Continually failing RAF Fitness Test.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And all those who mention the mile and a half run in this thread are retired dinosaurs who are not in touch with what a fitness test for the present day Royal Air Force actually is...
Start of Level One!! BEEP!!
I don't have to do it anymore and never failed it.
Start of Level One!! BEEP!!
I don't have to do it anymore and never failed it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: .Lincs.
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe everyone makes such a big deal over the different levels for 'him and her'. The RAF has handed us on a plate, a 'freeby' in the battle of the sexes and all we do is moan like f@#k that its 'sooo unfair' and how we all should be treated the same. Its attitudes like that, that got them the vote in the first place!
If you're a bloke, you should be able run faster, drink more and fart louder. Its as simple as that.
If you're a bloke, you should be able run faster, drink more and fart louder. Its as simple as that.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the RN we can do the 2400m run or the Beep test. Either of which is fairly straight forward and its up to you which one you do. Most people seem to go for the run as its what most people do during their daily phys (and its better for your knees).
Our stn gym has been pretty maxed out since the RAFFT became a 6-monthly event. They therefore instigated a very sensible policy (IMHO) of extending the currency to 12 months if you passed all three elements of the test at the "Light Blue" level. I put in a bit of work on press-ups (not bothered about being 'ripped', so my weakest event) and was very pleased to achieve "Light Blue" in all 3 a few months back.
So it was with much annoyance that I recently found out that they have now changed their minds, and said that anyone who's deployable (surely everyone on my stn?) has to do it 6-monthly, regardless of "Light Blue" attainment or not.
I think that a lot of the whinging about the RAFFT stems not from fat / lazy / unfit people; rather, it comes from those who are tired of the goalposts continually moving on all the pre-deployment stuff we have to go through. I've done 6 deployments in 6 years, and the hoop-jumping requirements have been different every single time (not just fitness tests, but IRT/CCS etc). Please can someone make their minds up? It's not like the demands on us have changed massively over the last few years!
So it was with much annoyance that I recently found out that they have now changed their minds, and said that anyone who's deployable (surely everyone on my stn?) has to do it 6-monthly, regardless of "Light Blue" attainment or not.
I think that a lot of the whinging about the RAFFT stems not from fat / lazy / unfit people; rather, it comes from those who are tired of the goalposts continually moving on all the pre-deployment stuff we have to go through. I've done 6 deployments in 6 years, and the hoop-jumping requirements have been different every single time (not just fitness tests, but IRT/CCS etc). Please can someone make their minds up? It's not like the demands on us have changed massively over the last few years!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VVCA:
Er... where did you get that little gem?
posrep is quite correct:
If the rules that you are concerned about are the Sexual equality regulations then the Armed Forces are exempt.
posrep is quite correct:
It will just take the first case to blow this thing wide open.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problems doing the fitness test, BUT i do get annoyed when the rules change, told last timer i did the test hit the light blue and i get 12 months, now there is rumblings that i have to go back at the six month point
Fine i will do that!
BUT when i do the test yep for my benefit!! and mine alone i will get to the highest level i can make, for the stats i will state that i reached the minimumn! Why should i give em ammo to increase the levels!
And i am in the situation where bloke doing same job as me, same places same deployments is exempt permenantly from fitness test due to past injury, he does NO SPORT at all and yes is overweight and unfit, but cannot be thrown out for failing as he does not have to do the test!!!
Please explain that one
Fine i will do that!
BUT when i do the test yep for my benefit!! and mine alone i will get to the highest level i can make, for the stats i will state that i reached the minimumn! Why should i give em ammo to increase the levels!
And i am in the situation where bloke doing same job as me, same places same deployments is exempt permenantly from fitness test due to past injury, he does NO SPORT at all and yes is overweight and unfit, but cannot be thrown out for failing as he does not have to do the test!!!
Please explain that one
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So tell me, what level could douglas bader get to and did that affect his warfighter spirit?
The new rules stink of sorting ourselves out to lower employment levels without having to issue a pension due to discharge... Either way, the RAF is walking a fine line with this one, and I for one believe it sends out the wrong message.
What happens, when chief tech slightly podgy, been in the air force since 16, is threatened with admin action, given a formal written warning and told pass your test or get binned?
Do you think that person is going to be in the right frame of mind to do aircraft servicing, on a formal written warning? Some of these guys are never going to pass the new limit, having spent a lifetime in the airforce, done numerous dets, worked their arses off in the sand, and are now getting told by some body beautiful punk (who will also be discovering a P45 in the post sometime soon as soon as their useless trade is binned) that he is no longer fit to serve?
I suppose that doesnt matter though, that he is going to be distracted at work, because he cant run the bleep test and therefore is useless. Get a grip.
Lets see how far this gets once numerous Admin action paperworks are generated.
By the way, is it the same as a charge, can an officer/SNCO demand court martial if given formal admin action under the new rules?
Its interesting to note that as someone who runs 20-30Km a week, I could piss all over the navy's 2.4Km run by 2 minutes, but due to dodgy knees, have failed the bleep test a couple of times. And probably will again.
Royal Naval Fitness Test : HMS Temeraire : Training Establishments : Establishments : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
The new rules stink of sorting ourselves out to lower employment levels without having to issue a pension due to discharge... Either way, the RAF is walking a fine line with this one, and I for one believe it sends out the wrong message.
What happens, when chief tech slightly podgy, been in the air force since 16, is threatened with admin action, given a formal written warning and told pass your test or get binned?
Do you think that person is going to be in the right frame of mind to do aircraft servicing, on a formal written warning? Some of these guys are never going to pass the new limit, having spent a lifetime in the airforce, done numerous dets, worked their arses off in the sand, and are now getting told by some body beautiful punk (who will also be discovering a P45 in the post sometime soon as soon as their useless trade is binned) that he is no longer fit to serve?
I suppose that doesnt matter though, that he is going to be distracted at work, because he cant run the bleep test and therefore is useless. Get a grip.
Lets see how far this gets once numerous Admin action paperworks are generated.
By the way, is it the same as a charge, can an officer/SNCO demand court martial if given formal admin action under the new rules?
Its interesting to note that as someone who runs 20-30Km a week, I could piss all over the navy's 2.4Km run by 2 minutes, but due to dodgy knees, have failed the bleep test a couple of times. And probably will again.
Royal Naval Fitness Test : HMS Temeraire : Training Establishments : Establishments : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Last edited by VinRouge; 21st Nov 2009 at 21:25.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The North
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it not the same?
What I have never understood is why the RAF and the RN are not the same. We have JPA, DII, and total "jointery" across many areas now. What is the difference with the fitness test. Either both get the mile and a half (sorry 2400m) or neither do, what is going on.
Before anyone says anything about the Army, they need to be fitter and they do a significantly harder test, I think this is correct and necessary, god help the RAF if they ever bring in the Army test!!
RAF TEST this month 12.9/39/56 so light blue I think! Just the way it should be for someone in the RAF!! Tee hee
Before anyone says anything about the Army, they need to be fitter and they do a significantly harder test, I think this is correct and necessary, god help the RAF if they ever bring in the Army test!!
RAF TEST this month 12.9/39/56 so light blue I think! Just the way it should be for someone in the RAF!! Tee hee
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The North
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the pullups and weighted pack-runs etc that I hear about. I have to admit I only know what I hear about the army test but it sounded much harder to me. Boots, pack, pullups.....Stop right there!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok... You fat bastiges have convinced me that there is no way you will ever have any real self esteem or physical ability.
So, let's approach the issue from another angle. Let's create four "classes" within the RAF.
1. Those who are assessed as able to carry out their task and who can pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.
2. Those who are assessed as able to carry out their task and who cannot pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.
3. Those who are assessed as unable to carry ot their task but can pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.
4. Those that can't do either.
Then, let's base pay on the four groups. So it will work like this:-
Group 1: Full pay for trade group with full "additional benefits" such as flying pay, parachute pay etc.
Group 2: 80% of pay for trade group with full "additional benefits" such as flying pay, parachute pay etc. But if the additional benefit requires a level of fitness the benefit is lost too if the level of fitness is not maintained.
Group 3: 70% of pay for 6 months. If, after 6 months they cannot do their job they are let go.
Group 4: 50% of pay for 3 months. If they can't get into group 3 they are let go.
Medical issues are taken into account.
Where's the "problem"?
So, let's approach the issue from another angle. Let's create four "classes" within the RAF.
1. Those who are assessed as able to carry out their task and who can pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.
2. Those who are assessed as able to carry out their task and who cannot pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.
3. Those who are assessed as unable to carry ot their task but can pass the fitness test as applied by reasonable rules.
4. Those that can't do either.
Then, let's base pay on the four groups. So it will work like this:-
Group 1: Full pay for trade group with full "additional benefits" such as flying pay, parachute pay etc.
Group 2: 80% of pay for trade group with full "additional benefits" such as flying pay, parachute pay etc. But if the additional benefit requires a level of fitness the benefit is lost too if the level of fitness is not maintained.
Group 3: 70% of pay for 6 months. If, after 6 months they cannot do their job they are let go.
Group 4: 50% of pay for 3 months. If they can't get into group 3 they are let go.
Medical issues are taken into account.
Where's the "problem"?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok... You fat bastiges have convinced me that there is no way you will ever have any real self esteem or physical ability.
55 situps in a min, 65 pressups, sub 10:30 1.5 mile time, yet struggle with the bleep test due to the turns due to weak knees and a lower back injury that I am not exactly going to fess up to the rafmeds (loyalty to the service and not wanted to get downgraded for ops is really getting repaid hey?) And now I am potentially going to face admin action as a result of a flawed system. Great.
Last edited by VinRouge; 21st Nov 2009 at 23:01.
My understanding of the system now is that any failure is automatically awarded MAA (to be commented upon in next appraisal) with 3 months to pass. Failure at 3 months results in Formal Warning (not quite a career stopper but certainly a brick wall). Further failure will result in admin discharge.
I am appalled at the assumption that failure is regarded as evidence of a 'poor attitude' to fitness; indeed this last week I had a guy who has just finished remedial therapy just failed the test 'cos his injury started playing up. He is now useless to me (can't walk) and any chance of advancement is now in jeopardy because of draconian and ill thought out rules.
For me now the issue is that, yet again, leaders are no longer allowed to think for themselves and screw the lazy tw@ts whilst protecting the good eggs.
I am appalled at the assumption that failure is regarded as evidence of a 'poor attitude' to fitness; indeed this last week I had a guy who has just finished remedial therapy just failed the test 'cos his injury started playing up. He is now useless to me (can't walk) and any chance of advancement is now in jeopardy because of draconian and ill thought out rules.
For me now the issue is that, yet again, leaders are no longer allowed to think for themselves and screw the lazy tw@ts whilst protecting the good eggs.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I have never understood is why the RAF and the RN are not the same
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: scotland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so it's easy for all the sport billies to demand 'yeah, kick out all the fat ba$tards who fail the fitness test'. I've just passed mine this week although I will admit, I do struggle with the shuttles, dodgy knees and all that (what was wrong in the first place with a straight forward run anyways
) The point being irrespective of whether I passed or failed, I still would have been expected to, and did, deploy on an operational det, just like a couple of my 'technically unfit' fellow sqn members did this year. The bottom line is, in my opinion, when you become incapable of doing your job, thats when you should be binned, not when you fail to jump through yet another hoop dreamt up by our ever so wonderful policy makers............. Right now there are bigger things to worry about.(Just my thoughts)
) The point being irrespective of whether I passed or failed, I still would have been expected to, and did, deploy on an operational det, just like a couple of my 'technically unfit' fellow sqn members did this year. The bottom line is, in my opinion, when you become incapable of doing your job, thats when you should be binned, not when you fail to jump through yet another hoop dreamt up by our ever so wonderful policy makers............. Right now there are bigger things to worry about.(Just my thoughts)
Last edited by light_my_spey; 21st Nov 2009 at 23:09. Reason: spelling...typically!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vin Rouge:
You, Sir, are not the problem... Respect... There are exceptions that prove rules, I'm quite sure you are one.
I agree that the system is flawed - that the beep test is an arbitrary test that, without doubt, is discriminatory against the older and/or heavier men and women. In today's military the ability to prove one's level of fitness in one's own way should be most important - flexibility and all that. Some people work better under some conditions; others under other conditions.
Why does the RAF think they can pigeonhole everyone into a single "corporate" package?
Oh, sorry... Never mind...
Oh, I have plenty. I dont need to run 9.10 on the bleep test to prove it. And since when was physical ability defined by the bleep test? Want to guess as to Jonah Lomu's highest score?
55 situps in a min, 65 pressups, sub 10:30 1.5 mile time, yet struggle with the bleep test due to the turns due to weak knees and a lower back injury that I am not exactly going to fess up to the rafmeds (loyalty to the service and not wanted to get downgraded for ops is really getting repaid hey?) And now I am potentially going to face admin action as a result of a flawed system. Great.
55 situps in a min, 65 pressups, sub 10:30 1.5 mile time, yet struggle with the bleep test due to the turns due to weak knees and a lower back injury that I am not exactly going to fess up to the rafmeds (loyalty to the service and not wanted to get downgraded for ops is really getting repaid hey?) And now I am potentially going to face admin action as a result of a flawed system. Great.
I agree that the system is flawed - that the beep test is an arbitrary test that, without doubt, is discriminatory against the older and/or heavier men and women. In today's military the ability to prove one's level of fitness in one's own way should be most important - flexibility and all that. Some people work better under some conditions; others under other conditions.
Why does the RAF think they can pigeonhole everyone into a single "corporate" package?
Oh, sorry... Never mind...
I am sure that many of the older personnel who huff and puff their way into the light blue category on the RAFT have seen many young 20/21 year old beanpoles banging out at level 6 or 7 but I would think that this is the exception rather than the rule.
I would hesitate to suggest that it is the older and/or slightly more portly individuals who are failing at a higher rate. These people probably have much more experience in their relevent trades. It is these people, who keep us flying, who we can ill afford to lose through administrative action. Can we at least try to give them a fitness test that is both fair and fit for purpose. If they can't do a bleep test because of dodgy knees, then allow them to do a 1 1/2 mile run to prove their fitness? If, because of knees/backs they are unable to do either of these, then give them a slightly harder bike test. If they fail any of these tests, then can we give them a choice to avoid administrative action leading to discharge, but perhaps reduce pay?
I appreciate that this may give the gym personnel more work to do, but this may be a small price to pay in order to retain valuable people.
I await the barage of abuse.
I would hesitate to suggest that it is the older and/or slightly more portly individuals who are failing at a higher rate. These people probably have much more experience in their relevent trades. It is these people, who keep us flying, who we can ill afford to lose through administrative action. Can we at least try to give them a fitness test that is both fair and fit for purpose. If they can't do a bleep test because of dodgy knees, then allow them to do a 1 1/2 mile run to prove their fitness? If, because of knees/backs they are unable to do either of these, then give them a slightly harder bike test. If they fail any of these tests, then can we give them a choice to avoid administrative action leading to discharge, but perhaps reduce pay?
I appreciate that this may give the gym personnel more work to do, but this may be a small price to pay in order to retain valuable people.
I await the barage of abuse.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how long it will be before we get our first report indicating that someone filled up an engine with hyd fluid or worse, distracted, just after their admin interview and formal warning, as they were stressed about getting thrown out of their job during the UKs worst ever recession...
Last edited by VinRouge; 22nd Nov 2009 at 09:24.