Continually failing RAF Fitness Test.
Old Fat One,
Sorry, but I still can't see why it shouldn't be as simple as I suggest. You are quite correct in that Bader would not be allowed in, and your unidexter AEO would undoubtedly struggle to pass and probably be invalided out. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be any other way? The RAF is shortly to be reduced to 30000 people is it too much to ask that they are all fit enough to deploy?
A basic level of fitness is all we're talking about here, enough to cope with a bit of heat, a bit of lugging stuff about and a bit of running to the nearest shelter without being no use when you get there.
I am frankly embarrassed by some of the lard arses or sickly children that advertise themselves as members of the RAF.
Yes it's a pain, but the RAFFT is impartial, well within anyone's capability given a little application, and ultimately necessary. The main source of resentment is with the wheeezy folk with a sick chit from matron who will continue to serve and never pass it.
Fatties are unsightly, I don't care how "bubbly" they are.
Sorry, but I still can't see why it shouldn't be as simple as I suggest. You are quite correct in that Bader would not be allowed in, and your unidexter AEO would undoubtedly struggle to pass and probably be invalided out. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be any other way? The RAF is shortly to be reduced to 30000 people is it too much to ask that they are all fit enough to deploy?
A basic level of fitness is all we're talking about here, enough to cope with a bit of heat, a bit of lugging stuff about and a bit of running to the nearest shelter without being no use when you get there.
I am frankly embarrassed by some of the lard arses or sickly children that advertise themselves as members of the RAF.
Yes it's a pain, but the RAFFT is impartial, well within anyone's capability given a little application, and ultimately necessary. The main source of resentment is with the wheeezy folk with a sick chit from matron who will continue to serve and never pass it.
Fatties are unsightly, I don't care how "bubbly" they are.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody hell, just listen the the whinging and whining in here. You lot are all in the Armed Forces and therefore need to be physically fit. Simple. In my opinion the pass levels are far too low, I'm not saying we all need to be able to speed march across the Brecons with bergans, weapons etc but as a professional you need to be fit to lead and fit to fight. I know as aircrew we all fight sat on our arses (well maybe not Typhoon pilots, one day they may get to join in) but what if you bang out sausage side or the cab goes downbird in the field and you have to patrol out with the pongos!
If you can't pass then do the remidial training until you can. Before I go to Ganners I'm getting in some serious phys training, if I end up in a sticky situation then I'll be bloody glad of it.
If you can't pass then do the remidial training until you can. Before I go to Ganners I'm getting in some serious phys training, if I end up in a sticky situation then I'll be bloody glad of it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A basic level of fitness is all we're talking about here, enough to cope with a bit of heat, a bit of lugging stuff about and a bit of running to the nearest shelter without being no use when you get there.glad of it.
apart from the fact in the 15 months I have spent out of area, I have never once witnessed a 'lardy' as you so elloquently put it, be unable to do any of those things or in fact be undeployable. Having sat on a flightdeck at 65 degrees C with plenty of lardys in the other seat, you know what, they sweat just the same as everyone else, same down working the back. Want to comment on how many phys fanatics have been evacuated from theatre from overdoing the phys? Or how many have got out of OOA due to 'sports commitments' and injuries sustained whilst playing footy/Rugby etc?
Golden, I take it you havent been to the stan before. Dont overdo it mate. The walk to the boardwalk isnt anywhere near as stressful as you think as for 'if your bird goes down' I suggest you get back to your tom clancy novels mate!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you havent been to the stan before.
Vinrouge, you've gotta admit, even those who aren't undeployable are unsightly
.
On a more serious note perhaps all those lardies you have worked with OOA were able to do all those things I listed because they were all fit enough to pass the RAFFT. Despite their considerable girth. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there would they?
I can't think of a better example of how the fitness test is impartial and effective than your evidence that even the Herk force is able to deploy with all it's people effective and fit enough to do so.
We're not talking about SAS selection here, just a trot up and down the gym and a few pressups. I talk to lots of people who hark on about how easy IOT/ITC has become since they went through, but a large proportion of them see no problem with the decline of their personal fitness. If we demand it of our recruits, why not demand it of our experienced people?
As for the jockstrappers being sent home or damaged playing sport, the principle of applying the rules without exception still applies. If I permanently damage my hip playing rugby to the point that I can no longer run, I expect a discharge in the same way that if I loose any eye in the RAF javelin chucking competition I expect to be grounded!
.On a more serious note perhaps all those lardies you have worked with OOA were able to do all those things I listed because they were all fit enough to pass the RAFFT. Despite their considerable girth. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there would they?
I can't think of a better example of how the fitness test is impartial and effective than your evidence that even the Herk force is able to deploy with all it's people effective and fit enough to do so.
We're not talking about SAS selection here, just a trot up and down the gym and a few pressups. I talk to lots of people who hark on about how easy IOT/ITC has become since they went through, but a large proportion of them see no problem with the decline of their personal fitness. If we demand it of our recruits, why not demand it of our experienced people?
As for the jockstrappers being sent home or damaged playing sport, the principle of applying the rules without exception still applies. If I permanently damage my hip playing rugby to the point that I can no longer run, I expect a discharge in the same way that if I loose any eye in the RAF javelin chucking competition I expect to be grounded!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Who knows where this week.......
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I've read the bit on VO2 etc etc, but I admit to being a little slow (fast enough for the beeps though...) on the uptake. Why does it matter to the forces if people are fit enough for age groups or by sexual denomination, rather than simply by role/task requirement? Can someone provide a reasoned answer, or perhaps explain what I'm missing about VO2 relevancy?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more serious note perhaps all those lardies you have worked with OOA were able to do all those things I listed because they were all fit enough to pass the RAFFT. Despite their considerable girth. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there would they?
As for the jockstrappers being sent home or damaged playing sport, the principle of applying the rules without exception still applies. If I permanently damage my hip playing rugby to the point that I can no longer run, I expect a discharge in the same way that if I loose any eye in the RAF javelin chucking competition I expect to be grounded!
I can't think of a better example of how the fitness test is impartial and effective than your evidence that even the Herk force is able to deploy with all it's people effective and fit enough to do so.
We're not talking about SAS selection here, just a trot up and down the gym and a few pressups
Last edited by VinRouge; 22nd Nov 2009 at 19:01.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit bored so trawled the UK governmants statistics on medical discharges for the Armed Forces in 2001....
Key points
Of Tri-Service medical discharges in 2001, 66% were due to injury
Training and exercise was the most common cause of medical discharge due to injury, accounting for 36% of injuries (12% of all medical discharges)...
Medical Discharges from the Armed Forces
...and lets see what some experts have to say about the bleep test
VO2 max is considered the ultimate measure of an athlete's aerobic (cardio) fitness, and the Multistage Fitness Test or Bleep Test is considered one of the best ways to test it.
It is regularly used by sports teams worldwide to monitor the effectiveness of their training. Due to the short turns in the test, it is best suited for players of ball sports, rather than rowers, runners or cyclists.
What do we do with the people who are down graded with cancer/heart disease etc but a couple of years later are fit again and back to normal duties. Bin them at diagnosis? Give them a year/2 years/5 years to sort it out.. do we give expensively trained aircrew a longer time to get better?
The system does the best it can to be fair - we carry on as individuals maintaining our own moral standards and life style choices - and why get upset about those whom shirk and scive - feel sorry for them and rise above it.
Of note - not all fatty folk are unfit.. and not all skinny folk are fit.
Key points
Of Tri-Service medical discharges in 2001, 66% were due to injury Training and exercise was the most common cause of medical discharge due to injury, accounting for 36% of injuries (12% of all medical discharges)...Medical Discharges from the Armed Forces
...and lets see what some experts have to say about the bleep test
VO2 max is considered the ultimate measure of an athlete's aerobic (cardio) fitness, and the Multistage Fitness Test or Bleep Test is considered one of the best ways to test it.
It is regularly used by sports teams worldwide to monitor the effectiveness of their training. Due to the short turns in the test, it is best suited for players of ball sports, rather than rowers, runners or cyclists.
What do we do with the people who are down graded with cancer/heart disease etc but a couple of years later are fit again and back to normal duties. Bin them at diagnosis? Give them a year/2 years/5 years to sort it out.. do we give expensively trained aircrew a longer time to get better?
The system does the best it can to be fair - we carry on as individuals maintaining our own moral standards and life style choices - and why get upset about those whom shirk and scive - feel sorry for them and rise above it.
Of note - not all fatty folk are unfit.. and not all skinny folk are fit.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not really, got chubby knees though. Probably why I cant turn on the bleep test. I just cant tolerate issues being made of something that is completely irrelivant, irrelivant to ops, irrelivant to the majority of the service, irrelevant and dangersous as its going to lead to a lot of truly irreplacable people getting forced out (its already happening). There is much more worth to a man than his fitness test score... Its difficult already to retain decent guys and gals in the service without this added nonsense...
What gets my goat... if you read some of the mentalist P1 paperwork that has come our way of late, it comes across as though people who cant pass the required bleep test are at a level similar to drug abusers and baby killers.
What gets my goat... if you read some of the mentalist P1 paperwork that has come our way of late, it comes across as though people who cant pass the required bleep test are at a level similar to drug abusers and baby killers.
Ernie Wise lives!!
I and am well aware that "hard rules" are frequently flaunted in the interests of operational expediencies. I suppose that is my point. The military either sets standards for people or it doesn't. If it turns a blind eye to Flt Lt X's gammy leg or Flt Sgt Y's obesity because they are experienced operators, why should an SAC, Cpl or WO show anything but distain for the RAFFT, or any other set of military standards we set ourselves? Despite their claims to the contrary, I have not met anyone in my time in the RAF who is really irreplaceable.
My interpretation oft he rules may sound harsh, but I fail to see how you cannot apply the rules fairly and evenly across the board, even if you do loose a few otherwise good people along the way.
I and am well aware that "hard rules" are frequently flaunted in the interests of operational expediencies. I suppose that is my point. The military either sets standards for people or it doesn't. If it turns a blind eye to Flt Lt X's gammy leg or Flt Sgt Y's obesity because they are experienced operators, why should an SAC, Cpl or WO show anything but distain for the RAFFT, or any other set of military standards we set ourselves? Despite their claims to the contrary, I have not met anyone in my time in the RAF who is really irreplaceable.
My interpretation oft he rules may sound harsh, but I fail to see how you cannot apply the rules fairly and evenly across the board, even if you do loose a few otherwise good people along the way.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not met anyone in my time in the RAF who is really irreplaceable.
Serious question, using your 'rules', as an auth, would you send someone ooa to fly or repair an aircraft that you were not confident was 100% up to the task, who is replacing someone binned for a facile tast, and although competent (having passed his fitness test), has question marks over their performance and ability where it really counts?
Suppose this is what happens when we start training for competence rather than excellence...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I support the argument in favour of being able to choose to run either a 1.5 mile or a shuttle run, but some of the comment on this thread is laughable.
To suggest that this is some ruse to cut down on manning numbers and save money by discharging personnel without a pension is ludicrous. Just how many people and how much money would we save by doing this? - utter nonsense.
Likewise the argument that somebody who has failed and undergoing the remedial (reconditioning?) could be distracted at work through fear of being admin discharged. To follow this argument would suggest that we should also throw out disciplinary measures for all breaches of Air Force Law in case such action lead the individual concerned to have a lapse of concentration which may cause an accident later on. To avoid such occurrences we practice good man-management - as you would if one of your subordinates was in the poop for failing a fitness test, drink driving, habitual lateness etc; i.e. interview, counseling, monitoring performance, get their Line Managers (& peers) to keep an eye on them, etc.
Finally, if you have dodgy knees, bad back, weak ankles etc, don't you owe it to yourself to get it sorted through the Medics (or BUPA if you don't trust Service Medics)? I'm sure that the argument has already been made about medical pensions being granted through evidence, which would be lacking if you hid these conditions throughout your career. Additionally, are you able to operate safely if you are covering up having such medical conditions (& can you make an honest, objective appraisal of whether it does or does not affect your performance)?
Some of the posters on this thread are the living, breathing, embodiment of the Daily Mail, given to knee jerk opinions and hyperbole.
To suggest that this is some ruse to cut down on manning numbers and save money by discharging personnel without a pension is ludicrous. Just how many people and how much money would we save by doing this? - utter nonsense.
Likewise the argument that somebody who has failed and undergoing the remedial (reconditioning?) could be distracted at work through fear of being admin discharged. To follow this argument would suggest that we should also throw out disciplinary measures for all breaches of Air Force Law in case such action lead the individual concerned to have a lapse of concentration which may cause an accident later on. To avoid such occurrences we practice good man-management - as you would if one of your subordinates was in the poop for failing a fitness test, drink driving, habitual lateness etc; i.e. interview, counseling, monitoring performance, get their Line Managers (& peers) to keep an eye on them, etc.
Finally, if you have dodgy knees, bad back, weak ankles etc, don't you owe it to yourself to get it sorted through the Medics (or BUPA if you don't trust Service Medics)? I'm sure that the argument has already been made about medical pensions being granted through evidence, which would be lacking if you hid these conditions throughout your career. Additionally, are you able to operate safely if you are covering up having such medical conditions (& can you make an honest, objective appraisal of whether it does or does not affect your performance)?
Some of the posters on this thread are the living, breathing, embodiment of the Daily Mail, given to knee jerk opinions and hyperbole.
Just out of curiosity does anybody know if anyone has been declared 'non-deployable', unfit for promotion or even admin discharged because they can't shoot straight? If your back is against the wall I'd rather have a man/woman who can shoot straight than one who can do 'x' pressups/situps or reach level 'whatever' on the b-test 
. Not saying the RAFFT is wrong but if we are going to bin all those who can't deploy because of fitness (and/or medical) then it's only right we should do the same with those who can't shoot straight and/or are crap at 'field' skills.
Besides, if you are trying to swing the lead to get 'discharged' then remedial on the shooting range has got to be much more fun than remedial at the hands of the PTIs!
. Not saying the RAFFT is wrong but if we are going to bin all those who can't deploy because of fitness (and/or medical) then it's only right we should do the same with those who can't shoot straight and/or are crap at 'field' skills.Besides, if you are trying to swing the lead to get 'discharged' then remedial on the shooting range has got to be much more fun than remedial at the hands of the PTIs!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can you make an honest, objective appraisal of whether it does or does not affect your performance)?
If I had an injury that had justified hospital investigation/treatment but did not effect my daily work regime or indeed general fitness, I may still harbour doubts about the 180 and backtrack required in the beep test. I have never seen somebody executing such manouvres as part of a scheduled fitness program, yet thousands jog several miles daily. Few would argue that a standard of fitness is essential; I would suggest that a run - swim would be a better indicator, but just as my mother used to say, "If he told you to put your hand in the fire, would you", equally we are individually entitled to question a protocol that appears to be damaging to knees. Whilst these threads are invariably repetative in content and dull in tone, if they do keep the same old messages, then perhaps somebody in authority should listen and do something about it.
Vinrouge,
I can assure you I am currently serving on a sqn that is suffering greatly from dilution / experience problems. You imply that all of us 4th /5th tourists struggle with the fitness test, therefore we are in danger of booting out all our valuable experience. Not true.
Sure, one or two experienced guys may go, but I suggest that they will be the ones who share your belief that they are in some way too valuable and Yoda like to be bothering with a test that is so obviously beneath them. Life will go on.
For those who's knees are knackered, do the bike test. For those who are physicaly incapable of riding a bike, you have my condolences, enjoy your retirement.
Oops, almost forgot. In answer to your question I would never auth someone I was not confident in.
I can assure you I am currently serving on a sqn that is suffering greatly from dilution / experience problems. You imply that all of us 4th /5th tourists struggle with the fitness test, therefore we are in danger of booting out all our valuable experience. Not true.
Sure, one or two experienced guys may go, but I suggest that they will be the ones who share your belief that they are in some way too valuable and Yoda like to be bothering with a test that is so obviously beneath them. Life will go on.
For those who's knees are knackered, do the bike test. For those who are physicaly incapable of riding a bike, you have my condolences, enjoy your retirement.
Oops, almost forgot. In answer to your question I would never auth someone I was not confident in.
Fatties are unsightly, I don't care how "bubbly" they are.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh FFS! Yet again, Fat Crabs whinging about being expected to achieve a very basic level of fitness.
If you struggle to pass that excuse for a test, you need to take a look at yourself.
If you struggle to understand why a 'military' force should be expected to meet a basic level of fitness, You're probably one of the fat ones!
If you get upset about the rules continually changing, you've got too much time on your hands. Who cares, when each of those rule changes leads to another piece of pi55 test?
If some of you spent less time posting whines on PPRune and used that time gaining a little personal fitness, you'd be less of an embarrasment to the human race, let alone the RAF.
Simple message to all society (and yes, that includes Crabs):
1. Fat and unfit generally not good.
2. Less fat and less unfit generally better than option 1 above.
If you struggle to pass that excuse for a test, you need to take a look at yourself.
If you struggle to understand why a 'military' force should be expected to meet a basic level of fitness, You're probably one of the fat ones!
If you get upset about the rules continually changing, you've got too much time on your hands. Who cares, when each of those rule changes leads to another piece of pi55 test?
If some of you spent less time posting whines on PPRune and used that time gaining a little personal fitness, you'd be less of an embarrasment to the human race, let alone the RAF.
Simple message to all society (and yes, that includes Crabs):
1. Fat and unfit generally not good.
2. Less fat and less unfit generally better than option 1 above.
A fun thread this.
Isn't part of the problem that the RAF allows and encourages an 'older' population than the army; and (Rocks aside) they never have been required to be a 'run-aroundy' group? Seems to me that if you want to send a 50 something pilot to war, and his job requires him (no old ladies yet?) to sit on his arse all day, then it makes no sense to use up his heartbeat allotment quicker than necessary. Dennis Leech used to get by, and when Steve Stevenson was crewman, no-one seemed to worry. Not much payload in that Puma though!
CG
Isn't part of the problem that the RAF allows and encourages an 'older' population than the army; and (Rocks aside) they never have been required to be a 'run-aroundy' group? Seems to me that if you want to send a 50 something pilot to war, and his job requires him (no old ladies yet?) to sit on his arse all day, then it makes no sense to use up his heartbeat allotment quicker than necessary. Dennis Leech used to get by, and when Steve Stevenson was crewman, no-one seemed to worry. Not much payload in that Puma though!
CG
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: wilts
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitness?
Fitness is not my issue here. I am not fit by any means, but I have never failed the fitness test either. I do enough fizz each week to carry me through the test.
What does bother me is, if I were to fail, then I get a few weeks remedial, fail again, I get a formal warning. If I fail again, then it is bye Mr S.
However, I know of a few individuals, who through no fault of their own are permanently exempt the fitness test. They are fully deployable, with out the military knowing just how fit they are, and if they could cope with the heat/running away which may be required.
They will go on through their careers knowing they will never have to attend the gym, they will get promoted and have a full career. The poor guy who can't pass the fitness test for what ever reason, whether he is the best in his field, will be sent packing.
What does bother me is, if I were to fail, then I get a few weeks remedial, fail again, I get a formal warning. If I fail again, then it is bye Mr S.
However, I know of a few individuals, who through no fault of their own are permanently exempt the fitness test. They are fully deployable, with out the military knowing just how fit they are, and if they could cope with the heat/running away which may be required.
They will go on through their careers knowing they will never have to attend the gym, they will get promoted and have a full career. The poor guy who can't pass the fitness test for what ever reason, whether he is the best in his field, will be sent packing.