Food For Thought For The Old And Bold

[Mad_Mark]

Originally Posted by Antique Driver

In these days of equailty why should I have to reach level 8-09 when the useless bird at the navs desk on my flightdeck only has to reach 6-04. We're on the same aircraft in the same theatre

There lies the problem with all those that say its all about being fit to do your job or deploy. Why should a 49 year old male have to run more lengths than a 17 year old female to do the same job?

I also know of a few peolpe that struggle or even fail their beep test, though pass the sit-ups and press-ups with flying colours, simply because they are not runners. Yet they have still deployed many times to the sand pit and been more than capable of doing their job out there.

MadMark!!!

[evilroy]

We have just introduced the beep test as an alternative to the 2.4km run or the swim. People say the beep test is a doddle, but one PTI reckons it's actually quite hard..

[enginesuck]

Im a bloater (seriously) i passed the fitness test but have failed in the past, and when i do pass its a struggle. I can however run 5k at a steady pace no problem. I can deploy and work 24 hour shifts, lift big bits of engine on my shoulder and fit them to the a/c in 50 degree heat.

What does 9-10 on a shuttle run prove??? Lets get these racing snakes lifting a C.S.D.U onto a spey in the desert.

[buoy15]

Know of 5 people who've killed themselves trying to keep fit at lunchtime over the last 5 years - One was an RAF Squash champion!

Just before I retired, my AFT was reduced to walking a length of the Gym in about 20 mins to meet the bleep test - bit of a joke!

Average fit people run 100 mtrs in 30 secs and look to get the heartrate back to normal in 1 min (68), your fit! - the Canadian, Johnson, who ran 100m in 9.2 secs and was still breathing through his nose at the finish was accused of hanging back for the semi-final!

[akula]

Looking at the new levels through a slightly cynical eye would lead me to believe the Air Force is looking shot of all the over 35's. The level increases seem to be targeted in a precise manner with a sliding scale incrementing the ammount of change as you get older. It seems a bit odd, that overnight, a 39 year old will expected to be able to achieve the same(OK 1 shuttle less) level as a 25 year old whipper snapper on the current system

ALWAYS assume NEVER check

[NoseGunner]

Remember

1. Passing the RAFFT has nothing to do with being able to do your job.
If you really want to argue the ridiculous E&E bit then you could equally argue that all aircrew should be fat because if you bang out into the sea survival times are much higher - and that is much more likely than running a mile 30 secs quicker saving you!

2. Sexual equality does not mean having the same pass scores for male and female.

3. You cannot lose the x-factor just because you fail the RAFFT.

4. Wg Cdrs and above don't have to take the RAFFT (they can if they want to).


Don't get me wrong - I think a basic level of fitness is important, but some people need to take a deep breath, a step back and a reality pill (if you can do all 3 at once!)

[Rev I. Tin]

Gents,

I'm sorry, not taking the p*ss. I just don't know, but could anyone explain in small words why a 49 year old male does more than a 17 year old female.

Is a 17 year old female's heart/lung aerobic fitness capacity, combined with a lower body weight, really worse than a 49 year old male's?

Most grateful for a sensible reply.

Cheers

[cooheed]

Unsure as to why a 49 year old bloke has to go further than a 17 year old bird however, but their standards are lower for valid physiological reasons. Their hearts are on average 10% smaller than a blokes so have to work harder even if they are slightly lighter, haemoglobin levels are around 11% lower so less O2 being carried and they are, in general, a lot shorter than blokes so they need to make more strides to cover the same distance. So in effect, they have to work as hard as a bloke to achieve a lower standard. And no, I'm not a woman or a PTI!

[Rev I. Tin]

Cheers for the explanation.
I suppose one is buggered if one is a small male, or indeed a distinct advantage if one is a tall female, with a big heart and lungs (and dare I say it, big hands, strange voice and an adam's apple )

[Climebear]

Originally Posted by NoseGunner

4. Wg Cdrs and above don't have to take the RAFFT (they can if they want to).

Yes they do - I think your confusing this with the requirement for CCS. Although they have to undertake CCS if they have a deployable role or, indeed, if they believe that part of leadership is the ability to set an example (yes I know that it is a very big 'if they believe').

[NoseGunner]

Apologies I stand corrected.

[ORAC]

Australian Heavy Infantry....

Torygraph: Australian army gets heavier infantry
By Nick Squires in Sydney

The image of the lean, bronzed Australian infantry "digger" may require a radical update after the Australian army announced plans yesterday to accept overweight, asthmatic recruits to address an acute shortage of soldiers.

Former drug users and the middle-aged are also likely to be recruited as entry requirements are drastically lowered.

The new criteria have prompted jokes about the infantry, which earned its laurels at Gallipoli and Tobruk, turning into a Dad's Army of the old, unfit and infirm.

"Sure, some people might be a bit overweight, but we're good at getting people fit and taking the weight off them," said Lieu Gen Peter Leahy, the head of the army........

People in their 40s and 50s may be employed in non-combat areas.

[cooheed]

Originally Posted by Rev I. Tin

Cheers for the explanation.
I suppose one is buggered if one is a small male, or indeed a distinct advantage if one is a tall female, with a big heart and lungs (and dare I say it, big hands, strange voice and an adam's apple )

A small male will still have a higher VO2 Max and a tall female (albeit with big hands and an adams apple) will still have a haemoglobin defecit due to a lack of testosterone