Continually failing RAF Fitness Test.
 

I am sure I read earlier on a pprune thread that nobody had yet been thrown out of the RAF for continually failing their RAF Fitness Test. Well, I heard the other day that it is about to happen to someone at last.

Is this news to people, or am I behind the drag curve as usual?

By the way, I know it has been mentioned before, but I actually looked at the new RAFFT 'targets' the other day. Under the old scheme a 49 year old man had to perform as well as a 30 year old woman. With the new targets a 49 year old man has to perform as well as a 16 year old girl!

You can talk about different physiologies till the cows come home, but this seems a bit unfair to me. I thought the difference in male/female performance was of the order of 15%?

I can think of plenty of 49 y/o men who love to show a 16 y/o lass how to perform :E

There is a procedure for throwing people out who continuously failing the fitness test. The procedure is very fair and gives individuals every chance to get fit and save their jobs. From memory, I think it would take around 18 months from first failing the test to being thrown out if given all the chances dictated in the guidlines. So, for 18 months you have an admin burden and some one who can not deploy. However, continuous cock-up in the paperwork and Flt Cmdrs not following the guidlines usual mean people get away with it anyway.

What about the people who are 'un-fit' and don't do the tests, they can't deploy (or be thrown out). We are so short at the mo - let them do the jobs we all hate. Lets be a little forwarde thinking here and help ourselves?

Can't deploy if unfit? Not as far as one of our SNCOs is concerned. He failed to show for the test last year and only when threatened did he go sick. He is still sick/excused test but due to go OOA soon.

Another's march to fitness was delayed until he returned from OOA!

Pontius, I assume Gnd is talking about people who are un-fit medically hence downgraded and therefore aren't able to deploy rather than un-fit as in huffing and puffing.

edit to add the right number of spaces between the words :p

Except for the muddled thinking of our time....I would hope it would be more like 100% different.

Stuff, I think not. If you are medically downgraded then passing the fitness test becomes irrelevant. The failure and discharge applies to those not medically downgraded.

My first case is sick, unfit, but not medically downgraded, so he can do OOA, is presently exempt fitness tests and, as a corollary, will not be discharged for failing his fitness test.

The other was in the process of remedial fitness training which was effectively put back 9 months during his OOA period.

No, failure might get you kicked out but it does not stop OOA.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't be made permanently Unfit Fitness Test without being down-graded can you?

As in, if you don't have a TMES limitation, then any rule that you're not fit enough to do the RAF-FT must be very temporary and limited, and there must be an end point? :rolleyes:

seven4mk,

I am sure you are right but there is a difference possibly between permanently unfit and unable to do ones duty and temporarily unfit while still working.

at the moment it is 10 months. Without wheeling him in every month I don't know what his medical condition is and honestly I am out of the loop - trust me.

To take someone like this, who is time serving, and push him while unfit risks a claim for a disability pension. Keeping him in, and productive, both gives a chance of improved fitness before discharge and gets some work as well.

I undersatand that the pretty boys down PEd flt are about to up the limits on the fitness test...
So lets get this right, a fitness test I passed last year and be considered fit for ops for the last god knows how long, will no longer be valid and in fact I have now been told that If I fail the new standard, I will lose my job, having done over 180 days away over the past 15 months? So, if I fail, what part of "not being able to do my job" does it cover?
The only thing I gained from my last was a knackered back (syatica) after being told to do maximal sit-ups, a complaint that nearly got me sent home from det 3 weeks later in the middle of a hectic TELIC rip?
What about letting us do our bloody jobs instead of interfereing, and throwing out those who cannot do their primary role as a result of thier fitness? No, that would be too much like common sense, of course! :=

Unfortunatley our colleague Common Sense was sick for some time and having failed his fitness test, has now been dismissed from the service as an admin burden!:hmm:

Ref the standards for fittness test.

Male Female.

Same pay.
Same job.

Same level of fittness test or take me to court and kick me out.

Gay rights
Pregnant women rights
Equal partner rights
Age rights

The next legal battle is going to be the levels in the fittness test... You can not be biased due to sex or age so why does the RAF think they can be?

I am happy to work with any race, sex, but don't ask me to do more because I am male.

European court of Human rights might have something to say on this matter.

I did once get a stand in civi doc in the med centre to give me a sick chit excusing me the fitness test 'at his (my) discretion'!

Brilliant, absolutley brilliant!

Yes that always tickled me same job spec and LSN , equal rights different fittness tests hmmm wonder if that constitutes sex discrimination if so the Mod better have a big cheque book.

Regarding the 15% difference in male/female performance: there are of course different ways of measuring physical performance, but from what I have seen 15% is way off the mark. The study carried out in the late 90s to determine whether females should be allowed to serve in infantry roles included the stat that you need to get a 99th percentile female to get the same physical performance as a 50th percentile male. Perhaps this is why the RAFFT scores are so different.

Most of this was covered in nauseating detail here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ighlight=rafft

Ah, the PTI trade, the quintessential self-licking lollipop.

Some of the RI's (Rehab Instructors) who go through Headley Court are a good bunch but the standard gym queens seem to only be interested in keeping their trade going at the expense of personnel who are perfectly able to carry out the job they are paid to do but can't run between two lines in time with the f$%^ing bleep test.

I wasted 30mins of my time doing the fitness test the other week at Odious. I passed no problem but one of my colleagues, who plays Rugby week in week out and is pretty fit overall, failed the bleep test bit. Apparently he isn't as fit as the 18yo lass who was on the test though I'd love to see her trying to play second row.:rolleyes:

HS - you've been watching far to many videos on detachments!

Actually she was a fairly good looking lass and I don't mean after 4 months in Basrah good looking either.

"New out on Det Video, When Girls Scrum Down {cheesy 70's funk soundtrack begins...}

;)

Wasn't there a largish chap thrown off the premier tiger sqn for failing his fitness test twice?? Sounds harsh but fair to me as I know one of the boys that had to deploy at 5 days notice instead of afore-mentioned chap. Just a thought.

I'd like to see them try to actually discharge a bloke for failing his fitness test - especially if he could comfortably manage the Female standard for his age group. I imagine the testimony at the ET would go something like this:

"But if I were a woman, you wouldn't be throwing me out right now, because I would have passed. You are effectively throwing me out because I am male, and that equates to Gender Discrimination.....etc etc"

I'm sure a competent lawyer could frame an argument better than I; hell, even a 10-bob-an-hour, no-win-no-fee junior solicitor would clean up on this one!

Get your chequebook out, Gordon - you're gonna need it...

16B

Does anyone know exactly what these guidelines are?
 

From memory, I think it would take around 18 months from first failing the test to being thrown out if given all the chances dictated in the guidlines.



it would be interesting to find out!:ugh:

I think there should be an associated 'reversing into a car parking space' test. Lets see the girls get within 15% of us doing that.

As in 'reversing into the planned parking space'....

However, the laydeez can always blame men for causing confusion over accurate dimensional assessment - haven't FJ pilots for years been telling them that something measures 9 inches, when in reality it is only about 4?

BEagle you owe Mrs PN an apology. She almost scalded herself swallowing a hot cup of tea. :)

Would she like lessons in swallowing?

:E

personaly im in favor of kicking people out of the RAF if they fail there fitness test.

If you have had 18mnths to pass the test and still cannot.
Then either there is something medically wrong or you are a complete fook wit. Who is most prob a burden on your section and your unit.

there are standards there for a reason.
And to be honest if i a 94kg bloke with man boobs can pass im sure the rest can.

Lionel := you wouldn't dare say that to her face.

Ladies & gents, this is my first post so please take it easy on me.
Just to aid all those solicitors in fighting sex discrimination in the armed forces, here is a excerpt from the police federation of England and Wales publication regarding multi-stage fitness test:
FAQ No.1

"1. Why don't we just have a
lower pass mark for women?

A recruitment fitness test must test
for the physical ability to do the job.
Men and women don't undertake
different roles in the police, so they
should take the same tests. If there
was a lower standard for women,
and a male officer passed the test
at the “woman's level” but failed
to achieve the “man's level” he
would have failed simply because
of his sex. He would have a claim
of direct sex discrimination."

whole document is here

http://www.polfed.org/1104testing_times.pdf

Even the police force think it would be sex discrimination. Armed forces must be exempt, or legal action is on the cards for sure.:hmm:

I believe that the pointy-jet people are also guilty of exaggerating time as well - eg three minutes becomes several hours :E

Certainly seems like it when you're listening to one of them drone on.

If someone can't pass the bleep test then that is a disgrace. It only shows lack of training. Regardless of what sport you play, you can train for the bleep test and it takes little time to improve to the desired standard. CHIN UP.

Mycase was straightforward... I had a spinal operation and when recatted was allowed to fly..go OOA etc but the specialist said I was not to do "stupid sh1t like running around collecting ticks for empire building PTI's" So for my last 8 years in the RAF, I didnt do tests but still did my job.. Permenently downgraded. So , all you fitness freaks,, downgraded does not mean unable to work..and the fitness nazis spent more time off sick than the beer monsters on my sqn.:rolleyes:

To answer the original Biggus post - the answer is yes - approx 5-6 have been discharge for their continued poor attitude to fitness. You cannot be discharged for failing your test, it is only a measure of your attitude towards it. Normally takes around 18 months and the individual would ordinarily have undergone 5 or 6 tests in that period.

bwfg3 :D

You cannot be discharged for failing your test, it is only a measure of your attitude towards it.

Aaaah the old attitude test!!!!!

the answer is yes - approx 5-6 have been discharge for their continued poor attitude to fitness. You cannot be discharged for failing your test, it is only a measure of your attitude towards it.

does it actually say in writing anywhere that you cannot be discharged for failing your fitness test? only your attitude towards it?
What would happen if your attitude to fitness was 100% but was still failing the test?
im intrigued.

"does it actually say in writing anywhere that you cannot be discharged for failing your fitness test? only your attitude towards it?
What would happen if your attitude to fitness was 100% but was still failing the test?"


It doesn't actually say that you can't be discharged for failing your test (it doesn't need to). What it does say is that you can be discharged for poor attitude towards fitness, and that personnel with a good attitude towards fitness should not be penalised for failing.

In theory, if you have a good attitude to fitness, and exercise regularly it would be unlikely that you would fail the test, BUT the system does allow for discretion at the various points of the procedure. For instance, the Flt Cdr my see that Bloggs has improved his run score on his third failure, and even though it is still a fail may not take the appropriate third-fail action at that time, as he (Bloggs) would appear to be making an effort to pass the test (and therefore showing good attitude to it).

Eighteen months is the theoretical minimum time it could take. In reality, because of the above, plus probably some reluctance by LMs to take action, it will take much longer ("We'll just give him one more chance"!!).

MM

Real deal - it is based along the lines of not being allowed to order someone to do the test but only attend (a subtle difference apparently), it is up to the individual to actually do it, hence why you get given the opportunity to drop out at any time. So, you cannot be discharged for failing it becuase you cannot be ordered to do it - reading back it sounds complicated - will get the chapter and verse tomorrow.

MM you are spot on as well.

Personally I'm a big fan of giving people enough rope to hang themselves...

Obviously you need the administrative system to back you up and spine to initiate action against people, plus enough slack in the system to be able to allow them to attempt to get themselves sorted without it impacting on tasking and overburdening colleagues.