Females can not march like men....

[baffman]

...Yes its a shame that their injuries got so bad that they were discharged but the medics are at fault for that, not the RAF in my opinion (although I imagine that the RAF Halton medics see hundreds of recruits a year with 'pain caused by marching' which normally mysteriously goes away when told to carry on).

Eh, Burnie5204? Please explain how RAF medics were at fault but not the RAF and MOD?

...They have been paid based on the fact that their lives may be 5 years shorter as a result of suffering from Pelvic Stress Injuries (PSI). That is clearly not going to happen and is therefore ridiculous.

That's equally bonkers, FFG. With respect. How on earth did you conclude that the compensation is based on shortened life expectancy?

[Burnie5204]

Baffman - they raised the issue of being in pain and the DS sent them to see the medics to get checked out (so there is clearly an expressed concern for recruit welfare amongst the DS) and it was the medics who then said "you'll be fine keep going".

Having been to Halton almost all training prior to Force Protection takes place on the upper section of the site, the area occupied exclusively by RTS, so not huge amounts of Marching between locations as the barrack blocks are almost directly next door to the classrooms and both border the parade square with the recruits cookhouse on one of the sides of the square. Having been to Halton and had to march around it everywhere the main camp is not that big in terms of marching distances.

30 inches has been the length of RAF marching pace for years and years (probably since before WWII) no-one has previously raised this so why is it only now becoming an issue?

For female recruits and those struggling with PT and fitness they have a Halton Pre-Foundation course in which they give you extra training to help with fitness and medical standards and during which they make it VERY clear what it will be like for the 9 week phase one training, reasonable adjustments will be made for recruits who require them and the fitness test is also broken down into age and gender categories with female candidates having a lower fitness requirement than males and the older candidates having a lower fitness standards than younger recruits - that says to me that the RAF and MoD recognise the differences between recruits and put in adjustments to help them manage and that it is not an endemic problem of unneccesarily forcing people to do what they are not capable of doing - so why is drill only now being raised as an issue?

Of the hundreds of thousands of recruits (probably millions since the RAFs inception) that have passed through RTS why have there only been these 3 cases. Thats a very, very low percentage of the total even if you include the 5 other cases that the BBC say they are aware of that the RAF/MoD are going to take to the courts to defend.


For those interested this is the RAF Halton RTS training schedule taken from the RAF website

[Mr C Hinecap]

Of the hundreds of thousands of recruits (probably millions since the RAFs inception) that have passed through RTS why have there only been these 3 cases.

Erm, because it's' a conspiracy?

I should add that to the list as well.

[Robert Cooper]

So the poor dears are getting more than folks blown up with IEDs because they can't march? Something wrong there!

Bob C

[Al R]

Bob,

Good reminder.

We get so obsessed about 'equality' though, we think that it is the same as 'identical'. It isn't. I see nothing wrong in using a little common sense and flexibility in something as simple as marching. But where do you draw the line - shorter people don't have to clear the 9' wall? Fine, but what if there is a 9' wall to be cleared on ops? Slightly built people don't have to carry so much weight? Great, who carries the extra instead then?

[vascodegama]

Good points above about equality - what I find difficult is that the short men seem to have managed . Another perhaps more obvious solution would be a standard 27 inch pace?

[Haraka]

or simply increase the minimum leg length criteria?
( as was done for aircrew following spin recovery incidents on the early J.P.)

[lj101]

Article here;

Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation

The MOD were aware of this issue years ago - with our new era of risk assessments and being pro active rather than reactive to events, our personnel will hopefully be looked after a bit better.

It's a new world out there. At a conference at Cranwell a few weeks ago the night porter told us cadets don't do restrictions at weekends anymore as its against their human rights. I did assume she was telling me the truth.

Al, you're a good guy, thankfully most of us don't have to clear 9ft walls in the RAF. If we did I'm sure you'd give us a leg up.

[dctyke]

I see nothing has changed since I was there in 2000. If you look at the syllabus of training chart you will see we still attest recruits before the medical and fitness tests. This means they are already in when you find out there are issues, the odd pregnant girl was one, health problems not revealed was another. Quite a number has issues with drill due to only ever wearing trainers and lack of fitness.

[Ken Scott]

In my time at Cranwell (80s) Med Holding Flt was chock full of guys & gals who were injured during training, including some who never recovered. There were plenty of people who picked up injuries, were given a fist full of Brufen & told to 'get on with it'. A number were med discharged as a result of being forced to carry on whilst injured.

I'm not suggesting this scenario was correct but it is possible in a military force that an individual might have to press through pain (fighting whilst injured on ops?). One of these ladies ended up as a legal secretary so she probably earns more than she would have in the RAF so should she in fact have to pay the difference back to the RAF? What precisely are they being compensated for? Loss of earnings? (See above). Injury? (possibly, but does it still hurt after all these years?) Emotional trauma? (they couldn't make the grade anyway).

It is too easy to say 'I was going to be ATC not frontline infantry' but we're all a military force & no one gets a by on doing CCS because they work in an office. Tens of thousands of ladies had marched before without 'life changing injuries' so it's ridiculous to pay compensation at these levels, the original payout (£3000 ish) was sufficient for their level of injury & it's the legal system now robbing the taxpayer (not a victimless crime in my opinion).

Standing by for all those crippled ladies & gents from the 80s to start filing their compensation claims.......

[Al R]

I hated that 9' wall. I used to practice on it on my lonesome, Sunday mornings and in the evenings. Now, I wouldn't be allowed.. elf n safety!

[39 Squadron]

I wonder how long the 'claims' have taken, compared to some of the PTSD from others in the mix……….ISTR that claims attributed to PTSD have taken more than a year, and the recipient really needed attention….

[lj101]

39 Sqn

5 years apparently.

[Shack37]

lj101 said
The MOD were aware of this issue years ago - with our new era of risk assessments and being pro active rather than reactive to events, our personnel will hopefully be looked after a bit better.


RAs are new in name only, even back in the 60s common sense usually prevailed. In 1960 we had Boy Entrant summer camp on Dartmoor which included a quite strenuous march across the moor with back pack. Our flight was the first to go and all made it albeit with some effort. As a result, those following behind had their packs delivered by truck at the end of their stroll.


Can't remember if we did 27" or 30" though

[Lightning Mate]

[baffman]

Baffman - they raised the issue of being in pain and the DS sent them to see the medics to get checked out (so there is clearly an expressed concern for recruit welfare amongst the DS) and it was the medics who then said "you'll be fine keep going"...

Burnie 5204, thanks for your post, all noted.

However, I am still struggling to understand your now-repeated view that "it was the medics" who failed to diagnose correctly and told the recruits "You'll be fine keep going" -

but the MOD somehow has no responsibility for clinical negligence by their employees or contractors in a care service provided by the MOD to its recruits?

[NutLoose]

I still cannot get my head around there being an anatomical difference in that a woman cannot open her legs as wide as a male counterpart, especially when one considers that during child birth the manage to pass a child out between them.

What has changed, there have been women in the services from almost day one, why now an issue? Surely if it's because as in that report the opening up of jobs previously undertaken by male colleagues only, surely they need to simply say no and close it again due to the possibility of injuries or get them to sign a disclaimer prior to undertaking that specific role, that injuries may occur as previously found and documented and that by signing the waiver they accept the risks with no liability come back on the services.

Incidentally, reading the Attestation stuff, I was attested into the RAF at the Careers Information Office.

[Mr C Hinecap]

I still cannot get my head around there being an anatomical difference in that a woman cannot open her legs as wide as a male counterpart, especially when one considers that during child birth the manage to pass a child out between them.

Just how do you imagine people march or women give birth? The mind boggles at what you are thinking!

Either you are trolling or you've never noticed some of the differences between boys and girls. Hips for example.

[lj101]

between the male and female
The female pelvis ....
• The bones are more delicate – thin and light
• The pelvis is less massive
• The pelvis is more shallow
• The ilia are less sloped
• The anterior iliac spines are more widely separated – thus the greater prominence of the hips laterally
• The superior aperture of the lesser pelvis (pelvic inlet) is larger, more nearly circular and has greater obliquity
• The cavity of the pelvis is shallower and wider
• Sacrum is shorter, wider and the upper part is less curved, so the sacral
promontory is less imposing into the pelvic cavity
• The obturator foramina are triangular – oval in shape and smaller in size than
the male circular foramina
• The inferior aperture of the lesser pelvis (pelvic outlet) is larger and the
coccyx is more moveable
• The sciatic notches are wider and shallower
• The spines of the ischia project less inward – hence not protruding as much
into the pelvic cavity
• The acetabula are smaller and look more distinctly forward
• The superior pubic ramus is longer than the width of the acetabulum
• Ischial tuberosities and the acetabula are more wider apart
• The pubic symphysis is less deep
• The muscle attachments are more poorly marked
• The pubic arch is wider an more rounded than in the male where it is an angle
rather than an arch. (~ 90o c.f ~ 60o)

All required to get our big fat heads through nice and safely. Mother Nature, what on earth was she thinking of.

[mad_jock]

I will try not to get this post removed this time.



Is the female pelvis. The symphysis pubis is the problem. Its allows the pelvis to flex during child birth.

Pelvic girdle anatomy

This is a comparison between the two. The top one is female and bottom one male.

The forces involved on the pelvis walking and running are completely different between male and female. The muscles and ligaments are different as well. I only know this from designing replacement hips. But as far as I could tell a bloke is about 10-15% more efficient at walking and running than a woman just purely by the way they are built. The forces on the joints are different and also the re distribution of forces through the pelvis are different as well.

And Nutloose is a ginger beer. I suspect apart from an amateur interest in female anatomy I suspect it was missed out from his trade training. I would like to think though that it would be included in the training for PTI and also DS staff who are in charge of training recruits.