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

BOFFIN WARNING ON:

The Multi-stage Fitness Test (MSFT), as I seem to recall posting before, is not really a measure of fitness in itself, but a measure of something that has a pretty good correlation with a real measure of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max).

The ability to do aerobic work can be measured by working out how much oxygen the body is capable of using. On a cycle in a laboratory, this is done by measuring the ACTUAL amount of oxygen used during the final minute of a period of exercise to exhaustion (VO2 max). This needs lots of equipment for measuring inspired and expired O2 and CO2 concentration levels, the actual volume of expired air (collected using massive 'Douglas' bags), a vacuum pump and a willing volunteer.

If all you want to measure is the ability to move a wheel on a laboratory bike, the actual amount of O2 used will be pretty well related to the work done. So the Sports Scientists (yes I was one) talk in terms of whole O2 uptake, measured in litres per minute. This might be 3.0 to 3.5 for a typical female and 3.5 to 4.0 for a chap (compared to around 5.0 for elite athletes!). This ability, whilst it may be trained, is largely genetic, so how can its measurement be considered a measure of fitness?

When you need to measure someone's ability to move themselves (and equipment) around, body weight comes into it, because the total actual O2 uptake (work done) has to be spread around the weight being carried. For runners,for example, weight is absolutely critical to performance and they measure O2 uptake in terms of mililitres per kilogram per minute. It is THIS figure that the RAF is trying to get an indication of, but far more cheaply than by providing proper training for its PTIs and money for equipment.

This was achieved at Loughborough in the late 80s by measuring the actual VO2Max of a wide range of healthy people, then having them do the MSFT. The intention was to provide a cheap measure of VO2 max requiring nothing more than a space the length of a tennis court and a readily available equipment (ie a tape player). When split according to sex, the results correlated so well that even the academics were surprised, and the product was released (IIRC) to enable sports clubs, schools and colleges (without money for the expensive equipment) to conduct their own measurements.

This splitting of the subjects into separate groups according to sex is important because it helps to explain why the males and females in the RAF have separate standards. If you want to examine whether the actual levels are really fair, then compare the indicated VO2 max figures in the MSFT booklet for the set levels. Irrespective of sex, I believe the VO2 max (in ml per kg per min) should be similar for both sexes in the same age group if the targets are to be considered fair.

Plans for the RAF to use the test were initially developed in 88-89, though it didn't come in until a few years later. I don't know why the required levels keep changing, and I am not entirely convinced about the case for the test's employment except it keeps the PTIs away from the dangerous (and expensive) Adventurous Trg, and I suppose the field sqns of the RAF Regt could use it as a performance indicator.

Indeed, it has long been argued that a person's aerobic fitness is a limitation to G-tolerance. The USAF recognised this in the mid-60s and took steps to maximise any advantage they could gain in this area. I remember visiting Woodbridge in about 1991 and being amazed at the amount of shiny weights machines the crews had to play with. I also seem to recall most of the A10 crews being wider than they were tall! But I don't remember seeing too many bikes or treadmills!

BOFFIN WARNING OFF

Finally, because I've banged-on quite enough, the essential thing the RAFFT is measuring is whether an individual is too heavy to allow their heart, lungs and muscles to get to a level on the MSFT. Whilst I agree that remedial trg is a good thing, it is something we should all be giving time to. In many cases, those who are failing the RAFFT actually need to lose weight, which appropriate rem trg should help to achieve.

"Pot calling kettle, come in kettle!"

STH

Edited to add Musclemech got there before me, but as it took me so long to write my bit, I will leave it in unless anyone objects ...

Vage,
We both know the EO correct term for these ladies is
"Women who are genetically predisposed to eat that extra slice of cake"

Even with the level changes, for a 40 something bloke its still easy.

However, if you are struggling you could always go down the transexual route. This seems to be acceptable these days, but one hell of an extreme for an easier fitness test.

Unfortunately, someone over the age of 40 may not have done the beep test for years - if at all - and may find it a bit of a shock to the system!

Sadly, many perceive it as a threat rather than as an encouragement.

It wouldn't be "time off". If it's your duty to pass the RAFFT, then it's your commander's duty to ensure that you have time available to prepare for it!

The tests aren't hard in fact they are a piece of piss at all levels and whilst I would like to see Pt as part of my weekly work routine I doubt /know it won't ever happen.
we are in the military and it's up to you to maintain your fitness, get off your fat arses and do some work, the ammount of people who I see driving quarter of a mile from quarters to work makes me laugh, lazy twats walk! or ride a bike! their should be some financial penaty to people who fail their tests, That would soon see the gym a bit busier.
I for one would like to see the levels raised again to something even remotely challenging.

I am not sure how to do that lovely quote from previous messages so I have had to do it by copy and paste, sorry!

LFFC: "Unfortunately, someone over the age of 40 may not have done the beep test for years - if at all - and may find it a bit of a shock to the system!"

As I mentioned before, at first there was real concern that over 40s would be in real danger of inducing a heart attack if they did a running test, never having done any exercise before. Now, however, everyone (in theory!!) will have been doing some exercise, so the risk of inducing a heart attack was considered to be much reduced and the running test could be introduced for everyone. And indeed could be taken as a maximal test ie go as far as you can rather than just to the level required.

LFFC: "Sadly, many perceive it as a threat rather than as an encouragement."

Sadly you are correct, but it is a bit of a lame excuse for not exercising, and smacks of I'm not going to do it, because I have been told to do it. I suspect that these individuals also do not like doing CCS, making sure their jabs are up to date and wearing uniform as well.

LFFC: "It wouldn't be "time off". If it's your duty to pass the RAFFT, then it's your commander's duty to ensure that you have time available to prepare for it!"

Ok then time 'away' from your place of primary work. Why should the RAF have to give you time away etc. you get more than 50% of the benefits from regular exercise. The RAF gets some benefits but much less than you do (see my previous post). The RAF already provides free (and generally excellent) facilities and free advice - how about the individual putting something into it?

Hoots: Its is still too easy, but there are people who can't pass at the current standards.

ABIW: Sadly my body is no longer bronzed or beautiful so I can't use that one anymore:\ :\ Thanks for your insightful contribution though...
MM

Exactly. A school or Uni wouldn't expect self teaching before examining. A Pilot wouldn't be given the handbook for a Harrier and be told to be back in a week for a solo? If the RAF wants you to be fit, you should be given time to train.

A W*nker PTI posted on a Station forum a couple of years ago that he had nothing to do day-to-day and would love to see some fat ass techies spend some of their lazy work time in the gym. It quickly escalated as numerous other techies on station offered to show the more muscle than sense 'stretcher bearer' just how much time they have to get to the Gym.

By the way, Toddbabe your language is terrible. Please learn to refrain yourself and go burn some more (brain) cells on a running machine. Preferably one in Iraq.

Mentioning Ops, how come if unfit 'fat arsed' techies are so useless unless they can run marathons, do they manage to knock out 16 hour shifts fixing aircraft? Something maybe to do with Stamina?

Tonkaplum: "A school or Uni wouldn't expect self teaching before examining. A Pilot wouldn't be given the handbook for a Harrier and be told to be back in a week for a solo?"
No, but I would hazard a guess that you would be expected to do some study yourself in your own time in order to pass the exam. You have had your initial training in how to keep fit during your ab initio and phase 2 training (or whatever it was called then). Now you have to do your homework.
Tonkaplum: "Mentioning Ops, how come if unfit 'fat arsed' techies are so useless unless they can run marathons, do they manage to knock out 16 hour shifts fixing aircraft? Something maybe to do with Stamina?"
It's not as simple as doing a 16 hour shift: it's what gets done in that 16 hours: how many of the unfit ones are the first to have to have a rest in an extended stint of work?
Tonkaplum: "A W*nker PTI "
While I can't condone the behaviours of some of my colleagues, and I think that we bring the wrong type of people, at too young an age, into my trade, the "PTIs are w*nkers" point of view is just another excuse used by individuals who don't want to, or are too lazy to, keep themselves fit.
MM

A former CinC STC when referring to warfighter firsts used to allude to fat chiefs on the line and how we needed to get rid of the fat and lazy. Quite right, TonkaPlum, those fat chiefs are the ones that will work 16 hours a day at MOB or OOA without complaint (actually when they are complaining they are normally happy).

Ed

Gentlemen - please!!!

I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't keep fit - I do and always will.

My point is simple: Why is the level for men SO much higher than that for women? Musclemech suggested a 10% difference so, to repeat my original question, why does a 49 year old man have to run faster/longer than the fastest/youngest woman?

This is simply sexist - maybe the RAF is simply trying to fill ts obligation to have x% women, x% black and x%gay and they know that a higher fitness standard would result in many women being deterred from joining or forced to leave.

16 Hours
 

MM

The 16 hour shifts are knocked out if required, by all engineers....cause thats what we do. The young are the ones who fade first if anyone but not through lack of commitment or enthusiasm, more because they are the ones lacking experience who don't drink enough water!!

By your theory then for 'you've been trained once, your turn'-

Ok, so again I'll use the pilot as an example. Posted from the conversion unit, he arrives at the flight line of his new squadron, to go flying.
Oh No you don't sir.... we are not at war, if your going training flying, you have to do that in your own time, at your own expense.:ugh:

The RAF wants fit people, then people should be given time to get/remain fit. People with LIVES do not always have time out of uniform to dedicate to this. The Army has a high requirement for physical ability, what would they do if they were told they could only use the Gym when stood down?

Your argument is not.

Mmm. Small cottage though, not much garden. Guess Lady B might have had an effect on his property aspirations.

Not entirely sure as to the exact answer but for future reference, I'd be happy to volunteer to participate in any "research". :E (as long as the "something" in the above description isn't "stone" :uhoh: )
As an aside, that Burridge Heat Pump Thermal Energy Exchanger Flux Capacitor Pump Video thingy....Anyone else spot Jonny Vegas answering the phones at "Pump HQ" right at the start? :}

Tonka plum I have done my share of 16 plus hour shifts in all extremes of weather, and that never stopped me from doing some phys, If you want to do it there is always time, the same people who whinge they haven't got time somehow manage to go to the bar for a couple of pints.
You talk about people with "lives" not having time to do stuff outside of work, well you manage to spend a fair ammount of time posting on here, you could be pounding the streets or on the rower instead of exercising your delicate and oh so gramatically correct digits on here!
I am a huge advocate of dedicated pt lessons for all trades and all ranks but instead of whingeing about something that is never going to happen I just get on with it somehow in amongst my ever so busy work and home life.
Whilst undoubtedly there are people that do have difficulty getting to the gym after or before their work commitments, the vast majority of people that don't utilise the gym and are unfit are so because they choose to be.
Giving these lazy people the time to do phys isn't the answer because unchecked they are more likely to bunk off home early or have an extra half hour sat in the mess.
The answer is to have compulsary Pt for each section where people can be accounted for, if that ever were to come about (we both know it won't) then I think you would see a whole lot more people whingeing.

FTP: "The 16 hour shifts are knocked out if required, by all engineers....cause thats what we do. The young are the ones who fade first if anyone but not through lack of commitment or enthusiasm, more because they are the ones lacking experience who don't drink enough water!!"

OK I have been around enough engineers (and my father and brother are engineers) to have a pretty good idea that 16 hour shifts are not 16 hours of solid work... and age is not necessarily a marker of how fit or otherwise one is.

FTP: "Ok, so again I'll use the pilot as an example. Posted from the conversion unit, he arrives at the flight line of his new squadron, to go flying.

Oh No you don't sir.... we are not at war, if your going training flying, you have to do that in your own time, at your own expense."
Not really a good example because the flying traning is his primary job. However try this: pilot arrives from adv jet training onto OCU. Here you go sir, here's some of the manuals for your new jet. You will need to be familiar with these. Suggest you start reading them - maybe even 'shock horror' in your own time

FTP: "The RAF wants fit people, then people should be given time to get/remain fit. People with LIVES do not always have time out of uniform to dedicate to this. The Army has a high requirement for physical ability, what would they do if they were told they could only use the Gym when stood down?"

It's not asking too much to get people to do 3 half-hour sessions in the gym or elsewhere. As I said earlier the RAF gives you the facilities and advice free (so you can get extra training if yu have forgotten your initial training ) It is funny how so many do manage to find time in their LIVES. Lets put it tis way: if they were told that they would die in a week unless they did exercise 3 times a week, how many do you think would still struggle to fnd the time?

FTP: "Your argument is not. "

Probably so, but it comes down to my dislike of the thought that the RAF must provide everything for us. My ethos is get on and do it, and if the RAF doesn't provide, well sometimes I will have to.

Is this what they call thread drift???
MM

I'm about to become both 40 and a civvi. My chosen career route is hopefully the Police. As part of the application you get an 8 page pamphlet on how to train for their fitness test. Having opened it, laughed lots, I then decided opening it was sufficient practice.

Their gender/age same level? 5/4!!

As their PTI said - " as far as I'm concerned, you all passed - you managed to walk from the car park "

Incidently, were I not leaving, what's the new level for age 40?

No, sorry, exhaustive studies under operational conditions have proven that all PTIs are O2 thieves who exist for no other purpose than to give RAF Coppers someone to look down on. Successive increases in the pass requirements for the RAF FT are there to justify their existence, nothing more.

What exactly is a PTI's war role? GD in a singlet?

I found this on an earlier thread. Anyone know if it's accurate?

If so, then I take it that over 50s don't have to play.

That looks the same as the levels posted on the wall of our gym (I did the fitness test only 2 weeks ago - I go to the gym once a year, whether I need to or not!) The PTI who showed us mentioned that they are still only "proposed" but he thought that they would be quite likely to go through. I've gone up from 8-10 to 9-04, even though I go up an age bracket next year!

"Start of level 9.......... BLEEP!" :ugh:

Maple 01
 

Maple 01 :D I like your style and totally agree. The levels are going up to justify the Stretcher bearer's in peacetime.

Think of the money saved if they got rid of that trade (if it is a trade, in the meaning of the term). We could maybe then have a trade which is usefull.... Like Painters (Who we are just in the process of getting rid of !)

Madness. :ugh: