WEIGHT AND HEIGHT LIMITS

[Top girl]

I've just been rejected from the RAF on the grounds that I'm underweight for the ejector seats. I'm 5'5'', and weight 8.5 stone. Do I qualify for CAA class 1, as I'm now considering a commercial career instead of a military one?

[40degrees]

TG,

The BMI chart is the standard calculation for weight to height ratio - according to a sliding scale you are definately within the low side of normal scale.

it works like this

weight / height2 x 705 = <18.5 underweight
18.5-25 healthy
25 + over weight
30 * obese

and as there are very few ejector seats that I know of in commercial airliners you should be ok ; )

good luck

ps. weight is in lbs. and height in inches



[This message has been edited by 40degrees (edited 10 May 2000).]

[JT8]

Top Girl,

You shouldn't have any problems. As long as you are in good health your BMI is not taken too seriously.

Rgrds,
JT8

[earnest]

Top girl,

The only “problem” the RAF has is that your weight lies outside the lower end of the ejection seat parameters. This was one of the many cans of worms opened when they finally allowed females to serve as aircrew – which was a perfectly reasonable decision - but of course most equipment has been designed around the 5th –95th percentile male. Hence quite a few females found out that although they are “normal” for a female, they are small with respect to their male counterparts, and required bespoke tailoring of flying suits and restrictions as to what aircraft types they could fly on purely anthropometric grounds.

The Armed Forces now have a duty of care not to put personnel unnecessarily at risk (ho ho), so although the ejector seats would be perfectly safe for you to use, were you to be injured following ejection, a smart lawyer could claim you had been obliged to use equipment which was not designed for your physique. The RAF could therefore be found negligent. The fact that these same seats may be used in foreign countries where the weight of the males is lighter, as I believe is often the case, is perhaps unfair but also irrelevant. What matters is the written specification for the RAF seats. (This is also becoming an issue with “crashworthy” helicopter seats; some females are too light with respect to the design parameters and research is going into how to make them heavier – ie by adding weight to their flying clothing).

I believe this issue was first raised when a female had to eject from the rear seat of a Harrier during a “familiarisation” trip and was burned after landing in the fireball of the wreck. It could have happened to anyone, but she was female, small and subsequently found to be underweight with respect to the military weight specifications for the seat. (A current RAF pilot could fill in more of the details on this one – it is a while since I read that accident report).

I agree with the comments made by 40degrees and JT8. Your weight and height will not be a problem commercially, providing, of course, you are reasonably in proportion (anthropometrically) and you have no other dark medical secrets.

Bad luck regards the RAF, but good luck with the commercial world. I’ve done both and would recommend either of them.

Just as a parting shot, how about finding out what the lower weight limit actually is. (It’s “nude weight” they are interested in, and who isn’t?) At 54 Kg you may only be just under the limit, and it could be feasible for you to put on a few kilos in the gym or curry houses. Guys often have to lose a few kilos to pass a medical, so it’s not unreasonable to consider putting a few on providing you think (and the medics think) you could sustain the extra weight. Just a thought.