RAF to encourage Fat WAAFs
What is the purpose of 'Best Effort'?. Why continue past what is needed to achieve a pass?. Do you get more pay, less guard duties, a day off - No, so there is no incentive to better the pass mark?.
Years ago, it was mandatory to STOP when you had reached the requisite level, just in case you had a medical problem etc.
What would happen now, if a person suffered a heart attack (or slipped on the shiny gum floor) whilst running well above the pass mark, would MOD be liable, as they let him continue, when they have a duty of care etc etc.
As far as I am aware, the RAFFT is solely designed to 
most people off once a year, passing it or failing it has never affected the way I do my job, or the way those around me do theirs, just a justification to have PT (can't really use the I, as they very rarely instruct anyone) staff poncing about trying to impress the girlies.
Years ago, it was mandatory to STOP when you had reached the requisite level, just in case you had a medical problem etc.
What would happen now, if a person suffered a heart attack (or slipped on the shiny gum floor) whilst running well above the pass mark, would MOD be liable, as they let him continue, when they have a duty of care etc etc.
Originally Posted by musclemech
The RAFFT is designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly
most people off once a year, passing it or failing it has never affected the way I do my job, or the way those around me do theirs, just a justification to have PT (can't really use the I, as they very rarely instruct anyone) staff poncing about trying to impress the girlies.
Tightgit
So, if it is designed not to actually test but encourage........
Why are the levels going up.. AGAIN ?
Why are the levels going up.. AGAIN ?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let me get this right. The principle of the test is to see if someone is above a level of fitness in relation to their potential max ability in the areas that are tested (running, press-ups and sit-ups). This principle is confirmed by the existance of varying acceptable levels of achievement, depending on age and sex. It is not job-related, so it has no relevance to what we each do in our daily lives. Due to the foregoing facts, it is not sex-discriminatory, either.
Given all the above, which summarises most messages here, it has to be illegal for any employer (incl the RAF) to use it as a personnel management tool, methinks. This is despite the fact that it is desirable to keep fit. Encouragement is one thing, testing is another. Maybe this is why no-one, yet, has been discharged solely faling to come up to the mark, even after continuous remedial traing, etc.
Given all the above, which summarises most messages here, it has to be illegal for any employer (incl the RAF) to use it as a personnel management tool, methinks. This is despite the fact that it is desirable to keep fit. Encouragement is one thing, testing is another. Maybe this is why no-one, yet, has been discharged solely faling to come up to the mark, even after continuous remedial traing, etc.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTP, ZH
The levels have gone up because people were able to pass the test without having to exercise regularly, therefore actually defeating the whole object of the test.
You also have to remember that when it was introduced, an annual test of fitness was a massive step away from what had gone before, that there was a huge worry that someone would have a heart attack if they were pushed too hard. Therefore, pass marks were probably set at a lower level than they could have been. (IIRC the AFB wanted everything to be much harder but were persuaded otherwise by the PEd Branch and the Medics). It's been in long enough now that everyone should (in theory) have been exercising for some time, so standards could be raised to more appropriate levels (in stages, which explains two increases).
The 'Best Efforts' was brought in because people wanted to be able to see how fit they were. Again, now that there was lower risk of people keeling over with a heart attack, it was felt that this could be allowed. You can still stop at the required pass level if you want to. You don't have to go further, but you can if you want to.
AC O
If we just advertised the benefits that one can get from exercising regularly no one would change their behaviours. The RAFFT is designed provide an incentive to exercise - ie if you do, you will be able to pass the tests. The hope is that once an individual begins to exercise and finds out how good it feels to be fit, they will carry on exercising because they want to, not because they have. And in some/ many cases it has worked: in others (obviously including some on these fora
), it may not.
No one could be discharged for failing to meet the level required - or if they were they would likely sue the MOD and win, as previously discussed. The only sanctions now in place are for poor attitude and not physically undertaking the remedial package, rather than for failing to meet the standard.
MM
The levels have gone up because people were able to pass the test without having to exercise regularly, therefore actually defeating the whole object of the test.
You also have to remember that when it was introduced, an annual test of fitness was a massive step away from what had gone before, that there was a huge worry that someone would have a heart attack if they were pushed too hard. Therefore, pass marks were probably set at a lower level than they could have been. (IIRC the AFB wanted everything to be much harder but were persuaded otherwise by the PEd Branch and the Medics). It's been in long enough now that everyone should (in theory) have been exercising for some time, so standards could be raised to more appropriate levels (in stages, which explains two increases).
The 'Best Efforts' was brought in because people wanted to be able to see how fit they were. Again, now that there was lower risk of people keeling over with a heart attack, it was felt that this could be allowed. You can still stop at the required pass level if you want to. You don't have to go further, but you can if you want to.
AC O
If we just advertised the benefits that one can get from exercising regularly no one would change their behaviours. The RAFFT is designed provide an incentive to exercise - ie if you do, you will be able to pass the tests. The hope is that once an individual begins to exercise and finds out how good it feels to be fit, they will carry on exercising because they want to, not because they have. And in some/ many cases it has worked: in others (obviously including some on these fora
), it may not.No one could be discharged for failing to meet the level required - or if they were they would likely sue the MOD and win, as previously discussed. The only sanctions now in place are for poor attitude and not physically undertaking the remedial package, rather than for failing to meet the standard.
MM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I pointed out before, the RAFFT may have been designed as an "incentive", but with all your talk about "sanctions", it appears to be more of a threat!
A proper incentive to exercise would be time away from primary duties in order to do it. Or even better, recognition for achieving high levels of fitness, but sadly I can't see that happening.
MM, I really can sympathise with where you're coming from. I like to keep myself pretty fit and got great satisfaction from the last marathon I ran; the training for it was great fun, but it took a hell of a lot of my spare time (that I was very fortunate to have). However, remember the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
PS.
I note your new position with interest:
Please remember the goverment's diversity policy. We come in all shapes and sizes and we all bring our own particular skills and qualities. Be very careful; if someone can do their primary task regardless of their level of fitness, then why should they be penalised?
A proper incentive to exercise would be time away from primary duties in order to do it. Or even better, recognition for achieving high levels of fitness, but sadly I can't see that happening.
MM, I really can sympathise with where you're coming from. I like to keep myself pretty fit and got great satisfaction from the last marathon I ran; the training for it was great fun, but it took a hell of a lot of my spare time (that I was very fortunate to have). However, remember the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
PS.
I note your new position with interest:
Please remember the goverment's diversity policy. We come in all shapes and sizes and we all bring our own particular skills and qualities. Be very careful; if someone can do their primary task regardless of their level of fitness, then why should they be penalised?
Last edited by LFFC; 23rd Dec 2006 at 20:59.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I pointed out before, the RAFFT may have been designed as an "incentive", but with all your talk about "sanctions", it appears to be more of a threat!
A proper incentive to exercise would be time away from primary duties in order to do it. Or even better, recognition for achieving high levels of fitness, but sadly I can't see that happening.
MM, I really can sympathise with where you're coming from. I like to keep myself pretty fit and got great satisfaction from the last marathon I ran; the training for it was great fun, but it took a hell of a lot of my spare time (that I was very fortunate to have). However, remember the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
PS.
I note your new position with interest:
Please remember the goverment's diversity policy. We come in all shapes and sizes and we all bring our own particular skills and qualities. Be very careful; if someone can do their primary task regardless of their level of fitness, then why should they be penalised?
A proper incentive to exercise would be time away from primary duties in order to do it. Or even better, recognition for achieving high levels of fitness, but sadly I can't see that happening.
MM, I really can sympathise with where you're coming from. I like to keep myself pretty fit and got great satisfaction from the last marathon I ran; the training for it was great fun, but it took a hell of a lot of my spare time (that I was very fortunate to have). However, remember the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
PS.
I note your new position with interest:
Please remember the goverment's diversity policy. We come in all shapes and sizes and we all bring our own particular skills and qualities. Be very careful; if someone can do their primary task regardless of their level of fitness, then why should they be penalised?
I didn't think I had a new position: It's just a fact that if anyone were discaharged for failing the RAFFT they could successfully sue the MOD, which is why the focus of sanctions is on attitude and actually carrying out the remedial package rather than on passing the test.
I completely agree that we all have our own skills and qualities, but remember the RAFFT has nothing to do with how well one carries out one's primary task. Regular exercise has huge benefits to the health of an individual (and some to the employer), which is why the RAF is trying to encourage its workforce to do so. Some people just need a bit more of a prod to get them started....
BTW, congrats on completing the marathon. Much respect
.MM
Why exactly again is the RAF 'encouraging' it's employee's to become fitter - huge benefits to the employee, or the employer......?
The government has made much lately of the need to tackle obesity (which incidently I agree with) - but what is their arguement for doing so? Is it on the basis that the government 'cares' about the well being of it's population? NO!!! It is on the basis of the predicted cost to the NHS - which the government is worried about being able to afford!! While I agree this may be part of the equation - it says much about the governments priorities.
In the same way I have my doubts about the RAF being concerned about passing on 'huge benefits' to myself. The RAF doesn't seem to worry about giving me the 'benefit' of an aircraft armed with suitable defensive aids when flying me into war zones, just to quote one example. I suspect the RAFs approach to fitness is driven by the benefit to the employer rather than the employee - that and the need to show the Army that we make some attempt to stay fit.
By the way, whilst not a fitness 'nutter', I go to the gym more than once a year for my fitness test. I attempt to keep fit, for the health benefits it brings - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE, NOT THE RESULT OF MY 'EMPLOYERS' POLICIES. I only state this so you don't lump me into the wrong 'camp' in this ongoing thread debate.
The government has made much lately of the need to tackle obesity (which incidently I agree with) - but what is their arguement for doing so? Is it on the basis that the government 'cares' about the well being of it's population? NO!!! It is on the basis of the predicted cost to the NHS - which the government is worried about being able to afford!! While I agree this may be part of the equation - it says much about the governments priorities.
In the same way I have my doubts about the RAF being concerned about passing on 'huge benefits' to myself. The RAF doesn't seem to worry about giving me the 'benefit' of an aircraft armed with suitable defensive aids when flying me into war zones, just to quote one example. I suspect the RAFs approach to fitness is driven by the benefit to the employer rather than the employee - that and the need to show the Army that we make some attempt to stay fit.
By the way, whilst not a fitness 'nutter', I go to the gym more than once a year for my fitness test. I attempt to keep fit, for the health benefits it brings - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE, NOT THE RESULT OF MY 'EMPLOYERS' POLICIES. I only state this so you don't lump me into the wrong 'camp' in this ongoing thread debate.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Regular exercise has huge benefits to the health of an individual"
In 20yrs+ in the Military I know of 5 people that have died in the Gym in their efforts to 'keep fit'. Have never heard of anyone that has died in the Bar though!
Anyone fancy a pint?
In 20yrs+ in the Military I know of 5 people that have died in the Gym in their efforts to 'keep fit'. Have never heard of anyone that has died in the Bar though!
Anyone fancy a pint?
Tightgit
In 20yrs+ in the Military I know of 5 people that have died in the Gym in their efforts to 'keep fit'. Have never heard of anyone that has died in the Bar though!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why exactly again is the RAF 'encouraging' it's employee's to become fitter - huge benefits to the employee, or the employer......?
The government has made much lately of the need to tackle obesity (which incidently I agree with) - but what is their arguement for doing so? Is it on the basis that the government 'cares' about the well being of it's population? NO!!! It is on the basis of the predicted cost to the NHS - which the government is worried about being able to afford!! While I agree this may be part of the equation - it says much about the governments priorities.
In the same way I have my doubts about the RAF being concerned about passing on 'huge benefits' to myself. The RAF doesn't seem to worry about giving me the 'benefit' of an aircraft armed with suitable defensive aids when flying me into war zones, just to quote one example. I suspect the RAFs approach to fitness is driven by the benefit to the employer rather than the employee - that and the need to show the Army that we make some attempt to stay fit.
By the way, whilst not a fitness 'nutter', I go to the gym more than once a year for my fitness test. I attempt to keep fit, for the health benefits it brings - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE, NOT THE RESULT OF MY 'EMPLOYERS' POLICIES. I only state this so you don't lump me into the wrong 'camp' in this ongoing thread debate.
The government has made much lately of the need to tackle obesity (which incidently I agree with) - but what is their arguement for doing so? Is it on the basis that the government 'cares' about the well being of it's population? NO!!! It is on the basis of the predicted cost to the NHS - which the government is worried about being able to afford!! While I agree this may be part of the equation - it says much about the governments priorities.
In the same way I have my doubts about the RAF being concerned about passing on 'huge benefits' to myself. The RAF doesn't seem to worry about giving me the 'benefit' of an aircraft armed with suitable defensive aids when flying me into war zones, just to quote one example. I suspect the RAFs approach to fitness is driven by the benefit to the employer rather than the employee - that and the need to show the Army that we make some attempt to stay fit.
By the way, whilst not a fitness 'nutter', I go to the gym more than once a year for my fitness test. I attempt to keep fit, for the health benefits it brings - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE, NOT THE RESULT OF MY 'EMPLOYERS' POLICIES. I only state this so you don't lump me into the wrong 'camp' in this ongoing thread debate.
I can assure you, as I was around at its inception, the RAFFT was designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly because of the potential health related benefits to the individual. I only mentioned the benefits to the RAF as some of the benefits of regular exercise include less time off sick and greater productivity, which, in theory, are of benefit to the employer.
MM
Biggus
I can assure you, as I was around at its inception, the RAFFT was designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly because of the potential health related benefits to the individual. I only mentioned the benefits to the RAF as some of the benefits of regular exercise include less time off sick and greater productivity, which, in theory, are of benefit to the employer.
MM
I can assure you, as I was around at its inception, the RAFFT was designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly because of the potential health related benefits to the individual. I only mentioned the benefits to the RAF as some of the benefits of regular exercise include less time off sick and greater productivity, which, in theory, are of benefit to the employer.
MM
I wonder what percentage of PTIs can fix aircraft, more or less than Techies who pass their
'fitness' test.RAFFT is little more than an excuse to keep PTIs in a job.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So in my 30 years, never having a day off sick, having failed to pass the RAFFT for the last 8 years, I have always been at work, whilst the 'fit' people have time off due to injuries gained whilst participating in sport, let alone, them having time off to represent the station at underwater basket weaving etc, I would suggest that due to my 'unfitness' I am actually MORE productive than the sporty types. And yes, I have been deployed in that period.
I wonder what percentage of PTIs can fix aircraft, more or less than Techies who pass their 'fitness' test.
RAFFT is little more than an excuse to keep PTIs in a job.
I wonder what percentage of PTIs can fix aircraft, more or less than Techies who pass their
'fitness' test.RAFFT is little more than an excuse to keep PTIs in a job.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry ZH but that post doesn't even warrant a response....
Again, what is your war role? Most of us actually have/had one and have performed it well regardless of the RAF FT, therefore it is an irrelevance
PTIs in direct support of air ops? I don't think so - bin them
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pass level of the fitness tests is so laughably low, even after the pass bar raise that I truly consider anybody complaining to be an embarassment to the military with no personal standards whatsoever.
Stop whingeing fatknackers!
Stop whingeing fatknackers!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding the reason for the RAFFT, argument over suitable levels for age/gender and the commitment or otherwise of the Service to fitness, Maple has asked the question I always ask about PTIs - why bother having them in uniform? The market is full of fitness instructors who would do it for a lot less - ie. no pensions to pay - and they'd contribute just as much to the war effort. Currently I estimate their contribution to be roughly zero.
Not sure if this has been mentioned already but don't the army take regular soldiers etc (who admitedly are keen/good at fitness/sport), "train" them as PTIs and then return them to front-line service and effectively be PTIs as a secondary duty? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.
On my last sqn we looked at trying to get a couple of our groundcrew trained in providing fitness classes etc (on the HAS site so we didn't all have to troop to the gym - a lengthy trip when your the wrong side of the airfield or when PTI support was unavaialbale (end of a night shift)) but the opposition we got from certain areas, well known for wearing singlets, was incredible. Before you ask they had to be "formally" trained to comply with H&S and insurance regulations!
On my last sqn we looked at trying to get a couple of our groundcrew trained in providing fitness classes etc (on the HAS site so we didn't all have to troop to the gym - a lengthy trip when your the wrong side of the airfield or when PTI support was unavaialbale (end of a night shift)) but the opposition we got from certain areas, well known for wearing singlets, was incredible. Before you ask they had to be "formally" trained to comply with H&S and insurance regulations!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if this has been mentioned already but don't the army take regular soldiers etc (who admitedly are keen/good at fitness/sport), "train" them as PTIs and then return them to front-line service and effectively be PTIs as a secondary duty? I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.
, civilian 'leisure centre' management of facilities. Formally trained section 'pt reps', extra duties to main trade so maybe 2 or 3 on a shift to do fitness test prep.Specialist quals for pji (why do the RAF still do that??
), exped leaders and remedial phys ed.
Originally Posted by L1A2
Formally trained section 'pt reps', extra duties to main trade so maybe 2 or 3 on a shift to do fitness test prep
No I can't see that happening.
Maybe if they took the posing mirror out of the fitness suites, the fatties might just turn up.
No I can't see that happening either, what will the vest wearing adonises known as PTI's pose into then.....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or in other words you can't refute any of his points so you chose to ignore them, well, nice to see the same style of senior management that has been bu@@ering up the real Air Force has infected the insulated world of the PTI
Again, what is your war role? Most of us actually have/had one and have performed it well regardless of the RAF FT, therefore it is an irrelevance
PTIs in direct support of air ops? I don't think so - bin them
Again, what is your war role? Most of us actually have/had one and have performed it well regardless of the RAF FT, therefore it is an irrelevance
PTIs in direct support of air ops? I don't think so - bin them
And once again, the RAFFT is nothing to do with how well or otherwise you can perform your war role.
On that subject, I don't know what my war role is - but I know PTIs are out on OOA dets as we speak. When GW I was going on, I was trained as a rehab therapist and then later helped rehab guys who had been injured during operations. Despite all of the questions regarding why PTIs exist, someone high up seems to think they are a good idea, otherwise I would be out of a job. In the past 20 years or so, while the RAF has cut to a third its size, the PEd Branch has actually slightly increased in size. Plus, although obvioulsy my sample pool is a bit biased, but there have been plenty of people who have come into my gyms over the years and praised PTIs and what we do.
On the subject of PT reps, the Physical Training Leader qualification is now available. PTLs will be like the Army Assistant PTIs (AKIs) Wrathmonk alluded to, but (as far as I know) there are no plans to have the civilian leisure centre managers L1A2 mentioned. BTW Wrathmonk, I am surprised that in this day and age you were amazed that the people you wanted to take PT sessions for you had to be formally trained. But you will be pleased to know that it was requests from people like you that prompted the development of the PTL.
ZH, I am not saying that PT should come ahead of aircraft servicing, or any other primary task that a section might have. But it's very interesting that when a Boss who likes fitness comes into a section that has previously been 'too busy', the section suddenly seems to have time...
MM