OFT - Failure to complete will result in X-Factor removed!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Republic of the Philippines ex L1011 GE
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hes probably all talk, In this day and age all guys and girls down to the newest Sac Know where they are on the OOA list.
Imho a keyboard terrorist and a bully to anyone who has the misfortune to work under him/her! (Slc)
Imho a keyboard terrorist and a bully to anyone who has the misfortune to work under him/her! (Slc)
Last edited by pigsinspace; 27th Aug 2006 at 23:21.
Nose Gunner
You are right about the fitness tests standards but not OFT. The fitness test is a lifestyle test and therefore gender fair, the OFT is (allegedly) a test to determine suitability for duties (agreed it is hard to see how) and therefore must be gender neutral ie the same for all. If there were different standards in the OFT then we chaps (esp the old ones) could claim sex discrimination. If you dont believe me look up the case of Alcock vs the Chief Constable of Hampshire!
You are right about the fitness tests standards but not OFT. The fitness test is a lifestyle test and therefore gender fair, the OFT is (allegedly) a test to determine suitability for duties (agreed it is hard to see how) and therefore must be gender neutral ie the same for all. If there were different standards in the OFT then we chaps (esp the old ones) could claim sex discrimination. If you dont believe me look up the case of Alcock vs the Chief Constable of Hampshire!
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that Discrimination is divided into two main categories, direct and indirect discrimination. Broadly, direct discrimination occurs where a person is treated differently on the grounds of their gender. Indirect discrimination is where an employer applies a requirement or policy, which though on the face of it has nothing to do with gender, in practice tends to effect one sex rather than another.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Movin
Happy with all that and the way it is normally applied ie standards should be set where the pass/fail rate is the same for both sexes.
For example fast jets should be designed so that the cockpit fits (as an example) 85% of all people - 85% of males and 85% of females, otherwise it is discrimination. Exceptions can be made for health and safety reasons ie you have to be able to lift 50kg 1.5m in the air to safely do a job - but employers have to prove this, they cant just make rules up such as this which are discriminatory.
So if I understand correctly the RAFFT cannot discriminate so pass rates are the same for male/female but the OFT is, I guess, operational so standards are the same for all.
Anyone know if this is correct??
Interestingly, and I dont know if this is the reason for the recent change, exactly the same rules will very soon (couple of months?) apply to age, so pass rates should be very similar no matter your age/sex (for the RAFFT).
Happy with all that and the way it is normally applied ie standards should be set where the pass/fail rate is the same for both sexes.
For example fast jets should be designed so that the cockpit fits (as an example) 85% of all people - 85% of males and 85% of females, otherwise it is discrimination. Exceptions can be made for health and safety reasons ie you have to be able to lift 50kg 1.5m in the air to safely do a job - but employers have to prove this, they cant just make rules up such as this which are discriminatory.
So if I understand correctly the RAFFT cannot discriminate so pass rates are the same for male/female but the OFT is, I guess, operational so standards are the same for all.
Anyone know if this is correct??
Interestingly, and I dont know if this is the reason for the recent change, exactly the same rules will very soon (couple of months?) apply to age, so pass rates should be very similar no matter your age/sex (for the RAFFT).
My understanding is that an employer can set a standard for specific tasks/equipment providing it is justifiable. That aspect is not considered discrimination. Therefore if more women fail the OFT, provided the service can prove the OFT was justified then they have no come back. The same would go I dare say for FJ design; we are not required to compromise ac design for PC reasons yet. I am not sure that the fitness test is due to go totaly gender/age neutral but as an oldie I for one am quite happy to give up my "advantage" provided all the girls do.
Sorry NG I do not have a link but the basics are that Alcock failed selection as a dog handler on a multi terrain walk which women were allowed more time to complete. The tribunal ruled that if a woman who completed the walk in that time was fit to do the job then a man who did the same time must be as well. It upheld DIRECT sex discrimination against Hampshire Police. The clear read across is that provided the OFT is justifiable (granted a big IF) then different standards for men and women would discriminate against men.
The RAFFT which is a life style test would result in INDIRECT discrimination against women if there were not different standards.
Sorry NG I do not have a link but the basics are that Alcock failed selection as a dog handler on a multi terrain walk which women were allowed more time to complete. The tribunal ruled that if a woman who completed the walk in that time was fit to do the job then a man who did the same time must be as well. It upheld DIRECT sex discrimination against Hampshire Police. The clear read across is that provided the OFT is justifiable (granted a big IF) then different standards for men and women would discriminate against men.
The RAFFT which is a life style test would result in INDIRECT discrimination against women if there were not different standards.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: inside the train looking onto the platform.
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFFC/Piginspace. I merely place those that are unable to operationally deploy in a position to support UK and other european exercises where their lack of fitness will not be a danger to them or those who rely on them. I am purely taklking about those whose lifestyle choice (diet. laziness) is incompatible with an expeditionary Air Force. Interestingly enough they spend roughly the same amount of time away and the others do not feel agrieved towards them; everyone gets their full leave entitlement in and hasn't lost a day in the 2 yrs of my tenure.
I take it the next time you have a short notice deployment for 4 months you wont whinge about those that dont deploy because they are too 'fat to fight' and are deemed an operational liability.
Or may I hesitate to ask are either of you in this class. Medical downgrades are another matter.
Do not confuse bullying with forthright military man management. Its purely a case of using what you have for the best means and if someone cant pass the OFT/RAFFT then they have a military duty to support where they can, not languish in the UK with their families whilst others deploy sausage side. Work on Ops is the same whether you are male or female, the heat and the insurgents dont descriminate and nor should we.
I totally agree with 'Could be the Last' man management is hard enough without people shimfing their responsibility and making others lives harder 4 strikes is 2 too many.
I take it the next time you have a short notice deployment for 4 months you wont whinge about those that dont deploy because they are too 'fat to fight' and are deemed an operational liability.
Or may I hesitate to ask are either of you in this class. Medical downgrades are another matter.Do not confuse bullying with forthright military man management. Its purely a case of using what you have for the best means and if someone cant pass the OFT/RAFFT then they have a military duty to support where they can, not languish in the UK with their families whilst others deploy sausage side. Work on Ops is the same whether you are male or female, the heat and the insurgents dont descriminate and nor should we.
I totally agree with 'Could be the Last' man management is hard enough without people shimfing their responsibility and making others lives harder 4 strikes is 2 too many.
Last edited by SaddamsLoveChild; 28th Aug 2006 at 08:05.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be the Last I think that you misheard the punishment for failing the OFT. It’s not being able to watch The X Factor and have all your PS2 games taken away. Well I think that is just as likely.
Which idiot of a PTI thinks you fill sandbags full of pea shale at chest height with an entrenching tool?
Which idiot of a PTI thinks you fill sandbags full of pea shale at chest height with an entrenching tool?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockstrappers having far to much input in how the RAF is run, we all managed during the Cold War without BFT/CFT/Bleep tests or whatever else came along subsequently to save PTI jobs. During that time we also fulfilled all the little add-ons that the politicians got us invited us to. Strangely enough the time I got jiffed with a 'short notice' was when a ‘racing snake’ had managed to injure himself just before a Falklands det
I'd like to see an analysis of hours lost/dets missed by Gym Queens perusing their hobby
I'd like to see an analysis of hours lost/dets missed by Gym Queens perusing their hobby
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it the next time you have a short notice deployment for 4 months you wont whinge about those that dont deploy because they are too 'fat to fight' and are deemed an operational liability. Or may I hesitate to ask are either of you in this class. Medical downgrades are another matter.
Or may I hesitate to ask are either of you in this class. Medical downgrades are another matter.My gripe is that I'm not convinced that these fitness tests are a true measure of operational effectiveness for all trades/ranks and I don't believe that you should be having to find replacements for deployment based on their results.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Republic of the Philippines ex L1011 GE
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it the next time you have a short notice deployment for 4 months you wont whinge about those that dont deploy because they are too 'fat to fight' and are deemed an operational liability. Or may I hesitate to ask are either of you in this class. Medical downgrades are another matter.
I can say without any hessitation that I spend more time "deployed" per year than those on 4 month tours, in fact our deployment is on going not limited to a few months every few years.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaddamsLoveChild:
Why o why o why aren't there more bosses like you!
The poor attitude to fitness in general, and the fitness tests in particular, comes from the top. I often see a positive change in attitudes to fitness and testing when a new boss is posted in, and how that changes negatively when that boss leaves. Coincidentally, morale normally improves with the improved attitude...
Antique Driver:
The CFT/ BFT is no more relavant a fitness test for RAF personnel (Regt excepted) than the shuttle run test. The advantage of the shuttle run test is that is conducted inside, and so is not subject to vagaries of the weather.
The OFT is based on 16 real operational tasks, so it is relevant to set a standard and expect people who might have to carry out those tasks to meet that standard (There is a quote from a senior officer in the new conditioning booklet in which he describes how EVERYONE including the top man had to get involved in filling sandbags when in Basra).
Guersnsey Girl II
I am not sure of the relevance of filling sandbags at chest height but I am guessing that it might have something to do with you being in the hole you are digging, and the bag being at ground level next to the hole.
Maple 01
The role of the RAF during the Cold War was very different to now. Therefore we have to train personnel differently. We have to leave the dinosaurs to their fate and move with the changes!
At the end of the day, fitness is not a dirty word. A great deal of research supports the fact that those who exercise regularly are more productive and efficient at work, less likely to go sick, less likely to die early from a heart attack, less likely to develop obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and some forms of cancer. More importantly, they are more likely to convey the exercise ethos to their children and and ensure that they receive those benefits as well. That's not a bad return for 2 -3 hours exercise a week.
MM
ps SaddamsLoveChild for CAS!!!
Why o why o why aren't there more bosses like you!
The poor attitude to fitness in general, and the fitness tests in particular, comes from the top. I often see a positive change in attitudes to fitness and testing when a new boss is posted in, and how that changes negatively when that boss leaves. Coincidentally, morale normally improves with the improved attitude...Antique Driver:
The CFT/ BFT is no more relavant a fitness test for RAF personnel (Regt excepted) than the shuttle run test. The advantage of the shuttle run test is that is conducted inside, and so is not subject to vagaries of the weather.
The OFT is based on 16 real operational tasks, so it is relevant to set a standard and expect people who might have to carry out those tasks to meet that standard (There is a quote from a senior officer in the new conditioning booklet in which he describes how EVERYONE including the top man had to get involved in filling sandbags when in Basra).
Guersnsey Girl II
I am not sure of the relevance of filling sandbags at chest height but I am guessing that it might have something to do with you being in the hole you are digging, and the bag being at ground level next to the hole.
Maple 01
The role of the RAF during the Cold War was very different to now. Therefore we have to train personnel differently. We have to leave the dinosaurs to their fate and move with the changes!
At the end of the day, fitness is not a dirty word. A great deal of research supports the fact that those who exercise regularly are more productive and efficient at work, less likely to go sick, less likely to die early from a heart attack, less likely to develop obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and some forms of cancer. More importantly, they are more likely to convey the exercise ethos to their children and and ensure that they receive those benefits as well. That's not a bad return for 2 -3 hours exercise a week.
MM
ps SaddamsLoveChild for CAS!!!
I am not sure of the relevance of filling sandbags at chest height but I am guessing that it might have something to do with you being in the hole you are digging, and the bag being at ground level next to the hole.
So no need to fill them at chest height.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, it is only a guess
. You would need to have a big hole to get you, the digger, and someone else to hold the sandbag open for you in it... Mind you, if 'chucking' sandbags around is so easy maybe we should include that as a test too! 
MM
. You would need to have a big hole to get you, the digger, and someone else to hold the sandbag open for you in it... Mind you, if 'chucking' sandbags around is so easy maybe we should include that as a test too! MM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Musclemech,
I agree with you that it's good to be physically fit and it does help you to perform well.
But I know a few, seemingly unfit, aircrew that I'd be happy to go to war with any day. I've also known a couple of, apparently physically fit, aircrew that I'd be much more worried about trusting with my life.
In my personal opinion, to suggest that the former shouldn't deploy on operations because they might have trouble rushing to fill a few sandbags is complete madness! I'm all for motivating people to stay physically fit, but I suspect that an OFT is not the answer.
If we're really determined to increase the availability of people to deploy, perhaps we should start by looking at improving our secondary health care. These days I see servicemen/women waiting for months for NHS treatment. Not so many years ago a service person used to be treated in military hospitals without any waiting time. How things have changed!
I agree with you that it's good to be physically fit and it does help you to perform well.
But I know a few, seemingly unfit, aircrew that I'd be happy to go to war with any day. I've also known a couple of, apparently physically fit, aircrew that I'd be much more worried about trusting with my life.
In my personal opinion, to suggest that the former shouldn't deploy on operations because they might have trouble rushing to fill a few sandbags is complete madness! I'm all for motivating people to stay physically fit, but I suspect that an OFT is not the answer.
If we're really determined to increase the availability of people to deploy, perhaps we should start by looking at improving our secondary health care. These days I see servicemen/women waiting for months for NHS treatment. Not so many years ago a service person used to be treated in military hospitals without any waiting time. How things have changed!
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting thing that comes out of this thread to me is the number of people effectively saying ' I haven't needed to be fit in the past, and that was OK, so why do I need to be fit now?'.
This is not the cold war anymore. We are not going to park ourselves at an MOB and wait for the big bombs to come and wipe us out, for which of course no special level of fitness was required.
Those that are deploying now are (in the main) going to pokey dusty holes in the middle of nowhere, surrounding by all sorts of potentially unfriendly types. There is lots of opportunity to get caught out and have to escape or fight and there MUST be a fitness standard associated with being able to pull your weight as a team. I do not buy into the rubbish spouted on here implying that people only have to look after themselves, just as they always have done (in all their Cold War experience).
If by chance we are transitting on the same Herc/wokka/Landrover/whatever and we come into contact/crash, you better be able to keep up with me and do your bit. Another thread on here already talked about the Bluntie Army Offr that fought in a Platoon House for a week. Anyone that might have to leave the wire at any of our deployed locations MUST be able to do the same and pull their weight.
This does not mean that I agree with the content of the OFT, I think it is inflexible and likely to ask more questions than it answers. I wholeheartedly agree with a gender-neutral test, but it should be realistic and based on the people we have allowed to join. How many 5 ft ladies will be able to lift the ammo box up to the required level? Do we stop recruiting them? It is barking...
This is not the cold war anymore. We are not going to park ourselves at an MOB and wait for the big bombs to come and wipe us out, for which of course no special level of fitness was required.
Those that are deploying now are (in the main) going to pokey dusty holes in the middle of nowhere, surrounding by all sorts of potentially unfriendly types. There is lots of opportunity to get caught out and have to escape or fight and there MUST be a fitness standard associated with being able to pull your weight as a team. I do not buy into the rubbish spouted on here implying that people only have to look after themselves, just as they always have done (in all their Cold War experience).
If by chance we are transitting on the same Herc/wokka/Landrover/whatever and we come into contact/crash, you better be able to keep up with me and do your bit. Another thread on here already talked about the Bluntie Army Offr that fought in a Platoon House for a week. Anyone that might have to leave the wire at any of our deployed locations MUST be able to do the same and pull their weight.
This does not mean that I agree with the content of the OFT, I think it is inflexible and likely to ask more questions than it answers. I wholeheartedly agree with a gender-neutral test, but it should be realistic and based on the people we have allowed to join. How many 5 ft ladies will be able to lift the ammo box up to the required level? Do we stop recruiting them? It is barking...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,132
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
I fully agree with the concept of being 'fit to fight', being ex-Infantry myself it was always drummed into us and its a belief I've carried over into the RAF. What I don't agree with though is the RAF's half-arsed and certain trade group justifying approach.
I've filled my fair share of sandbags over the years (although I probably filled more during my 6 years on TSW than in the RGJ's) but in all this time I've never, ever filled one at chest height. Was this particular part of the 'test' designed by someone who had only ever seen a sandbag filled in 'All Quiet On The Western Front'?
OFT aside, I was informed what seems like many moons ago during my first LEAN event that all RAF personnel are supposed to get 3 hours of on-duty time a week in order to carry out fitness training. Do any units (except formed units such as TSW etc) actually achieve this?
Is it any wonder that when placed alongside the Army we (as a force) look so tubby when Wednesday sports afternoons disappeared sometime in the early 90's? Yes personnel should and do go down the gym during their own time but considering many folk bleat on about individual fitness being important overall operational effectiveness shouldn't the RAF stop expecting folk to use their own, often too brief free time to do this? Would we expect personnel to take leave to go on a trade related course?
In my opinion if the RAF wants a fit force it should bin this RAFFT/OFT crap, bring back Wednesday afternoon section fitness sessions, introduce the same BFT/CFT that the Army has and create a Q annotated course for all-trades that will put a degree of PTIness into all sections rather than relying solely on the over-tanned, quasi-military folk who inhabit the gym.
I've filled my fair share of sandbags over the years (although I probably filled more during my 6 years on TSW than in the RGJ's) but in all this time I've never, ever filled one at chest height. Was this particular part of the 'test' designed by someone who had only ever seen a sandbag filled in 'All Quiet On The Western Front'?
OFT aside, I was informed what seems like many moons ago during my first LEAN event that all RAF personnel are supposed to get 3 hours of on-duty time a week in order to carry out fitness training. Do any units (except formed units such as TSW etc) actually achieve this?
Is it any wonder that when placed alongside the Army we (as a force) look so tubby when Wednesday sports afternoons disappeared sometime in the early 90's? Yes personnel should and do go down the gym during their own time but considering many folk bleat on about individual fitness being important overall operational effectiveness shouldn't the RAF stop expecting folk to use their own, often too brief free time to do this? Would we expect personnel to take leave to go on a trade related course?
In my opinion if the RAF wants a fit force it should bin this RAFFT/OFT crap, bring back Wednesday afternoon section fitness sessions, introduce the same BFT/CFT that the Army has and create a Q annotated course for all-trades that will put a degree of PTIness into all sections rather than relying solely on the over-tanned, quasi-military folk who inhabit the gym.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience, the poor attitude to fitness has, IMHO, more to do with the poor leadership from the top of sections than the PEd Branch. Good bosses manage to find the time for their people to go to the gym/ play sports on Wed pm. Those who aren't good bosses invariably don't.
There will be a reason that the hole is a chest height (I am lve at the mo so can't find out) as the whole thing has been extensively researched. Perhaps when I am back, I will be able to enlighten you.
The fitness test is designed to encourage everyone to take up some form of exercise, so that they are fit enough to pass it you will be fit enough to be able to cope with OOA deployments. If it wasn't there, the majority of RAF people wouldn't do any exercise.
As I said I am on lve now (dodging hurricane Ernesto in Florida), so probably won't be able to stand up against any more derogatory comments aimed at my Branch, which, coming from a Stacker, are actually somewhat galling....
MM
There will be a reason that the hole is a chest height (I am lve at the mo so can't find out) as the whole thing has been extensively researched. Perhaps when I am back, I will be able to enlighten you.
The fitness test is designed to encourage everyone to take up some form of exercise, so that they are fit enough to pass it you will be fit enough to be able to cope with OOA deployments. If it wasn't there, the majority of RAF people wouldn't do any exercise.
As I said I am on lve now (dodging hurricane Ernesto in Florida), so probably won't be able to stand up against any more derogatory comments aimed at my Branch, which, coming from a Stacker, are actually somewhat galling....
MM
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
[QUOTE Yes personnel should and do go down the gym during their own time but considering many folk bleat on about individual fitness being important overall operational effectiveness shouldn't the RAF stop expecting folk to use their own, often too brief free time to do this?[/QUOTE]
'individual fitness' and 'often too brief free time' are often mentally challenging and the latter perhaps overrides the former. OTOH if the sports were programmed and mandatory, and applied to everyone it would be seen as part of the job and probably become just another part of the job.
There should be no excuse by some that it was vital to do their paperwork.
How about an extended lunch break on 2-3 days per week? Sport would be properly monitored and could take a variety of forms - volleyball for 30 minutes, or 5-a-side, or for those who are at a loss a 20 minute run over a designated course.
Timing is important as an end-of-shift sport would be seen as an infringement. OTOH that vital paperwork could be done at the end of the day.
'individual fitness' and 'often too brief free time' are often mentally challenging and the latter perhaps overrides the former. OTOH if the sports were programmed and mandatory, and applied to everyone it would be seen as part of the job and probably become just another part of the job.
There should be no excuse by some that it was vital to do their paperwork.
How about an extended lunch break on 2-3 days per week? Sport would be properly monitored and could take a variety of forms - volleyball for 30 minutes, or 5-a-side, or for those who are at a loss a 20 minute run over a designated course.
Timing is important as an end-of-shift sport would be seen as an infringement. OTOH that vital paperwork could be done at the end of the day.