Continually failing RAF Fitness Test.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throughout the summer I jogged 3-5 miles daily. To cut a long story short, hurt my knee > Medics > Selly Oak > Royal Orthapedic Hospital (MRI Scan) > SMO debrief = torn cartilage. Damage irrepairable, though keyhole surgery could help if pain persistant. Surgery not required as exercise now managed.
Now I do not have very long left in service before age 55 retirement after a very long job (refuse to use "career" nowadays). ...and am therefore understandibly concerned about medical fitness / status long after I have hung up any uniforms or flying suits. Somewhat concerned that the beep test turning with a torn cartilage may make a bad situation long term worse. Incidently, I would be very comfortable with a timed track based run.
Medics answer... It a test, get on with it, or be grounded.
I will formally have a medical review before my next test and get my 'fit to complete the test' in writing. I will then store document in the 'sue the military file' for as long as is required. FWIW I do not believe that logical response is being applied or at least one with long term thought.
I am quite sure I could achieve blue levels in sit ups and press ups, mainly because I do the standard required daily. I am equally sure that the beep test as an entity puts me at unacceptable risk. An option (be it bike or track) should be available.
Now I do not have very long left in service before age 55 retirement after a very long job (refuse to use "career" nowadays). ...and am therefore understandibly concerned about medical fitness / status long after I have hung up any uniforms or flying suits. Somewhat concerned that the beep test turning with a torn cartilage may make a bad situation long term worse. Incidently, I would be very comfortable with a timed track based run.
Medics answer... It a test, get on with it, or be grounded.
I will formally have a medical review before my next test and get my 'fit to complete the test' in writing. I will then store document in the 'sue the military file' for as long as is required. FWIW I do not believe that logical response is being applied or at least one with long term thought.
I am quite sure I could achieve blue levels in sit ups and press ups, mainly because I do the standard required daily. I am equally sure that the beep test as an entity puts me at unacceptable risk. An option (be it bike or track) should be available.
Despite surviving my first 30 or so years of RAF service without the apparent need for this fitness test, I passed my last one about a month before I pulled the B&Y. Yes, I avoided taking the bŁoody things whenever I could - particularly when within weeks of my 50th birthday they raised the age bar which was just coming into view....
But from what I've learned since, the main dissatisfaction is indeed at the ever-changing goal posts. I can understand that a Rock gunner needs to be pretty damn fit - but the enforced buggeration on others 'of a certain age' with no real cause seems a bit counter-productive.
Of course if you start people off in the modern 'strength through joy' ways of the RAF, it will be easier for them to maintain higher standards of physical fitness throughout their service. But trying to enforce a large character change on the old, bold and cuddly with the threat of administrative action for failing to run round a gym (whatever that is) after 30+ years of loyal, hard-working service is surely taking things a bit far.
All stick and no carrot....
As for aircrew, you should have seen the enormously fat gits who flew me across on a US Airways flight from Gatwick to Philadelphia! I thought the captain was going to pass out as he wheezed and waddled past my seat on the way to his rest area at the back of the Business Class section..... In 35 years in the RAF I never saw any 'truckies' or others who came anywhere close to being such a lardarse.
But from what I've learned since, the main dissatisfaction is indeed at the ever-changing goal posts. I can understand that a Rock gunner needs to be pretty damn fit - but the enforced buggeration on others 'of a certain age' with no real cause seems a bit counter-productive.
Of course if you start people off in the modern 'strength through joy' ways of the RAF, it will be easier for them to maintain higher standards of physical fitness throughout their service. But trying to enforce a large character change on the old, bold and cuddly with the threat of administrative action for failing to run round a gym (whatever that is) after 30+ years of loyal, hard-working service is surely taking things a bit far.
All stick and no carrot....
As for aircrew, you should have seen the enormously fat gits who flew me across on a US Airways flight from Gatwick to Philadelphia! I thought the captain was going to pass out as he wheezed and waddled past my seat on the way to his rest area at the back of the Business Class section..... In 35 years in the RAF I never saw any 'truckies' or others who came anywhere close to being such a lardarse.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will formally have a medical review before my next test and get my 'fit to complete the test' in writing. I will then store document in the 'sue the military file' for as long as is required. FWIW I do not believe that logical response is being applied or at least one with long term thought.
Whether you are successful with your claim will depend as much on the "evidence" of culpability that you can provide as it will on the nature of the injury.
I'm no longer prone to naivety, but back when I was in I was somewhat more trusting. As a result I now carry two permanent scars of military medical incomptence, both signifcant enough to affect lifestyle choices, but I have no claim, because I never kept a record of the events leading to them.
I have a pal of the same vintage as me who got a full medical discharge as the RAF destroyed his knees - he now enjoys a full tax free pension as a result - but he had a long hard fight to win his case.
To the inevitable response that claiming against this sort of injury is some form of "freeloading", I would highlight the point that TM and others make; specifically, that these injuries are not occuring in the line of duty, or in the pursuit of health and fitness. They are occuring because an unworkable policy is being pursued using dubious methods at the expense of common sense and pragmatiscm.
By the way...none of this is posted because I'm a couch potato who hates sports and the fitness facists. I'm quite a fit old b*****r myself.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the RAF only allow you to conduct the Beep test? How about doing the run instead of the beep test?
Remember that you have to be in date for the test to be eligible for promotion.
Remember that you have to be in date for the test to be eligible for promotion.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook, that is the point. Unlike the navy, its bleep test or bust.
The fact that most would choose the mile and a half is neither here nor there; it would solve a lot of hassle. Due to laziness on ped flights part across the air force, we have to do the bleep test as it is "convenient".
The fact that most would choose the mile and a half is neither here nor there; it would solve a lot of hassle. Due to laziness on ped flights part across the air force, we have to do the bleep test as it is "convenient".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny you should say that but eventually I was "forced" onto the "bike".
I actually enjoyed the beep test as a 40+ old as it was nice watching all the sprogs stopping short as they couldn't hack their levels, levels that I was able to push myself to.
However the "bike" was another matter, absolute purgatory on the thighs, best bit was I used to cycle to/from work via Tentsmuir forest! LOL
I actually enjoyed the beep test as a 40+ old as it was nice watching all the sprogs stopping short as they couldn't hack their levels, levels that I was able to push myself to.
However the "bike" was another matter, absolute purgatory on the thighs, best bit was I used to cycle to/from work via Tentsmuir forest! LOL
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it allows a bike test, with a corresponding medical downgrade. If peeps got the option of bleep vs 1.5 Mile, you can pick your best event. If you meet the standard you meet the standard. Simple really. Unless you are a PTI.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London/Cambridge
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the female standards are too low. Male under 30 should be 10.30 1.5 mile run (10.2 bleep test) and female under 30 at least sub 11 mins (I think this is 9.10 bleep test). It is ridiculous that the standards between male and female tests are so great, and just encourages the fatties to get even fatter and lazier. I am no racing snake, but I bother to get off my arse and train, and can comfortably run 1.5 miles in under 10 minutes and do a few push ups and sit ups after that. And Im female.
It all seems quite simple to me really. If we are going to have a fitness test, set the standard, set the currrency period and stick to it. If you fail, you get 6 months to train to pass it. If after 6 months you can't pass it you get booted out - no exeptions. If you are medicaly not able to take the test you get a medical discharge. If your inability to take the test is due to injury that is the attributable to the service, you get suitable compensation and a discharge.
If I were to fail my PME because I did not meet the prescribed medical standards, I would expect to stop flying. If I were to fail meet the rather basic fitness requirements of a military service, I would expect to stop serving.
Now let's stop fannying about, get rid of a few fatties and I'm sure gym attendance will rocket. It might make your average Waaf a little easier on the eye as well.
Rant over.
If I were to fail my PME because I did not meet the prescribed medical standards, I would expect to stop flying. If I were to fail meet the rather basic fitness requirements of a military service, I would expect to stop serving.
Now let's stop fannying about, get rid of a few fatties and I'm sure gym attendance will rocket. It might make your average Waaf a little easier on the eye as well.
Rant over.
Fitness Test
there is an awful lot of guff in this thread. The basis for the different standards between male and female is easy - the MSFT is an accurate predictor for your VO2 Max (1). The Fitness Test, RN or RAF, is set at a level for either sex that refers to the quantile that you, as an active service person, should fit in. For Females, the average VO2 Max is 35 - 43 ml/kg/min (2): this equates to a MSFT level of 6.6 - 8.11 (3); the RAF's required standard is 7.2 - 8.6, right in the middle of this 'average' range. The corresponding figures for men are: 44 - 51 ml/kg/min; 9.4 - 11.4 and 9.10 - 11.6 - much the same spread.
There is no discrimination between male and female, merely natural physiological differences. If the RAF, or RN, wished to create a functional test of fitness then there could obviously be no difference the required standard.
(1) VO2 max - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(2) Runner's & Triathlete's Web - A Running and Triathlon Resource Site [note, this the forst of several you can find via google. I've no doubt there is a journal article you could find if you had the right academic log-on. Alternatively, ask your PEd team..]
(3) Multistage Fitness Test Table
There is no discrimination between male and female, merely natural physiological differences. If the RAF, or RN, wished to create a functional test of fitness then there could obviously be no difference the required standard.
(1) VO2 max - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(2) Runner's & Triathlete's Web - A Running and Triathlon Resource Site [note, this the forst of several you can find via google. I've no doubt there is a journal article you could find if you had the right academic log-on. Alternatively, ask your PEd team..]
(3) Multistage Fitness Test Table
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all seems quite simple to me really
As has already been pointed out - Mr Bader and his 22 aerial victories would have fallen foul of your interpretion. and if you think that example somewhat singular and over-used, how about the rather talented one-legged AEO that served with distinction (is he still in by the way). I'm sure others can think of other examples.
That's the problem with the one solution fits all. Yes, out go the lazy, feckless and grossly unfit (funny thing, as a flight commander I could identify those and take the appropriate action, without any help from the PED staff whatsoever.)
Out also go many talented, hard-working and well-motivated individuals, on the grounds that, for some reason, they don't fit some arbitary PEd inspired assessment of "fitness".
You like simple...here's simple
Let the medical staff decide if you are healthy enough for military service and healthy enough for any extra requirements (flying, diving etc).
Let the command chain report on your performance, standards, bearing etc.
Promote, demote, administrate as necessary.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the medical staff decide if you are healthy enough for military service and healthy enough for any extra requirements (flying, diving etc).
Let the command chain report on your performance, standards, bearing etc.
Promote, demote, administrate as necessary.
Let the command chain report on your performance, standards, bearing etc.
Promote, demote, administrate as necessary.
life is seldom simple, and simple policies seldom work
Vin - source?
I typed 'male average VO2 Max' into google, and found your result, a result that gave 43-52 (VO2 Max), the great god of wikipedia gave 45 (VO2 max - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) for an un-trained male, and Cooper gives the range between Fair and Excellent for a 25 year old as 37 - 52. (Powered by Google Docs)
Perhaps the PEd Branch should publish their methodology to allow us to conduct a true comparison?!
I typed 'male average VO2 Max' into google, and found your result, a result that gave 43-52 (VO2 Max), the great god of wikipedia gave 45 (VO2 max - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) for an un-trained male, and Cooper gives the range between Fair and Excellent for a 25 year old as 37 - 52. (Powered by Google Docs)
Perhaps the PEd Branch should publish their methodology to allow us to conduct a true comparison?!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
Correct.
Both policies are flawed. The one I prescribe should be recognisable to many as what existed before the introduction of mandatory fitness testing and its insidious assimilation into ACRs. Its flaws were down to its subjectivity and the sometimes low standards of the reporting chain.
Its strength was that it was an integral part of the forces ethos - an ethos designed to produce forces that could combine all their parts and all their people to kick arse when needed.
The "new fitness policy" - or whatever it is called now - is flawed because it is narrowly focussed on producing a measureable uplift in fitness levels across the services. It's produced, implemented and managed by sections of the armed forces that have a remit purely to make the forces "fitter". Not their problem if in so doing they make the forces less able to fight.
Correct.
Both policies are flawed. The one I prescribe should be recognisable to many as what existed before the introduction of mandatory fitness testing and its insidious assimilation into ACRs. Its flaws were down to its subjectivity and the sometimes low standards of the reporting chain.
Its strength was that it was an integral part of the forces ethos - an ethos designed to produce forces that could combine all their parts and all their people to kick arse when needed.
The "new fitness policy" - or whatever it is called now - is flawed because it is narrowly focussed on producing a measureable uplift in fitness levels across the services. It's produced, implemented and managed by sections of the armed forces that have a remit purely to make the forces "fitter". Not their problem if in so doing they make the forces less able to fight.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,561
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
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!!!