Changes to PME/Fitness test
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA:
That is just the kind of thinking which will keep the PVR rate high. Right now we need to be keeping people in, not pushing them away in droves. The more inconveniences their airships produce the more people will vote with their feet, which will increase the inconvenience on those left, increasing the number of PVRs etc etc. In these times of deployment after deployment (I personally have done at least 4 months out of every 12 since Jan 2003) we simply cannot afford to drive people away. I'd like to see them make my life less convenient... 
There is a running (pun intended) theme here that physical fitness bears a direct relationship with job capability. To those who believe this to be the case I ask you this: what would Douglas Bader have achieved in the bleep test? Or the situps for that matter.
their Airships have decided they want you looking fitter and leaner, (probably to try to help them look better themselves - but the reasons are irrelevant - this is what they want... end of story), and if they want something they will get it in the end. No matter how much you don't like it or how much it inconveniences you they will get their expected result... if they don't they will inconvenience you some more and they'll keep doing it until you comply...
There is a running (pun intended) theme here that physical fitness bears a direct relationship with job capability. To those who believe this to be the case I ask you this: what would Douglas Bader have achieved in the bleep test? Or the situps for that matter.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I tought one of the reasons Douglas Bader was such a good pilot was because he had lost his legs. Let us put aside for a mo the obvious heroism of the man and the fact he had such big balls of steel they would have needed a second kite and look at the facts. No legs = nowhere for blood to drain therefore can turn tighter and harder than anyone else, more high G moves increase the tolerance so by the time he's back he has stressed the wings off just about everything. Did they have fatigue meters back then or were the lineys just bf'ing the jets that had a pair of wings and slinging them at the sky.Back to thread, I understand that shorter thickset typres make better candidates for G tolerance rather than racing snakes with a body fat percentage of naff all. Also I understand that serious marathon runners are no good in the front row ( Generally)
Ever seen a tall racing snake do a double fcu change on a 199 as stupid o clock in the morning in the rain without an sps jack???
No, Why because its not easy, The only one I ever saw was Cpl J***** I***** on 11 sqn and he managed coz he was a rugby player. not a gym queen.
Fitness for purpose, an ideal tonka sooty should be about 4'9", really wide. immune to pain, drink avtur (or at least enjoy it when it drips into your eyes) with a set of six jointed fingers and the ability to either wirelock by feel or x-ray vision to see through the airframe that was put in the way.
Oh and being able to diagnose and fix engine faults by being on shift, not off sick with a sports injury or preening down the gym
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kettering
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt that fitter people live longer. This affects the military very little though as there are very few even very unfit people that will keel over before they leave the mob. Some would say that we should be encouraging this to reduce the pension burden! I would still say that fitter is better (and that is from someone who is unfit but trying to do something about it).
I am sure that given the choice, we would all rather have a top notch aviator in the left hand seat than a fit, crap one but the training solution to the problem has nothing to do with fitness.
As someone who regularly spends hours at a time in the back of transport a/c, I have never had an issue with my unfitness and would consider myself incredibly unlucky to have to do an sort of E&E, especially as I have had no training in it. Hasn't stopped me going to both TELIC and HERRICK in the last 6 months (day trips only).
I suspect (but can't prove - mostly because I don't feel I need to) that fitter people have a higher alertness, particularly on long duration ops. There are a lot of medical reasons for this that I won't go into now.
This debate will run and run as there are people firmly entrenched in both camps. Perhaps we should just agree to differ and get on with moaning about something else!
I am sure that given the choice, we would all rather have a top notch aviator in the left hand seat than a fit, crap one but the training solution to the problem has nothing to do with fitness.
As someone who regularly spends hours at a time in the back of transport a/c, I have never had an issue with my unfitness and would consider myself incredibly unlucky to have to do an sort of E&E, especially as I have had no training in it. Hasn't stopped me going to both TELIC and HERRICK in the last 6 months (day trips only).
I suspect (but can't prove - mostly because I don't feel I need to) that fitter people have a higher alertness, particularly on long duration ops. There are a lot of medical reasons for this that I won't go into now.
This debate will run and run as there are people firmly entrenched in both camps. Perhaps we should just agree to differ and get on with moaning about something else!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the gym
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bader
... what would Douglas Bader have achieved in the bleep test? Or the situps for that matter.
Bader was an international standard rugby player, so I imagine he would have been able to do quite well on both counts. It was his fitness as well as his determination that first helped him recover from his injuries and then get back on his feet again. Then he spent quite some considerable time in gyms....
MM
Bader was an international standard rugby player, so I imagine he would have been able to do quite well on both counts. It was his fitness as well as his determination that first helped him recover from his injuries and then get back on his feet again. Then he spent quite some considerable time in gyms....
MM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT
I can't disagree with a word you are saying... But don't, for a second, be conned into believing that their Airships have the same motivations you do. In fact, you might need to consider the fact that they _might_ be trying to prove a point to politicians or even, who'd even dream this one, that they may be doing silly things deliberately to put the forces in an untenable position because they are quite happy teaching the gubmint that has done all it can to destroy them a lesson, (that is, of course, purest speculation... 
). Simply put, we/you don't know... But remember "The RAF can't make you do anything... But it can make you wish you had!"
Wader:
My Bold.
Since you concede a point of probability then you also concede that I may equally well be right. That being the case your life could, equally well, become more inconvenienced until you comply.
Stormrider:
I'd buy into your "fitness for purpose" argument if, and only if, the aircrew that argue against the fitness tests spent more time in the air than they do on the ground. Alas, we are all aware, that this is not the case. Furthermore, I'd suggest that this reliance on the "fitness for purpose" defense is bandied around by those who are more interested in flying Her Majesty's aircraft for their own benefit, (whatever that may be), than flying one for her benefit, (in other words - being a person with a long term, upwardly mobile career in mind).
This whole argument is really very simple. Since there are numerous examples of fit, competent people in all trades in the same jobs under the same conditions as the unfit there can be only one reason why, (despite their protestations that they don't have the time... blah... blah... blah), they are even arguing the point. They simply don't want to. They don't want to expend the effort and energy. They are lazy, (remember - others are doing exactly the same as they are in all other aspects of their lives and working out... so they could work out too).
This then leads back to the "own benefit" issue. We have lazy people who are doing a job for their own benefit. That's a nice basis for people who are in leadership positions. Then we wonder why the Air Force "isn't what it used to be". Douglas Bader is spinning in his grave listening to the weakness of those who can't discipline themselves sufficiently to pass a little fitness test after what he went through to get back into a cockpit to risk his life _again_. Those of you who use him as an argument for your position that the fitness test is a bad thing need to look very hard at yourselves, (I know you won't - you are too self centered and arrogant - you don't understand the words commitment and integrity - you want the Ad Astra but you don't have the internal fortitude for the Per Ardua).
Mad Mark:
I read what you wrote. That's why I responded with:-
I've added the bold to help you with you inability to read what was written. I acknowledged that you could pass the test... Had you read what I wrote rather than try to simply argue with me you wouldn't look as simple as you do right now. If your going to play "Internet Einstein" and point out where people "lack" when they didn't I'd suggest that you pick on people with a lower IQ than yourself. That way they might miss your inadequacies and not shine the bright light of comprehension on your blithering. 
Hi AIDU
That is just the kind of thinking which will keep the PVR rate high.....
). Simply put, we/you don't know... But remember "The RAF can't make you do anything... But it can make you wish you had!"Wader:
This is probably a questionable assumption.
Since you concede a point of probability then you also concede that I may equally well be right. That being the case your life could, equally well, become more inconvenienced until you comply.
Stormrider:
I'd buy into your "fitness for purpose" argument if, and only if, the aircrew that argue against the fitness tests spent more time in the air than they do on the ground. Alas, we are all aware, that this is not the case. Furthermore, I'd suggest that this reliance on the "fitness for purpose" defense is bandied around by those who are more interested in flying Her Majesty's aircraft for their own benefit, (whatever that may be), than flying one for her benefit, (in other words - being a person with a long term, upwardly mobile career in mind).
This whole argument is really very simple. Since there are numerous examples of fit, competent people in all trades in the same jobs under the same conditions as the unfit there can be only one reason why, (despite their protestations that they don't have the time... blah... blah... blah), they are even arguing the point. They simply don't want to. They don't want to expend the effort and energy. They are lazy, (remember - others are doing exactly the same as they are in all other aspects of their lives and working out... so they could work out too).
This then leads back to the "own benefit" issue. We have lazy people who are doing a job for their own benefit. That's a nice basis for people who are in leadership positions. Then we wonder why the Air Force "isn't what it used to be". Douglas Bader is spinning in his grave listening to the weakness of those who can't discipline themselves sufficiently to pass a little fitness test after what he went through to get back into a cockpit to risk his life _again_. Those of you who use him as an argument for your position that the fitness test is a bad thing need to look very hard at yourselves, (I know you won't - you are too self centered and arrogant - you don't understand the words commitment and integrity - you want the Ad Astra but you don't have the internal fortitude for the Per Ardua).
Mad Mark:
I read what you wrote. That's why I responded with:-
I'd rather not fly with someone who can barely pass a simple physical
Hi AIDU
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi AA. Look I did start to read your post but I noticed some paint drying on the wall near me so I
"FAT BASTIGE"
Have fun watching it...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that the motivation of their airships is to secure their salaries I doubt very much they are doing anything you are suggesting AA.
This is really like the Government of the day and the civil service. If the Government is preceived to be a short term one the civil service merely works at a slow pace to get its own way.
You said:-
I doubt very much they are doing anything you are suggesting
What you doubt is as much speculation as is your suggestion that they are trying to secure their salaries... Neither can be, with the information available, proven to be true. I will tell you though that you may never know the motivation of those above you and therefore, to even discuss your superior's motives is an exercise in futility - because they don't tell you things they don't think you need to know - and that's a fact. While it is expected of you, trusting your superiors, (especially their Airships), is fun to a point but you shouldn't base your career on them...
It's funny... Getting fit is less painful than arguing the issue... Trust me, I've been unfit, fit, unfit etc. ad infinitum... It's easier to stay fit than to get fit... So, get fit once and Bingo... It's all easy after that - for minimal effort...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA,
As you are obviously the font of all knowledge with regards to current service requirements care to give your thoughts on the new CCS proposals
"FAT BASTIGE"..............classic reversion to type, if you can't reason with it then simply insult it and I get the feeling that if AIDU was in the room as you typed your next move would have been to simply punch him
As you are obviously the font of all knowledge with regards to current service requirements care to give your thoughts on the new CCS proposals
"FAT BASTIGE"..............classic reversion to type, if you can't reason with it then simply insult it and I get the feeling that if AIDU was in the room as you typed your next move would have been to simply punch him
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In act nonsense both ways.
First there are many instances where the RAF has tried but there are simply not enough people around with the time to police sanctions. gone are the days when a whole tranche of airmen were on jankers overseen by a bevvy of cops. The former are civilianised and the latter too.
And the other way? To quote a friend of mine from way back - you play ball with me and I'll stuff the bat right up . . .
There was a time when we had a sufreit of pilots (or thought we had) but a shortage of flying hours. As soon as one PVR'd he was stuck in the Sim or in Ops. The RAF really got their monies worth from these people. Strictly 9-5, worked by the book. Send him to fitness training and he would go, provided it was in the 9-5 and did not interfere with lunch. Now how to you propose to apply sanction and get productive work from this individual?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: .Lincs.
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify my orginal post, this has very little to do with fitness/'ability to do job', but more rank has its resposnsibilities as well as its perks. Flying pay aside, all aircrew are far better paid (due to rank) than the majoriy of the airforce and probably work the same if not less less hours. It is been decided that SNCO and O's should lead from the front etc, etc to earn that extra pay.
What is mildly interesting is that no-one even considered that point
What is mildly interesting is that no-one even considered that point
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for working the same or fewer hours, I'll bite.
On a ground tour, OOA, the longest I worked was 14 hour shift and about 56 hours per week.
One week, in an ordinary week, I only flew for 33 hours. Given the 2 hours before and one hour after flight (minimum) that pushed my working week to 55 hours. As that only took up 4 days I then did a 24 hour QRA standby which included a morning work on the sqn as well as crew rest.
There are trades in the Air Force that also work long hours and there are some, like on the Field Sqns that work longer when deployed.
The thibg with aircrew hours is they are variable as they depending on the engineering output and the tasking be it in war or training.
