Females can not march like men....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I thought the RAF employed Nav's for such things.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds very much like she was not anatomically suited to the physical requirements of the training. The training, of course, being dictated by the requirements of the fighting force in question. If she was incapable of meeting the training standards, she would unlikely to meet the performace requirements of operations. Unless one can alter the physical demands of operations, one cannot be justified in reducing the training standards. Or should someone be appointed to carry her bag wherever she goes?
Sorry this was an own goal for the RAF. If they/she was unable to meet the training performance standard (TPS) then there is an obligation on the RAF to have a system in place to detect that and remove the individual in a suitable manner. You do not wilfully subject them to a system which will cause lasting physical harm - why in God's name would you do that? Neither, as you say, you do not simply alter the TPS - it must be informed by the operational performance standard (OPS). But the TPS must also be matched to the physical limitations (male and female) of your trainees! That the anatomical differences between male and female, in particular musculoskeletal load limits, translate to different load bearing characteristics is blindingly obvious. Even more shameful, that the RAF already has a system in place to recognise this but choose whatever reason to ignore it. Don't doubt for a second that these girls will most likely be carrying the effect of these injuries for the rest of their lives - how will it affect them in say their 40s. If they had been my daughters, I would have been pissed off to say the least. They were not at war, there were no extremis pressures, this was basic training.
Nutloose, as I said I agree entierly our war wounded are not adequately recompensed. My big concern for those carrying IED wounds lies 20 years from now. Once the "help for heroes" campaign has faded into memory and the politicians have all moved on, the specialist medical support shelved under future Defence Reviews, and the Christmas singles are no more what then? Look at how we treat the FI vets and those who served in WW I /WW II - how many of these poor sods ended up living their lives in penury, alone and forgotten. In my humble opinion, anyone severely wounded during combat ops should never need to worry about their financial future. I don't mean we should write them all a blank cheque, but they should never be homeless, never lack the means to feed clothe and keep themselves warm. Maybe then the debt we owe would be manifest real and concentrate the politicians minds when they send HM forces off on these adventures. None of this detracts from the damage done to these young ladies, it is a separate issue IMHO.
Last edited by TomJoad; 25th Nov 2013 at 19:16.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Totally agree, by the time those disabled purchase a house to suit their needs, there won't be a lot left for anything else.
Sorry folks, the official answer to the different physical capabilities is that "it is a team effort". So, if you meet the basic criteria, the rest of the team have to carry you.
I feel that this has some implications where the basic criteria are allowed to have a large range due to age or gender.
OAP
I feel that this has some implications where the basic criteria are allowed to have a large range due to age or gender.
OAP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing new under the sun
Currently in my sixties and met up with my old DI (in his eighties) on the golf course. Had a bit of banter where I threatened to sue him for making me march with too long a stride. He was adamant that he, and his ilk, took the height of the midgets (me) into account and adjusted the pace of the squad accordingly. He was actually affronted that I had called his professional standards into account. The old bu##er still scares me but it's a sobering thought that the awareness of this potential problem was widespread over 45 years ago.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It begs the question then endplay why did it happen today? Like I said, if they were my daughters I would have been livid. If the system is stupid and incompetent enough to let it happen then the girls deserve every penny - after all, it treated them with contempt.
Nothing new....
As endplay said there is nothing new under the sun.
In the very early 80s I was on the DS at DIOT Cranwell and had both male and female cadets. The males went from the very fit to the weak and, dare one say, useless. The females did likewise although in the main I tended to be impressed. In those days the women did not wear full CEFO for the LAT runs because the webbing was known to cause long term problems. However, in one flight I had a useless male and a strong female who carried his CEFO for him and then kicked him round the course.
In another flight one young lady was very p..... off that she could not have a gun and, whilst at Camp 2, really wanted to use the LMG. (Against the rules) I said she could so long as she carried it throughout the exercise - she did.
At that time we had lot of cadets of both sexes complaining of shin splints, apparently caused by excessive wearing of trainers instead of real shoes during their teens. The SMO at that time was one Ian McC...... who developed his own test for shin splints (which in essence are small fractures or cracking of at least the surface of the bone). He used to give the putative patient a small shot of ultrasound on the affected limb. Those truly with shin splints quite definitely let him know. The others carried on.
And a very much later example from much nearer home - my own daughter did a TA commissioning course at Sandhurst. She is a bare 5 ft and a smidgeon tall and elsewhere was a rowing cox who struggled to make herself heavy enough for the minimum cox weight of 50 Kg. On her Sandhurst course she was known as "Bergen with Boots" but I never heard her complain of any problems or demanding any special treatment. I know this does not justify damaging treatment elsewhere but maybe helps cast doubt on how that happened.
In the very early 80s I was on the DS at DIOT Cranwell and had both male and female cadets. The males went from the very fit to the weak and, dare one say, useless. The females did likewise although in the main I tended to be impressed. In those days the women did not wear full CEFO for the LAT runs because the webbing was known to cause long term problems. However, in one flight I had a useless male and a strong female who carried his CEFO for him and then kicked him round the course.
In another flight one young lady was very p..... off that she could not have a gun and, whilst at Camp 2, really wanted to use the LMG. (Against the rules) I said she could so long as she carried it throughout the exercise - she did.
At that time we had lot of cadets of both sexes complaining of shin splints, apparently caused by excessive wearing of trainers instead of real shoes during their teens. The SMO at that time was one Ian McC...... who developed his own test for shin splints (which in essence are small fractures or cracking of at least the surface of the bone). He used to give the putative patient a small shot of ultrasound on the affected limb. Those truly with shin splints quite definitely let him know. The others carried on.
And a very much later example from much nearer home - my own daughter did a TA commissioning course at Sandhurst. She is a bare 5 ft and a smidgeon tall and elsewhere was a rowing cox who struggled to make herself heavy enough for the minimum cox weight of 50 Kg. On her Sandhurst course she was known as "Bergen with Boots" but I never heard her complain of any problems or demanding any special treatment. I know this does not justify damaging treatment elsewhere but maybe helps cast doubt on how that happened.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
One that impressed me was young female Air Loadies dragging the VC Ten life rafts from the rear of the cabin to the centre door, they were not small nor light, and they had a time limit to do it, watching one 5 foot nothing girl dragging the thing to the door impressed the heck out of me.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside, I wonder if the known ability of females to bear pain (levels and longer) better than males is a contributory factor. Don't know , just thinking.
Originally Posted by Tom on post#82
If they/she was unable to meet the training performance standard (TPS) then there is an obligation on the RAF to have a system in place to detect that and remove the individual in a suitable manner.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh bollocks.
The point is to get from A to B carrying a huge bag. If the female anatomy would benefit from a shorter stride than the male, let the female have it, as long as she gets to point B in due time, I don't really know what you're blabbering about lowering standards. It's not lowering standards, it's just making sure everyone can perform to the max. Measuring stride lenght is irrelevant in that regard. Measuring time taken from point A to point B is one of several much more useful way to evaluate standards.
The point is to get from A to B carrying a huge bag. If the female anatomy would benefit from a shorter stride than the male, let the female have it, as long as she gets to point B in due time, I don't really know what you're blabbering about lowering standards. It's not lowering standards, it's just making sure everyone can perform to the max. Measuring stride lenght is irrelevant in that regard. Measuring time taken from point A to point B is one of several much more useful way to evaluate standards.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And time taken from point A to Point B with pack sometimes
needs to be worked up to, both in terms of fitness, technique
and stamina. The problem is, once on the course time is not
available to work up to this level.
That's been my experience on Army courses.
So maybe part of the problem is more emphasis needs to be put
on pre course preparation and conditioning so it isn't such a
shock to a womans body. This has been touched on by a couple
of people in the thread.
needs to be worked up to, both in terms of fitness, technique
and stamina. The problem is, once on the course time is not
available to work up to this level.
That's been my experience on Army courses.
So maybe part of the problem is more emphasis needs to be put
on pre course preparation and conditioning so it isn't such a
shock to a womans body. This has been touched on by a couple
of people in the thread.
Last edited by 500N; 26th Nov 2013 at 00:17.
In those days the women did not wear full CEFO for the LAT runs because the webbing was known to cause long term problems.
So when did all this running in boots with packs start at basic training - and why?
Last edited by BEagle; 25th Nov 2013 at 22:47.
Why not?
We did a lot of it. A lot more of a workout in the same period of time. No one died from it, in my presence at least. Threw a pack on the back as well when conditioning was up to it.
We did a lot of it. A lot more of a workout in the same period of time. No one died from it, in my presence at least. Threw a pack on the back as well when conditioning was up to it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 'LAT run' was (IIRC) a 5 mile run X-Country through the woods and up 'Cardiac Hill' to the north of CHOM.
When I went through IOT in 1984 both sexes did the run in boots and 58 pattern webbing CEFO (Combat Equipment Fighting Order - ie basic webbing but no 'Large Pack').
I imagine these runs were brought in because they tested basic fitness levels and promoted Flight integrity through the demand of team effort (in much the same way as the Army's BFT run of that time).
When I went through IOT in 1984 both sexes did the run in boots and 58 pattern webbing CEFO (Combat Equipment Fighting Order - ie basic webbing but no 'Large Pack').
I imagine these runs were brought in because they tested basic fitness levels and promoted Flight integrity through the demand of team effort (in much the same way as the Army's BFT run of that time).
I wasn't privy to the exact reasons why, but to add to Ex A, we are much more of an expeditionary Air Force now. There will be times where all personnel, wearing combats and boots, will have to carry backpacks containing body armour, helmets etc. As with the areas in which we find ourselves, maintaining a good level of fitness to cope with heat stress while being able to carry said backpacks is very important.
I never used to have to do this during the cold war, but then again the sovs weren't lobbing IDF at me over the IGB. Having found myself both inside and outside the wire carrying weapons, ammo, food, water and wearing Osprey, I am glad that we did training/running beforehand.
I never used to have to do this during the cold war, but then again the sovs weren't lobbing IDF at me over the IGB. Having found myself both inside and outside the wire carrying weapons, ammo, food, water and wearing Osprey, I am glad that we did training/running beforehand.
