OFT - Failure to complete will result in X-Factor removed!
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too true INW - you are a taxpayers' asset that is broken and hence your wages each month are a waste because we can't use you properly. Surely a small investment to send you to a private hospital has to make sense???
Kampa boy - Read the post again and try and understand. I said that not everyone needs to be bought up to a level because most of us are already there!
Do I honestly think that any RAF aircrew need to be able to run 10K to avoid the Taleban? - bloody right I do. My last invovement with those guys saw them doing some pretty hairy tanking over somewhere they would have preferred not to land. Anyway, what happens if they get posted to Hercs - do we give them a year out to lose the 2 stone and get fit for their job??? Same if they get DWR'd for any other job in theatre - they need to be fit - what is so hard about this concept???????
I think we are losing the plot here if we think it is OK for ANY of our staff to get unfit because of the job they are presently in.
Nobody is talking about cancelling tasking, rather moving it when it can be moved or local management coming up with some imaginative way of providing time for training. In the real World we have to do something - what do you suggest, wait till all our people are too fat to move and then post them to the AT fleet? I think you are doing the AT guys a great dis-service with your attitude as I know that most of them take their fitness very seriously for all the reasons discussed above.
Kampa boy - Read the post again and try and understand. I said that not everyone needs to be bought up to a level because most of us are already there!
Do I honestly think that any RAF aircrew need to be able to run 10K to avoid the Taleban? - bloody right I do. My last invovement with those guys saw them doing some pretty hairy tanking over somewhere they would have preferred not to land. Anyway, what happens if they get posted to Hercs - do we give them a year out to lose the 2 stone and get fit for their job??? Same if they get DWR'd for any other job in theatre - they need to be fit - what is so hard about this concept???????
I think we are losing the plot here if we think it is OK for ANY of our staff to get unfit because of the job they are presently in.
Nobody is talking about cancelling tasking, rather moving it when it can be moved or local management coming up with some imaginative way of providing time for training. In the real World we have to do something - what do you suggest, wait till all our people are too fat to move and then post them to the AT fleet? I think you are doing the AT guys a great dis-service with your attitude as I know that most of them take their fitness very seriously for all the reasons discussed above.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Flatlands
Age: 60
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
What is really important here is are we as an organisation fit for purpose?
I visit the gym every lunchtime. Not because it's emphasised as being part of the job, and the importance of being active and reasonably fit to do it well, but from purely selfish reasons, as my waist rapidly catches up with my age.
Under the "Aircrew Training Package" Typhoon aircrew are given 4 hours per week of structured and supervised physical education. This ensures they can be fit enough to get the maximum possible out of a demanding platform, and is therefore completely necessary, but do we give our engineers etc... the same support? No, and this is despite having to do more and more with less resources. Something has to give.
I don't agree wholly with the concept of "testing". It provides at best a snapshot of a person's ability to do certain physical things on one particular day of the year. I've even had guys train specifically for the fitness test a fortnight or so prior: surely this can't be what it should be about?
What is needed is a joined up policy that improves our people's fitness, and ultimately their health in the longterm. Why not use the system in place in most gyms, where you log in and it monitors exactly what you do? It would be relatively easy to then set standards to be achieve over the calendar year, and chaps could choose what to do off the list, perhaps during a regular sports afternoon? Radical thinking I know. (The Falklands do a similiar thing based on an honesty system, rewarded by coloured t-shirts).
As I said if we are to become a highly deployable EAW based Air Force, we need fit and active personnel, and I'm afraid that we are carrying too many passengers to achieve this. People will fail the new tests, whatever they are. The system needs changing with strong leadership to enforce it.
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.
What is really important here is are we as an organisation fit for purpose?I visit the gym every lunchtime. Not because it's emphasised as being part of the job, and the importance of being active and reasonably fit to do it well, but from purely selfish reasons, as my waist rapidly catches up with my age.
Under the "Aircrew Training Package" Typhoon aircrew are given 4 hours per week of structured and supervised physical education. This ensures they can be fit enough to get the maximum possible out of a demanding platform, and is therefore completely necessary, but do we give our engineers etc... the same support? No, and this is despite having to do more and more with less resources. Something has to give.
I don't agree wholly with the concept of "testing". It provides at best a snapshot of a person's ability to do certain physical things on one particular day of the year. I've even had guys train specifically for the fitness test a fortnight or so prior: surely this can't be what it should be about?
What is needed is a joined up policy that improves our people's fitness, and ultimately their health in the longterm. Why not use the system in place in most gyms, where you log in and it monitors exactly what you do? It would be relatively easy to then set standards to be achieve over the calendar year, and chaps could choose what to do off the list, perhaps during a regular sports afternoon? Radical thinking I know. (The Falklands do a similiar thing based on an honesty system, rewarded by coloured t-shirts).
As I said if we are to become a highly deployable EAW based Air Force, we need fit and active personnel, and I'm afraid that we are carrying too many passengers to achieve this. People will fail the new tests, whatever they are. The system needs changing with strong leadership to enforce it.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said if we are to become a highly deployable EAW based Air Force, we need fit and active personnel, and I'm afraid that we are carrying too many passengers to achieve this. People will fail the new tests, whatever they are. The system needs changing with strong leadership to enforce it.
With the best will in the world, it's going to take lots of money and 2 or 3 years to get this up and running.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFFC
good example, but one could twist it around and say 'Why let a pilot start a very expensive course until he has proven he can meet the required fitness standard?'....
If fitness is a pre-requisite then let it be just that - something that MUST be achieved before joining. Will the OFT be introduced at Cranditz/Halton? I do hope so. Even more, I hope that students of both schools will have to pass it before they can graduate, although I am not confident in that.
good example, but one could twist it around and say 'Why let a pilot start a very expensive course until he has proven he can meet the required fitness standard?'....
If fitness is a pre-requisite then let it be just that - something that MUST be achieved before joining. Will the OFT be introduced at Cranditz/Halton? I do hope so. Even more, I hope that students of both schools will have to pass it before they can graduate, although I am not confident in that.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Flatlands
Age: 60
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it will I agree, but we need a strategy change that must come from the very top. Let's make it part of the job, and not just rely on a physical "MOT" once a year to pick up the pieces.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFFC
good example, but one could twist it around and say 'Why let a pilot start a very expensive course until he has proven he can meet the required fitness standard?'....
If fitness is a pre-requisite then let it be just that - something that MUST be achieved before joining. Will the OFT be introduced at Cranditz/Halton? I do hope so. Even more, I hope that students of both schools will have to pass it before they can graduate, although I am not confident in that.
good example, but one could twist it around and say 'Why let a pilot start a very expensive course until he has proven he can meet the required fitness standard?'....
If fitness is a pre-requisite then let it be just that - something that MUST be achieved before joining. Will the OFT be introduced at Cranditz/Halton? I do hope so. Even more, I hope that students of both schools will have to pass it before they can graduate, although I am not confident in that.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't agree more. But let's have a joined up strategy that encompasses investment in secondary medical care as well.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. Just still trying to work out how they are going to get the shorter people to grow so they can reach the box (was going to say 'girls' but I would just get accused of being sexist).
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chilling out on the water if it's warm enough
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitness?
LFFC
good example, but one could twist it around and say 'Why let a pilot start a very expensive course until he has proven he can meet the required fitness standard?'....
If fitness is a pre-requisite then let it be just that - something that MUST be achieved before joining. Will the OFT be introduced at Cranditz/Halton? I do hope so. Even more, I hope that students of both schools will have to pass it before they can graduate, although I am not confident in that.
good example, but one could twist it around and say 'Why let a pilot start a very expensive course until he has proven he can meet the required fitness standard?'....
If fitness is a pre-requisite then let it be just that - something that MUST be achieved before joining. Will the OFT be introduced at Cranditz/Halton? I do hope so. Even more, I hope that students of both schools will have to pass it before they can graduate, although I am not confident in that.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know - hugely frustrating when they (and we I suppose) are trying to get people to take fitness seriously when the kids are not required to pass the namby-pamby RAFFT at some pathetic pass mark.
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now thats very interesting because we have people who are fit enough to deploy but are permenantly unfit the present fitness test. So should theybe discharged because they are not fit enough to do the OFT? I feel some good dismissal cases coming on. What is your soulution to that?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Now thats very interesting because we have people who are fit enough to deploy but are permenantly unfit the present fitness test. So should theybe discharged because they are not fit enough to do the OFT? I feel some good dismissal cases coming on. What is your soulution to that?
We cannot afford discharge as they could claim disability etc. Painful I know but AFAIK they could possible claim unfair dismissal as their TOS could be deemed to have changed without their agreement.
This returns to the point above that you should be FIT when you finish Basic Training. If you need a higher standard of fitness in future training then you should show your ability to meet that requirement before you start even if you only reach it at the end of training. SAS selection is a case in point. Typhoon could be another.
Round the buoy once again - train properly in the first place and then provide facilities and time to maintain that fitness. A 2 or 3 year timescale is totally unrealistic for many of today's generation of airmen. More like 10-15 years.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give everybody 3 months to get fit, and fire everybody who fails on the spot.
And don't give me this "I haven't got the time in my day to get fit" rubbish. Try spending a little less time eating, and use the time to do phys lardy. Have some personal pride, and stop being a fecking embarassment to your uniform.
Everybody needs to be fit, and the only people with an excuse are those injured. Overweight is easy to fix with no extra time required.
Simple law of the Universe. Less calories going in than being burnt means lose weight.
Aint no obese Ethiopians.
And don't give me this "I haven't got the time in my day to get fit" rubbish. Try spending a little less time eating, and use the time to do phys lardy. Have some personal pride, and stop being a fecking embarassment to your uniform.
Everybody needs to be fit, and the only people with an excuse are those injured. Overweight is easy to fix with no extra time required.
Simple law of the Universe. Less calories going in than being burnt means lose weight.
Aint no obese Ethiopians.
Thread Starter
We are that small now, a case by case study or a change to the rules and regs would suffice. It's not difficult.
The trend with many of the replies is the need to address the fundamental issues which effect the deployment of personnel: Fitness, health and LMF. A pragmatic approach which covers all the bases, reduces the frequency and length of deployments would be the answer.
Remember, unless an individual is made non-productive he/she remains in a unit pic. Therefore, there will be no reduction in the commitment because your manned to establishment, trust me I've explored the situation.
Ultimately, the majority who get on with it can no longer afford to carry those who can't or won't deploy.
The trend with many of the replies is the need to address the fundamental issues which effect the deployment of personnel: Fitness, health and LMF. A pragmatic approach which covers all the bases, reduces the frequency and length of deployments would be the answer.
Remember, unless an individual is made non-productive he/she remains in a unit pic. Therefore, there will be no reduction in the commitment because your manned to establishment, trust me I've explored the situation.
Ultimately, the majority who get on with it can no longer afford to carry those who can't or won't deploy.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Most can probably get fit enough in 3 months but not FIT if you see what I mean. Remember the remedial timescale for the new hard rules for the BFT is somewhere around 18-24 months.
The rules simply require attendance at remedial training and marks for effort. If someone fails to attend the retest or remedial training then the dismissal process starts and that can take months too, forget exactly how long, and resettlement and terminal leave remain an entitlement.
This means that someone who wants to avoid the sandpit and who does not mind an unfit, medical discharge, can still count on a couple of years pay cheques and pensions increments.
As far as TOS go this is one area where we are over a barrel,
well thats what I understand anyway.
The rules simply require attendance at remedial training and marks for effort. If someone fails to attend the retest or remedial training then the dismissal process starts and that can take months too, forget exactly how long, and resettlement and terminal leave remain an entitlement.
This means that someone who wants to avoid the sandpit and who does not mind an unfit, medical discharge, can still count on a couple of years pay cheques and pensions increments.
As far as TOS go this is one area where we are over a barrel,
well thats what I understand anyway.
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We cannot afford discharge as we are short of people.
We cannot afford discharge as they could claim disability etc. Painful I know but AFAIK they could possible claim unfair dismissal as their TOS could be deemed to have changed without their agreement.
This returns to the point above that you should be FIT when you finish Basic Training. If you need a higher standard of fitness in future training then you should show your ability to meet that requirement before you start even if you only reach it at the end of training.
We cannot afford discharge as they could claim disability etc. Painful I know but AFAIK they could possible claim unfair dismissal as their TOS could be deemed to have changed without their agreement.
This returns to the point above that you should be FIT when you finish Basic Training. If you need a higher standard of fitness in future training then you should show your ability to meet that requirement before you start even if you only reach it at the end of training.
"A pragmatic approach which covers all the bases, reduces the frequency and length of deployments would be the answer."
You mean employ more people so it reduces the frequency of detachments to Afg and BAS? Great idea. I agree with Pontius all RAF personell should have to pass a fitness test to proceed from basic training. Until you start with this policy you will not be able to dismiss others who subsequently fail the OFT. Why are the people at the top stalling on the introduction of this test?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Given the propensity for TLAs, how about having 5 fitness tests?
AFT - Acceptance
BFT - Basic
CFT - Combat
DFT - Deployable
EFT - Easy
Only those passing the DFT would be on the list for the good deployments, like Cyprus. The BFT failures could do a double tour in FI until fit.
AFT - Acceptance
BFT - Basic
CFT - Combat
DFT - Deployable
EFT - Easy
Only those passing the DFT would be on the list for the good deployments, like Cyprus. The BFT failures could do a double tour in FI until fit.