RAF to encourage Fat WAAFs
 

Well, not strictly true but........

Why under the new fitness test standards does a 49 year old bloke have to out-perform a 16-20 something woman? Is it so that us old blokes are fast enough to catch a young bit of plumper WAAF stuff or has the RAF gone totally sexist? Or maybe our old services are no longer required!!! (tough - most of us are fitter than a butchers dog!!)

For me, it's time to fail my first fitness test and then claim that if I had been femail that i would have passed. Then proceed to sue the MoD for sexism and enhance my pension fund!!

We get the same pay, we serve in the same places so why the different standards? Anyone any ideas on why the big difference (excuse the pun!) or has the top brass just got a penchant for large ladies?!!

Allegedly the test is 'gender fair neutral' Corrected late in the day ... sorry peeps.. The physiology of blokes is designed to hunt, chase, catch and kill. The phyiology for blokesses is to bear children - they don't need to run, chase hunt etc as the blokes do that bit. Until the human race evolves a bit more thats how it is. Those who have completed gender re-assignment treatment will have either an advantage or disadvantage depending which operation they had.
Not only that its unbalanced but its going to be twice a year - no train and forget it in the future.

Which does the RAF demand, mechanical contrivances apart?

With current workload, expeditionary thrust etc etc we probably need more blokes, but thats not PC. More of any gender would help initially ...

I thought it was ok for a bloke in the military to run like a girl these days....... :)

Boffin's
 

RAF FT based largely on Loughborough University's 'Beep Test'.

RAF knew better than the boffins and increased the levels.....

And now again! But of course, what do Sport Science Boffins know about what level a man should reach? They only invented the test!!

How much money was wasted on the Operational Fitness test before it was sacked?

Perhaps my last girlfriend should join the RAF - she matched these 4 critieria VERY well!!!! :{

Incidentally, I turn 30 next year and was looking forward to going down the bleep test a few steps, but, of course, I'm going UP instead!!!! Bugger.

[QUOTE=L1A2;3030433]Allegedly the test is 'gender neutral'.

Surely if it was Gender-Neutral the levels would be the same. As they differ, is that not Gender-Specific?

Being a 40+ wheezing old knacker, it does annoy me having to run past (not after) the fairer sex half my age. I'm told it's all about physiology, whatever that may mean...........
I think there was something about a civvy copper dog handler who got binned because he didn't make the grade but his female counter-part sailed through, despite being many minutes behind. He went to a tribunal etc and it squared away in his favour. It may well be 'folk lore' though.

Sev

It does not matter what the levels are set at, people will still biff it. The thought of remidial pt with lots of days of is tempting at thr current op rates, plus if i biff the swimming test more remidial swimming hence more time off! Why keep fit?
The beep test was designed for professional athletes not your average air person, hence the levels reflect some vo 2 thing that is beyond me, based on gender stuff. Why do you think the Operational fitness test was binned? because if you biffed it not eligible for deployment out of uk, likewise if you biff the fitness test you cant deploy to hot and , duty of care matters ( but you can get mortered in your tent)
Lets get real if you cant pass this easy fitness test 3 strikes and your out rule should apply if that is legal!
at least this one is trying to get fit
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...32229697832036

So, if you're aircrew and want to leave the service without having to PVR and loose 50% of your flying pay for 18 months, maybe this would be a gift!

Think again Commando, life isn't that simple!

Equal Opportunities Commission...
 

This is worth a read:

ET 3101524/97:

Allcock v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary (1997 ET)


Mr Allcock was a serving police officer who applied for a vacancy in the Dog Section. Candidates were required to pass a physical fitness test which involved completing a two mile long multi-terrain course. The course had to be completed within 16 minutes for male candidates, and within 17 minutes for female candidates. Mr Allcock completed the test in 16 minutes and 46 seconds and so failed the test.

Mr Allcock complained of sex discrimination to the Employment Tribunal. The tribunal concluded that if a female police officer, who completes the course in 17 minutes, is considered to be fit to carry out the duties of a dog handler, a man who completes the course in the same time must surely also qualify. They found that in failing to conduct a gender-neutral test to establish whether a particular candidate is capable of undertaking the duties of a dog handler, the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Allcock.

Since the Women's Auxiliary Air Force became the Women's Royal Air Force in 1949, the youngest a "WAAF" could be today is 75, assuming she joined at about 18 years of age. So why would anyone want to be
???

:E :ok: :confused:

I always thought a recruit HAD to be fat to be a WAAF. Now the Wrens !!!!!

Chutley,

Using your logic, a little un PC perhaps so maybe some new year EO trg for you young man, Fat WAAFs or in fact any WAAF's in the Norwich area will be able to be very selective at this time, which is not good news for the more aged and not so fleet of foot of us:E

all spelling mistakes are"df" alcohol induced

Time - a - Plenty
 

I can just see it now.....

'No No, we don't want flamey pointy things to go and buzz through the clouds with today chaps...we are going for some PT in our plimsoles' :D

Or.... AL1

'Crews walking in 5 for a 4 turn 4 turn 4 turn 4 and then Re-role for tomorrow, the primary needs working, Engine change on and only 3 green on the board.........and you want to go the Gym? :ugh:

If the RAF want this fitter stance to be manageable and to work, they need to allow people time 'On Duty' to train. The Army spend a great deal of time doing Phys when at home. The RAF work on due to the largely Technical nature of what we do. We are not soldiers despite what that Burridge bloke said. He was so sane, he's advertising heating systems;

http://www.iceenergy.co.uk/testimonials.asp,

the term WARFIGHTER FIRST is less heard.....or gone.

The bleep test is not difficult at the standards that the forces have set, however, for the head honchos to claim that a 49 years old man is physiologically equal to a 16-20 year old woman (iwith regards to fitness - not man boob size) is complete horsesh*t and anyone who knows a tiny bit about human bodies and sports related performance knows this.

Methinks you are being discriminated against.

With regards the police dog handler above, that was for a specific job. The judgement was that if the job can be done in 17 minutes by a woman and a dog why can it not be achieved in 17 minutes by a man and a dog?

Slightly different measurement criteria, but both using the bleep test. The police example is using the bleep test for the wrong purposes - and hence the reason blokey won his discrimination case.

The forces use the bleep test as it was designed for - a measurement of the bodies ability to uptake and metabolise and use oxygen - i.e. fitness and muscle ability. The way the forces interpret it however is wrong in the case given above. This could lead to a successful discrimination lawsuit.

FormerTonka etc:

Loughborough simply devised the test to provide a method of determining a level of fitness (particularly, how much oxygen you can breathe in, transport to the working muscles, and use in the working muscles). They didn't set any level at which you are declared 'fit' or otherwise. That's up to the user: that's why the levels can change.

The initial levels were set at quite a low level because it was a new thing and I think everyone was worried that some of the fat old chiefs would have a heart attack if they had to work (sorry, exercise) too hard. Now that most people have been (in theory at least) exercising for some time this is not so much of a worry.

And the physical demands of personnel in the RAF have changed - so too should the fitness levels that one needs to attain to in order to meet those demands.

To answer the original question:

The RAFFT health related and is designed to encourage people to exercise. Research shows quite clear relations between regular exercise and good health, longevity, higher productivity, lower levels of illness and days off sick in the workforce.

So the individual wins and the RAF wins. Because it is designed to encourage people to exercise, it is gender and age FAIR: ie it takes into consideration that females have, on average, around 10% less areobic capcity than males, and that aerobic capacity reduces with age.

The OFA (RIP) on the other hand was task related so it could afford to be gender and age NEUTRAL.: ie everyone needs to be able to do this task in this time regardless of age or gender. Incidentally both types of test have been successfully challenged in court (in the latter case it was 'you know that women have lower aerobic capacity than men so it is unfair to set a test that doesn't allow for this').

BTW this issue of time off in duty time is IMHO a bit of a red herring. The RAF provides free gym facilities, and free advice - both of which are very very expensive outside in the real world. It's funny how those who are already fit seem to find the time during the working day, and either side of it) to maintain that fitness...

Off my soapbox now....
MM

Something has surely gone awry here.

As I recall the fitness test was not introduced to determine if you were fit for your job but to determine that as an indivdual you were paying sufficient attention to personal fitness as part of a healthy lifestyle. Hence the difference in achievement levels between ages and genders. Otherwise the knackered old F3 navigator would have to be as sprightly as the wet behinds the ears yoof who had just left Cranwell.

I can see why the police dog handler won his case. The Constabulary in question were using the test as a determinator of physical ability to undertake the duties of a dog handler and it therefore formed part of the selection process - clearly discriminatory.

Maybe there is a muscle mechanic out there who can explain current RAF thinking on fitness policy.

And with a jump, feet together place, now 10 times round my beautiful body...........:ugh: PTI's........:yuk:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced