many times, bit of due dilligence required there WC - quelle surprise she had a book to sell.

[West Coast]

I sorry, SAS testing isn’t at the top of my agenda. It’s source material for those wanting to learn more.

[Pontius Navigator]

We have had a couple of SAS Selection games shows. They were run by ex-SAS and included many of the features that we as outsiders were aware of. The first was set in UK and they had to use replica weights in lieu of weapons. The second series was in Brunei or similar with local
Forces play opfor when required. They toted SLR with blank ammo. The winner was a slight wirey female who exhibited greater endurance, determination and leadership skills which culminated in a hostage rescue from a defended kampok.

A bit like the superior pilot using his superior judgement to avoid situations which require use of his superior skill.

[West Coast]

Are you trying to extrapolate out something from a game show?

[alfred_the_great]

Currently happening within the Green Berets in the US. Long term push to include women, standards lowered prior to actually formally accepting women for training. By the time they are able to start training standards allow them to pass a course that they wouldn’t have a few years before.



Having read the original article/email that perhaps prompted that comment, I'd suggest that actually, the drive down in standards is not specifically about women, but instead about Senior Officers and Senior NCOs looking good and recruiting lots of new 'operators'.

If it were solely about dropping the standards for women, then they'd be maintaining the (new) line with the men currently going through training. They're not - they're allowing the A-Teams to be stuffed with men who can't make the grade. If you had a particularly odd bent of mind, you might say they are doing this to prepare the teams for women, but the easier (and simpler) explanation is that this is about trying to mass produce SF.

The email can be found at

https://sofrep.com/94786/careerism-cronyism-malfeasance-special-warfare-center-end-special-forces-capability/

and it's opening paragraph is

SWCS has devolved into a cesspool of toxic, exploitive, biased and self-serving senior Officers who are bolstered by submissive, sycophantic, and just-as-culpable enlisted leaders. They have doggedly succeeded in two things; furthering their careers, and ensuring that Special Forces more prolific, but dangerously less capable than ever before. Shameless and immodest careerism has, in no uncertain terms, effectively destroyed our ability to assess, train, and prepare students, or to identify those students that pose very real risk to Operational Detachments. I cannot stress how systematic and severe the effects on the force will be if the standards, recently implemented here in the Special Forces Qualification Course, remain in place.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

I am reminded of the fact that in NI during “The Troubles” the security and SF required many females to “blend in” and provide intelligence and support and many girls were recruited from all three services and served on many operations where beefy military men would have been flushed out and killed in short notice. I doubt many would have passed phase 1.

Agreed, however not sure that the "Muppets", E4, Int etc were classified as SF ? Notwithstanding, the value of their contribution is beyond reproach.

NEO

[NutLoose]

Surely if they lower the standards for training entry but maintain equal standards across the sexes for those that qualify then they are setting up a lot of people for a fall, isn't the idea for the initial testing to ensure that you have people that can cut the mustard and possible complete the course?
To take on people of either sex that fail to demonstrate the required standards upon entry to a course would possibly be throwing good monies away training people that you know have possibly not got the physical ability to attain the level required.

[ORAC]

If you have the capacity on the course then every single one that makes it against expectations is a bonus.

[DirtyProp]

Since when is combat fair? Do we have to ensure that we field the right level of soldier for the expected enemy response?

War is not an equal opportunities employer...
Stop using common sense, the pc-brigade doesn't like that.

[Pontius Navigator]

West Coast, in a word, yes.

All the male wannabe would have been in the 92% that washed out.

[Brat]

Are you trying to extrapolate out something from a game show?

There have been recent reality game shows that have had ex SF supervisors administering various tests in TV programs, where women have exhibited some pretty exceptional performances alongside male contestants.

As an ex RM I would say that some of those females would have had a very good chance of passing the commando course.

[parabellum]

Passing the course is only half of it, operational performance is the other. Were the game show contestants pushed as relentlessly as we are led to believe genuine SF candidates are? Is there as much at stake?

[West Coast]

TV show that was 10-11 days in its duration that very well could have had an engineered outcome to boost ratings.

[Barksdale Boy]

PN

Shouldn't that be "kampong"?

[The Oberon]

I think that the lowering of entry standards pales into insignificance when you consider the hurdles that have to be crossed before anyone is even considered for selection. Unlike the SAS(R), you cannot walk in off the street and try to join the regular SAS. Although selection is open to all arms of the services, the vast majority come from an airborne or commando background. This means that the majority of candidates, male or female, must pass P Company or equivalent and also have considerable, relevant experience of serving in those branches. I'm pretty sure that, despite several attempts, no female has passed P Company and that no female has even attempted the 38 week RM course.

I also believe that there are 5, much fitter than most males, females who have passed the 10 week AACC and earned their "green lid". The majority passed as equals but at least 1 was given concessions that would not have been given to a male candidate.

We have physical gender differences, it doesn't make one superior to the other, just different. I have mentioned the sporting analogy before, we still have gender separation in the vast majority of sports, not because we want to, but to allow everyone a chance to compete and succeed on level terms,

[Pontius Navigator]

I am with Brat. Yes of course WC we see only what the producers want us to see and only observe one participant for a few minutes rather than weeks at a time. However having been an 'assessor' for many years I have found snap judgements are frequently correct.

I could give examples but I won't. In the TV programme that woman was clearly a cut above all the men. That is the point, not that she should have been recruited or would have passed, but she was way better than average.

While Miss PN1 enjoyed her time in, no way could she yomp with a 10kg pack. Miss PN2 did her back in and could hardly handle her L85A2.

[gsa]

Agreed, however not sure that the "Muppets", E4, Int etc were classified as SF ?

Maybe not, but they never watered down the selection, training or standard for the women so why mess about now.

Sorry but if they want to be equal let them be equal to the standard now and not a reduced standard that others will want to follow because the women get it why dont we.

[Pontius Navigator]

Gsa, my SiL, after one appointment at a London address, was presented with a montage of flashes and badges. I only recognised two of them and had heard of a third, there were quite a few more.

[[email protected]]

Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.

That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).

It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.

[Pontius Navigator]

Crab, got it in one. That is what I alluded to at the beginning. Until we see the official line then it ius possible that The Times merely assumed that women in SF meant women in SAS/SBS.

[The Oberon]

Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.

That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).

It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.

Couldn't agree more.

[Melchett01]

Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.

That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).

It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.

Without delving into detail or speculation, such opportunities already exist after a fashion of sorts - plenty of female operators in SRR and DHU. And whilst the latter isn't SF, it is certainly specialised and highly demanding and very much puts individuals in the firing line in some pretty unhospitable places.

[M609]

Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.

That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).

It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.

Someone did that already. ;) Meet the Hunter Troop: Norway's tough-as-nails female soldiers - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39434655)

[ShotOne]

A major problem operating undercover during the troubles was that the fit, tough young men of the SAS all looked exactly what they were, however long their hair. If this gives another string of unpredictability for our enemies surely it's all to the good, regardless of what size pack they can carry?

[Pontius Navigator]

TV show that was 10-11 days in its duration that very well could have had an engineered outcome to boost ratings.

SAS:Who Dares Wins is run over 8 days. Clearly this is just a very small part of the real deal but it still separates winners and losers.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.


I would agree however it wouldn’t stop the PC brigade, some of which reside here from beating the equality drum.

[gr4techie]

Coincidentally, I did a 5km run over the weekend where there was over 300 participants. The winner was a woman with a time of 17 minutes 50 seconds (on a slow hilly course)
Ok it's not SAS distances but it proves that women don't need an easier fitness test.
Paula Radcliffe could give most guys a 2 hour head start and she'll still run a marathon quicker than them.

[gr4techie]

A major problem operating undercover during the troubles was that the fit, tough young men of the SAS all looked exactly what they were, however long their hair. If this gives another string of unpredictability for our enemies surely it's all to the good, regardless of what size pack they can carry?

I heard someone say the ideal undercover guy would be someone who doesn't act a d*ckhead after a few beers in the pub and draw attention to himself.
Unfortunately that would exclude a fair few people I've worked with.

[Heathrow Harry]

Fitness is important but also you have to fit in - a small woman might be better undercover than some guy with bulging muscles. And brain beats brawn every time

[juliet]

All the talk about undercover stuff is missing the point that there are already women trained and operating in that exact role. They work alongside the other units as and when required. The primary wartime role of the two main SF units require those strength and endurance attributes that typically only men have.

Yes, Paula Radcliffe would most likely beat every badged bloke in a race. But most likely not with a pack, webbing, body armour, weapon etc., and not for multiple days in a row.

Th current system has worked well, the women have done a great job in their roles. Let them try and pass if they want but lowering standards does no one any favours.

[charliegolf]

I heard someone say the ideal undercover guy would be someone who doesn't act a d*ckhead after a few beers in the pub and draw attention to himself.
Unfortunately that would exclude a fair few people I've worked with.

Isn't finding that out part of the selection?

CG

[NutLoose]

Ahhh Paula Radcliffe the phantom pisser

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I2-YP42rs

you don't see that on the Beeb

[heights good]

There have been recent reality game shows that have had ex SF supervisors administering various tests in TV programs, where women have exhibited some pretty exceptional performances alongside male contestants.

As an ex RM I would say that some of those females would have had a very good chance of passing the commando course.

Was that not tried already by the RM?

[serf]

Coincidentally, I did a 5km run over the weekend where there was over 300 participants. The winner was a woman with a time of 17 minutes 50 seconds (on a slow hilly course)
Ok it's not SAS distances but it proves that women don't need an easier fitness test.
Paula Radcliffe could give most guys a 2 hour head start and she'll still run a marathon quicker than them.

But could she fight for her life when she got there...

[Trim Stab]

The selection course has been made substantially easier in the last decade or so anyway, even before this announcement. Once the LRRP role was usurped by UAVs, there was no need to select soldiers for their ability to carry large loads over long distances, so they shortened considerably the speed marches. The modern kit makes the conditions far more comfortable, and they even get water breaks now instead of having to carry or scavenge it all. The selection was probably at its most difficult in the eighties and nineties, when the core role was long range unsupported reconnaissance behind front lines.

[Pontius Navigator]

NL, if that was a man pissing about he would have been arrested.

[Tengah Type]

When lots of these women suffer injuries in training, while trying to meet the current standards, will the MOD lower the standards or pay out a shed load of money in compensation?

I can also forsee problems for a mixed unit in the field where " Basic" living conditions apply, in a hide perhaps.

[Pontius Navigator]

As it happens series 3 began tonight. 24 men and 3 dropped out on first day. Couldn't take the psychological pressure.

[juliet]

Police ordered to change the way they recruit dog handlers | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265409/Police-ordered-change-way-recruit-dog-handlers.html)

Of course there would never be a lowering of the standards in the military...

[vascodegama]

It does say that the test could be objectively justified. This is exactly the reverse of Alcock vs the Hampshire force some years ago. Of course they could always give her a smaller dog to carry.

[Pontius Navigator]

Talking to BiL, a retired dog handler from Avon and Somerset, one problem was carrying a strange dog. All DH had to repeat the test at the annual refresher. They carried their own dog but new recruits had to carry what was available. The dogs were not always happy.

The technique was to hold the legs tight and pull the dog tight into the back of the neck.

Not all men pass the tests either. He said they had one card though against people crying off. They had an Army female PTI and if she could do it . . . Apparently all the instructors took part in the tests too. The biggest problem was some recruits were not as fit as they thought they were.

He was ex-RN FAA Field Gun team too - all tea and sympathy like.

[sidewayspeak]

Police can't retain their standards. It will be exactly the same in the military, and they will end up with much reduced physical' standards. Glad I am out of this equality garbage.

Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/police-review-tests-dog-handlers-avoid-discrimination/)

[jayteeto]

My missus is a Merseyside bobby and she gets stuck in more than some of her male colleagues. She and many others are good at the job. Same for frontline; there are many Richards who I would replace with one of the girls

[Herod]

How can it be discrimination? The test is to ensure that the candidate can carry out the task assigned. What next? A child couldn't complete the test, so in future it will involve carrying a toy dog over fifty metres. If not, that is age discrimination.

[Heathrow Harry]

my Ggd... this is 2018.................... well it is here

why do they have to be able to carry a dog? when did any copper last run 10 miles? (in fact when did they last WALK 10 miles??)

they are coppers not the SAS

[Simplythebeast]

The simple fact is that some male officers also fail to make the grade so why on earth is this classed as discriminatory? As for running 10 miles, the story as usual is incorrect...They aren’t carrying the dog for 10 miles. It’s a continuation track that involves picking up and carrying the dog at certain times. Some female candidates passed that particular course so this is even more unjustified.

[Basil]

I'd say that police and, e.g., infantry requirements and training are different.

A WPC* is useful as such and a desirable member of the team. She will have a peculiarly feminine approach and acceptability which will, in some circumstances, be useful.
If slightly reduced ability to carry a load is necessary, then I don't think that presents a training problem.

*Yes, I know that, like WRNS, WRAC and WRAF, they aren't actually called that any more. :)

[Pontius Navigator]

Basil, but running endurance and ability to carry your dog were the criteria.

[vascodegama]

See the SAS thread and the movement to this very story. As stated there , this is a question of the relevance of said test. If it is relevant then the standard is absolute ie both genders must achieve the same level. A while ago a different police force lost a similar case but with the opposite ruling ie they must introduce a gender neutral test. If it is necessary to have different standards for females (don’t get me started on that) then what do they do -give her a Yorkshire Terrier to carry? The bit that really does bother me is that she has been given compensation before a review of the test validity has been carried out. Presumably if said review were to justify the neutrality aspect on operational grounds then no discrimination had occurred. What then does she give the money back?

[ExAscoteer]

What has this got to do with Military Aviation?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I don't know the exact deets of this case or what the ruling was based on as I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.

However, as HH says. Is a ten miler of death plus the dog carry actually a requirement in line with the job spec? If it is, fair one. If not, then it is inherently discriminatory because a higher % of men will pass it. This isn't rocket science. It's 2018 and "we've always done this" or "why should it be easier than my day" just doesn't cut it. As others have said, particularly in the fuzz, the female approach brings something totally different to the party and having a 50/50 split is inherently desirable.

[Simplythebeast]

What has this got to do with Military Aviation?

Because she has to be a Hercules to run 10 miles with a 250lb landshark over her shoulders.

[Heathrow Harry]

Vasco - the Judge looked at it and decided it WAS discrimatory

"Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified, “ said the judge.

The judge agreed women were at particular disadvantage compared with men and awarded Miss Carter a total of £14,930 for indirect sex discrimination.


Sounds like they didn't or couldn't justify the test.........

In a very different field a Company I work for recently lost a case on much the same basis - "Custom & Practice" was not considered to be acceptable when these days you could do a calculation and document it.............

[charliegolf]

What has this got to do with Military Aviation?

'Cos every fule nose no girl can light a Weber!

CG

[vascodegama]

Indeed HH-that is exactly what happened in the case of Alcock vs CC Hampshire. Said gentleman failed selection but his female counterparts passed because of the gender fair test. The tribunal said this was direct discrimination which suggests to me that an objective assessment has been done.

If this was a general test for selection to the police as a whole I could see the argument. This was however a test for a specific role therefore the test should be absolute.

I am not a betting man but I would argue that the nature of the test (i.e. gender neutral) was influenced by the previous ruling above-not Custom and Practice.

[SPIT]

I very much doubt if a MALE OFFICER could carry his dog even 1 MILE ???.:ok::ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

and the Police have never been a beacon of early adoption of any form of equality in any field

as I said if someone could show a copper carrying his dog or running 10 km in one go on duty I'd listen but .................................

[Simplythebeast]

and the Police have never been a beacon of early adoption of any form of equality in any field

as I said if someone could show a copper carrying his dog or running 10 km in one go on duty I'd listen but .................................
Like I said earlier.....they dont....they arent required to in the test......
As for equality in the Police....what is your personal experience?

[downsizer]

What has this got to do with Military Aviation?

Mate that applies to virtually every thread here! :cool:

[Pontius Navigator]

Let us suppose the standard is reduced so that more women can pass selection with the expectation that 50% of the force will be female. Now the force has a requirement for 48 dog handlers. Previously they had 44 men and 4 women. Now they have 20 fewer men.

By definition, there would be 20 men stronger and possessing greater endurance than 20 of the women. In terms of equality they would be penalized. Instead of paying >£15k compensation the force might be liable for £300k. Oops.

[Herod]

This is a specific test for a specific role, not a general one. As jayteeto says, his missus gets stuck in with the rest of them. In other words, she passed the test to be a copper (jayteeto, give her my respect). That is a good thing in that we need more women in the force. BUT; this was a test to meet certain criteria. I'm sure some ladies would pass it, the same as some men would fail it. That does not make in discriminatory.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hero's, as I related elsewhere, my brother in law says they had an Army PUT on their team. She could beat many of the men so the men could nit complain as too hard.

[BEagle]

What's the problem? An issue has been identified which the police must now decide how to mitigate.

I don't really think we'll be seeing Maltese terriers or the like on front line police duties in the near future.....

[NutLoose]

why do they have to be able to carry a dog?

One would imagine it's a requirement for the simple reason at some points in service the handler will need to, such as over broken glass etc in certain situations. Hence the requirement to ensure they have the ability to do it. In the same vein as air loadies of both sexes on the VC10 had to demonstrate the ability to lift and drag the heavy life rafts from their storage area in the rear cabin ceiling to the doors and deploy them in a set time.

I do feel however the country is screwed with all this PC bull****, I am all for equality etc but at the end of the day someone somewhere has to recognise that women are simply not built the same as men in both skeletal structure and muscle, I for one cannot see how she was discriminated against, the fact that there ARE female dog handlers proves the course IS passable by females and has been in the past, so where is the discrimination? Or are we going to become a Country that rewards failure with financial recompense, as that appears the way we are going.

If anyone watched the biggest little railway tonight with that ex Army bod laying a model train track in Scotland, it has a section that showed PC madness gone to extremes laying track alongside but a distance away from a canal, the spotty kid in charge had them in full reflective gear with life jackets helmets and ear defenders, the whole 9 yards and was bleating on worrying they may miss the start of their 1 hour lunch period.... It was totally over the top PC crap and shows how far this country is going down the tubes, don't get me wrong, safety is paramount, but this appeared to be more worried about crossing the T's and dotting the I's to be seen to be complying with the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it.

[Tankertrashnav]

And they still ended up with the quad bike in the canal :*

[parabellum]

My missus is a Merseyside bobby and she gets stuck in more than some of her male colleagues. She and many others are good at the job. Same for frontline; there are many Richards who I would replace with one of the girls


That is the good news. Down here in Melbourne it is different, largely due to the efforts of one Christine Nixon, who, when Chief of Police in Victoria insisted on very high degrees of gender and race 'equality', large numbers of women of varying race were recruited and fit, able men turned away. A seasoned sergeant I spoke to was very unhappy, as he pointed out, he would spend more time, on a Saturday night, trying to protect his patrol partner, the 5' nothing girl, of Indian extraction, from drunken mobs than he should rightfully have spent trying to restore law and order. Not unnaturally he wanted a fit and able man of equal size to himself to be able to physically tackle the trouble makers whereas his position was totally compromised by the inappropriate gender and race bias of Christine Nixon.

[John Eacott]

You just beat me to it, parabellum. Big Kev's legacy will forever taint both VicPol and the state in general, she who declared that there was no problem with Sudanese migrants who she blatantly stated were 'under-represented' in crime stattistics.

But her legacy of lowering the entry standards to allow new recruits who just couldn't and still can't pull their weight in a normal policing way, plus the call that they are there "to keep the peace, not enforce the law" is a travesty of what VicPol and policing in general stands for.

Then there was the branding of 'POLICE' on vehicles, helicopters, hi-vis vests etc into lower case as being less aggressive, the payment for members to march with her in the St Kilda 'Gay Pride' march on full pay and finally her hairdressing appointment while the State burned and she was supposedly in charge of Emergency Management.

[NutLoose]

Then there was the branding of 'POLICE' on vehicles, helicopters, hi-vis vests etc into lower case as being less aggressive,

Even had a similar thing in the RAF in the 70's-80's when we had to change from carrying our SLR's on our hip to carrying it facing down as it was seen as a less aggressive stance, the fact you were carrying a big **** off musket in the first place didn't seem to matter, checking someone's ID close up meant you would struggle to raise it, when on your hip you could at least use gravity to make sure they felt it.


Yes Tanker I agree, and it wasn't even close to the bank, that and running the other with no oil in it.

PN just seen reply about pisser, totally agree.

[jayteeto]

Herod is spot on. My missus agrees with him 100%.
The level required for a specialist role is just that, the level required. However the second thread starter stated a general whine about women in the military or the police. That’s wrong. Merseyside had one standard during her training.

Back to rubbishing this police dog nonsense, remember, the RAF fitness test always had split levels. I could never understand why it was ESSENTIAL for a male to be able to reach level 10.5 in order to do a job, when a female could do it at 6.6........... It’s the same job!!

The reason? It’s a general filter to exclude lardarses. The police don’t actually NEED that level, it just filters. That is why the girls CAN have a lower limit for some posts. It’s wrong of course, but it does sort of explain why they can.

[Training Risky]

Glad to see that the consensus on the decision to award compo by this 'judge' is a travesty and flies in the face of common sense.

This has the familiar smell of similar females who sued their force for providing handguns that they could not grip, and also made them do an assault course in body armour...like the men:mad:

[Heathrow Harry]

"who sued their force for providing handguns that they could not grip,"

so what idiot handed them out?

[Pontius Navigator]

Providing a gun they can handle is common sense rather than one size fits all. Wearing body armour OTOH seems perfectly sensible provided it fits!

[Pontius Navigator]

It is a shame there are no women on the programme in series 3. I know it is a show. I know it lasts only 8 days, but there is no reason to think the real deal does not pose similar physical and mental challenges.

The biggest difference is where the real SAS recruits come from compared with the gym bunnies on the show.

[Finningley Boy]

Cue the misogynists...

pr00ne,

The course as it stands was set to meet a minimum standard, not to exclude female applicants. Either way, if it highlights a difference in achievable standards which are so stark then the answer is meet those standards. Defenders of placing women in traditional male roles have always made the point that standards will never be lowered. Some misogynists were sceptical, like the typical dumb b******s they are!

FB

[Training Risky]

Providing a gun they can handle is common sense rather than one size fits all. Wearing body armour OTOH seems perfectly sensible provided it fits!

One-size-fits all is the essential point of that particular 'compo' case.

When buying in bulk there is a significant cost saving (contracts, spares, maintenance) by providing only one handgun. To wit, we now have only 2 frontline RAF FJ types, as opposed to approx 10 in the early '90s.

If we dished out guns depending on body size/shape, then why don't all WAAFs carry dainty SMGs? No. They qualify on the L85A2 like the men do.

Also, if those female coppers carrying a different gun to the men run out of rounds when under sustained fire, will they be able to share rounds with male AFOs? (qenuine question for those in the know...)

[alfred_the_great]

To answer the above two posts:

is the standard the standard just because it's always been the standard, or because it's actually the level of work required?

when has a UK AFO ever run out of rounds? If the answer is never, why are you even considering it as a policy driver? If they have, different size guns can use the same rounds. My wife didn't carry an SA80 on ops, but instead was issued a SA80 carbine as it was safer and more effective for her (and those around her).

[BEagle]

On the subject of weapons for people-formerly-known-as-WRAFs, on one ODT session we arrived at the range for SLP playtime with the genial Stn Rocks just as a remedial p-f-k-a-WRAF session was ending. The instructor briefed the problem of 'ride-up' when firing the SMG on 'auto', then "Target to your front, rapid fire, in your own time, go on" (or whatever).

Dadadadada....and one dainty little lass had managed to put every round right through the figure 11 target - in the nuts.

"Remind me never to upset you!" was all the instructor said, as he retrieved the shredded remains of the target, whilst the shooter blushed and giggled.