Too Fat to Fight!
 

At a briefing this week, the latest fitness programme was unveiled to an enthralled audience.

It includes:

Fitness tests TWICE a year :eek:.

Increased fitness levels :D.

Mandatory 3 x 50 minute sports period per week :eek:.

Personally I am all in favour of conducting fitness trg in work time and having fit for purpose personnel but how the hell are we going to be able to facilitate this when we are 'running hot'. Do we restrict tasking/ops for sport, do we bring back sports afternoons, do we bring people in early, send them home late and if it is considered so important why were such low standards brought in originally to allow us to get into such a state.

On a station of 1000 personnel, working on 3 x 50 min sports period, with 30 mins changing and travel time the station will lose 4 hrs per person per week, totalling 4000 man hrs or 166 man days per week. Where will the additional PTI resources come from and is there enough Gym space?

The headquarters are where people have the time, but their statistics are the worst of all the stations sheer Hypocrisy.

see ya down the gym......................:ok:

166 man hours per week equates to.... 4 extra worker bees... easily solved eh?



Oh no... wait....

Well, that sounds like a well thought out retention measure!

How long before the RAF consists of just PTIs and WSOs?

On the day that the civil 'Open Skies' announcement has effectively given the green light to increased transatlantic competition and the airlines are looking even harder for pilots, I guess this will help a few who were considering leaving to make up their minds?

It'll soon stop when everyone is injured from their tri-weekly sport and can not deploy any more...:)

Saddam,someone is running their own agenda.

What the CinC Bulletin of Jan 07 actually said was:

"development of a culture wherein (sic) every individual recognises the need to undertake 3 periods of physical activity per week."

No time, no compulsion.

"there is no one-size fits all solution"

No fixed plan then.

"CAS will simply expect station commanders to ensure that their people are fit."

"Stn cdrs in turn . .. " Ah! now we get to it.

"flt cdrs achieve their goal"

"Physical Training Leaders - non-specialists, trained and authorised by PEd staffs to lead basic fitness sessions"

So, from individual recognition we move smoothly to a PTL enabler.

New, higher standards (for most age/gender categories), relevant to a modern fighting service, ready to endure the rigors of operational detachments and linked directly to levels of health risk become effective on 1 Jul 07.

The tests are still being developed as the operational fitness test "proved unworkable."

Clearly one of the sessions should take place at 5 on a Friday to endure the rigors of operational detachments and linked directly to levels of health risk :}

Quote:

---

Where will the additional PTI resources come from and is there enough Gym space?

---

See my remarks about PTLs, who said anythng about more PTIs and Gym space. Who wants to be a PTL?

Wader, no personal agenda here, just amazed that it is going to fall to Flt Cdrs to ensure their troops are given time to conduct 3 periods of trg, mandated to be 50 mins (the big man said it). What incentive is there to get everyone through versus the incentive of not achieving my operational support task. My troops are already working extended hrs in support of the front line and some eating lunch at their desks.

I believe, and I am willng to be corrected in my belief that a Stn Cdr would rather have a question asked about his fitness stats rather than why he did not achieve his mandated flying hrs or put the right aircraft in the right place at the right time, ergo his troops are fit to the stations task.

PTL's = litigation nightmare and an additional burden on an individual and is infact IMHO an abrogation of the PT branches responsibility. It is obvious that if the Gym staffs and PTL's are to get everyone through then the question has to be asked, are the facilities up to the challenge?

I dont want to deploy with unfit people but there has to be a realistic target and like the OFT I dont think this is it. You tell me of one person who has been returned from an OOA becasue they were unfit physically for the task.:}

SLC, on your last point, I am aware of someone TU as unfit.

On the rest of your points, absolutely true. You will have tests to see if you are fit to take the test. The fitness, if mandated, can become boring.

If you are a natural jockstrapper will you be able to do your own thing, running every lunchtime, or will you have to carry sandbags like everyone else?

Will your Saturday football count or will you have to do it on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday too?

Will you start work at 7 instead of 8?

If team sport is allowed will you be made to play football when you prefer rugby, larcrosse or hockey?

Is cricket sufficiently physical?

and so on and so on.

PS, my nominated fitness coordinator, soon to be PTL, when he gets back off leave, has been unfit fitness test for over a year.:}

Was the returnee shot or promoted?

Yr PS is a good sign and may in fact give the lardy the kick in the proverbial he/she needs. Wont have much credibility though.

SLC, not sure as not my unit but it was my SinL, equal rank, who did the deed - took no prisoners - pretty sure promotion would not have followed but who knows.

As for my lardy, he will remain unfit for the next 4 years - if he has anything to do with it and I shall be long gone. He goes OOA in July.

PS, hot in summer, cold/wet in winter and no sand.

When i started doing the fitness tests about '96. I was at the age where I had to achieve a level of 7.3 on the bleep test. When i reached 35 in '97 the level went up, I therefore kept on at 7.3. At 40 I dropped to 6.3 (very easy i know) at 45 the level remained at 6.3. Now if i read the new levels correctly , I have to reach between 8.3 and 8.9 to be considered fit. The lower of these two levels (8.3) is higher than the level I had to attain 11 years ago.
I should, I know keep myself fit, but constant detachments where we are working up to 18 hours a day flying and servicing aircraft means no time to do exercise, when at home I want to spend time with my family.
Even compulsary PT at work for the few weeks in between det's would not help much.
Anyway rant over, the bar is open

http://www.rompersgreen.com/images/clips02.gif


:E:E

I really don't think retention bothers anyone senior nowadays, certainly not in view of their take-take policies. We have no money for anything, let alone good stuff, and now we're expected to give-up 3 x 50mins a week to the Service that only just manages to pay us.

Well your ACR is going to suffer in the 'Loyalty' box isn't it? :hmm:

Embrace change! That's what I'm doing - I'm changing careers!

Startermotor....
 

I agree. Most times I have reached a birthday and the levels have dropped, they have gone up again before I took the test again.

Now, if these new levels are again to be increased, I will be doing a level I have not had to acheive in almost 15 years!

These levels were devised and the test developed by Boffins at Loughborough Uni. The RAF Based its intial levels on the findings and results of the Boffintry. The expected amount of failure was now acheived and so the PTI types (Don't get me started on those Stretcher-Bearers), put forward plans to hike the levels as they now knew better than Boffins !!

The vast majority of Police Forces use the same test as an entry requirement only, with no annual testing. Most constabularies (and I know someone will post saying such and such a constabulary is this and that), but most have a test requirement of 5-10! Thats It.

Whilst I do think there is a place for fitness to a prescribed standard and there is a need for evaluation of this, we are currently going massively in the wrong direction. As so many are saying, we have minimal time within the working day now to acheive, let alone factor in 3 x 50 Mins a week in the gym.

With additional threats of of extended working days to ensure attendance at mandated PT sessions, Remedial PT for persons who fail to attain the new levels and ultimate administrative action should an individual fail to achieve these new levels after a series of attempts; this will do nothing but turn more people away from the service at a time when we are Haemorrhaging personnel.

I believe (again, please prove me wrong someone), that QR's state you are to maintain a level of fitness sufficient to be able to perform your duties. If someone is capable of serving OOA, they are therfore fit, regardless of what any Bleep test and person in shorts three sizes to tight says. Exceptions exsist and we all look and wonder at how certain individuals manage to walk let alone climb stairs; but they are not the norm. The vast majority of personnel in the RAF are fully capable of performing their duties. They must therefore, BE FIT.

Finally, I think it will be a brave person who terminates the career of someone on the basis of failure to acheive a level on the Beep test. As the youngest Female level is easier than all but the top Male levels, there is grounds for sexual discrimination. Additionally, in a soceity now which does not allow Ageism, we have age related levels.

Mr Gilbert Blades and partners will be getting increased custom.....

Only Crabs could make this much fuss about basic levels of fitness :rolleyes:

Fitter people take less sick days. Fact.

Fitter people have better levels of concentration. Fact.

Fitter people aclimatise quicker. Fact.

Fitter people can maintain higher levels of activety, for longer in extremes of temperature. Fact.

People who maintain good levels of fitness are more likely to eat a healthier diet. Fact.

People who maintain good levels of fitness are less likely to smoke. Fact.

Keeping fit promotes self discipline. (therein lies the problem, perhaps!)

Etc, etc, etc.....

There are so many reasons why good physical fitness is beneficial to any employer, but especially a military one. Not only that, but it's being suggested that you do it in the firms time. I could understand the gripes if you were expected to do it in your own couch/playstation/bar/fast food time, but you're not. :ugh:

Anyway, startermotor said that over his career, he has had to achieve between 6.3 and 8.3 on the Beep Test. I mean, come on, how fit do you need to be to achieve that! It's not like you're being asked to get to an unreasonable level now is it?

Well said Arthur. I am RAF and am constantly embarrassed by the state of 80% of my comrades. A lack of self-discipline IS the underlying problem. No excuses.

I agree it is not an unreasonable level to achieve. My point is that the levels have just shot up in one fell swoop. gone down or stayed constant for 11 years then up. No compulsary PT or time to carry out any training.

Startermotor;

Hear bl**dy Hear; couldn't agree more with your sentiments.

Mrs AA was diagnosed with MS twenty years ago. She's not got the worst kind of MS, but her right side is permanently damaged.

She goes to the gym 4x/week. If she can do it, so can everyone serving in the Armed Forces, if the facilities are on site and available for use, and they have time in the day to do it.

A_A, sympathies with Mrs AA but the crucial bit in your message was .

True there will be many moaners who could, without much effort, make time. There was a time when lineys, between waves, would play volley-ball. It took no space and could be done at the drop of a ball and they could return to work in moments.

With leaning this sort of 'free-time' would have been redeployed to some other more useful employment. As 'free-time' was absorbed establishments were cut. OOA then impinges on manning too so what is left is stretched.

The culture change that is required is to raise the importance of fitness above the diversions such as the flypro.

Anybody would think being fit is a bad thing. It's part of your job spec to be fit, get on with it.

Chance of extra PTIs to run this is obviously nil. So, cancel 2 of the 3 lunchtime circuits sessions to offset the extra workload required to provide the compulsary sessions. Net result - a reduction in the total amount of phys undertaken by unit personnel.

Would be funny if it weren't true.

N Joe

Apparently the army is looking at longer and tougher assault courses to improve fitness levels.

There was a delegation from the airforce at the British Synchronised Swimming championships recently so possibly they are looking at a different method of achieving the end result!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe, re read the posts above. It will be run by PTLs who are trained by PTIs.

Who are these PTLs going to be? Young fit SAC Jockstrap or crusty old C/T Beergut? Or may be Flt Lt PA Spine?

PTL will be a good secondary duty sign me up, personally don't think fitness standards are anywhere near high enough and people would do well to embrace the new initiative.
People are worried about lost man hours from going to the gym instead of working! from the many sections i have seen and worked in over the years there is plenty of time to get to the gym! why are all the t bars full of pool wizards and table footie geniuses?
And you don't have to worry about there not being enough space or equipment in the gym, those great big grass things outside your crew rooms called airfields have miles and miles of lovely roads surrounding them that you can use free of charge all year round!

Bring It On
 

I have to say I was a bit concerned when I heard that the test was changing as I certainly don't get time during my 'normal' working day to get to the gym.

BUT..if the firm are actually going to give me 3 sessions a week to get some phyz in then bring it on! The SLJs can shove where the sun don't shine.....until someone decides they need that all important job done by eh... um... yesterday.

I can't even get time to have lunch away from my desk most days for having to deal with niff naff and triv! So this will be a great distraction.

I hadn't been so fit for about 18 years until I went through the college of knowledge in '05 and all that hard work from a great bunch of PTIs got me in really good shape.....since returning to the line it's all gone a bit Pete Tong! so I welcome the idea......I just hope it works for all of us!

SA :ok:

At Odious someone in handbrake house has quoted 'QR1051' as the authority for squadron commaders to instigate compulsory PT sessions. It doesn't appear that 'those in charge' have even checked the Queens Regulations for the RAF though as 'QR1051' I believe refers to a charge procedure (not that I've ever needed to refer to QR's whilst awaiting a charge of course ;) ).

Oh how Holy some of you are! If you enjoy fizz then it isn't an onerous task, if fizz isn't your bag then it is a real drag. Even when I was fit as the proverbial butcher's dog I still hated it.

The difference in levels between the sexes is laughable and has been successfully challenged in the civil police forces.

If we are supposed to be fit for the task than surely there should be a standard requirement, i.e. ALL personnel should reach the standard, regardless of sex or age! Alternatively, we should be fit for role, again regardless of sex or age. A Grunt needs to be fitter than an Air Trafficer because he plans to spend much of his time in the field running around.

Good on you Todd. Quite right fit to fight is a good mantra and was coined in the 70s.

As the PTL however reflect for a moment the additional work you will have as 'sports monitor.' Will you have an attendance register? Will you check them all out and check them all in? Will you have time to do your own jockstrapping?

It works if there are adequate sanctions to ensure the whole squad turns out on time with late comers being made to repeat the next day.

Will your squad's 3 times per week be 3 sessions or will the sessions spread to 5 days and twice per day?

It would be dead easy if the Army squad running system was used every day but RAF working tends not to work like that. Certainly the Supply or Shed tea bar is a good place to start but you won't find the same in ATC or Ops or the Sqn.

You can't get in to PSF now? Try when they are all out in their sports bras.

Daf Hucker, 'fit for the job'.

We had an AEOp, probably about 18 stone. He could do a mile and a half every 3 months in about 25-30 minutes.

He could also get himself and his nav bag into the aircraft, sit in his seat for 9 hours, monitor the ESM and MAD, and make a round of tea (long lead from his seat) all the while being 'fit for purpose'.

Had we ditched he would probably have survived at least twice as long as the racing snakes, say 15 minutes, as we didn't have immersion suits then.

If it was decreed that he had to do the b:mad: p test then we would have lost a valuable sensor operator either through heart attack or admin discharge.

The acid test is fit for purpose. If it be decreed that an aircraft engineer has to be able to drop tools, pick up a weapon, and advance to contact then he should be trained for the whole package.

If an accounts clerk is to be expected to lock the safe, pack away the pencils, and muster everyone in a shelter then that is what she should be trained for.

If both are required to fill sandbags and build the shelter then ditto.

Without a defined task exactly what level of fitness are they aiming for? Body strength, endurance or burst? You can't have them all.

I remember said AEOp well (now teaching EW in Sleaford). He exemplifies my case entirely, an excellent operator lost to the RAF due to an un- or at least an ill-defined fitness requirement. I haven't seen any explantion as to the dramatic increase in the required fitness levels, it would appear to have been made at the whim of some faceless individual.

I have flown in every major operation the RAF has been involved in over the last 30 years and have never had my fitness to operate questioned, now I find that I have to achieve levels that I haven't been asked to get anywhere near for a considerable time.... 8 years ago I was on a bike, now I am being asked to run as fast/far as a 17 year old girl, if I could do that I would have a considerably younger wife!

Daf Hucker, I doubt you knew him unless it is the one who used to commute weekends Kinloss to St Mawgan where he helped out in his wife's guest house.

As a Master I bet he never went near th ecollege of knowledge but there were many like him.

Brilliant professionals making the kit sing.

That's it!
 

DH

I'm sure that must be a misprint....older fellas run as fast? surely they mean chase after the 17 year old girls?

Now there is an incentive!

SA ;)

Pontius,

I meant Sleaford rather than Sleaford Tech, but it may well be a different individual, in which case the RAF has lost 2 very good operators, trained at great expense and providing excellent service....just a little on the big side!:}

Further, Faster, Fitter?
 

.. or otherwise a different use of 3 'F's.

3 x 50 minutes fitness sessions .. to be .. encouraged ... non-participation will be reflected in the new, all singing JPA (tri-service:eek: ) assessment / confidential reporting system as a negative. A negative will mean that you don't get a pay level increase if one is due.

when will it be taken on board that, by and large, the RAF is not an infantry supply unit. If we are required to achieve infantry standards at fighting, running, digging holes etc we need the training and the training time - something difficult to reconcile with 3 x 4 ships from 7 frames with role changes between. :ugh:

Fit to do your job, worldwide, should be the minimum standard.

My job is now centred on resettlement and eating doughnuts.:ok:

Quote: "These levels were devised and the test developed by Boffins at Loughborough Uni."


And then ignored by Buffoons at HQPTC.:ugh:

Actually Arfur you are talking bo**ocks. THE message from AMP was not what is should have been. Taking fitness in work time WAS NOT MANDATED. Sadly it was down to unit commanders, but if unit commanders mandate it, it cannot be viewed as POLICY. Therefore when you do the required manpower calculations you cannot use MANDATED fitness sessions as contributing to the over all workload. Why? Well it's blatently obvious. If you mandate fitness in Her Majesty's Flying Club you accept that you need more personnel to achieve the task. If you need more personnel then you cannot achieve the bl**dy idiotic manpower ceiling of 40873 (although I may have that wrong by a few, was it 40674?). Mandated fitness (quite correct) equals more diversion which equals more manpower which Errrrr doesn't meet the target so lets ignore the fact we want people to be fitter but don't want them to do it in work time! :ugh: :ugh:

Maybe it's a new savings measure - The Royal Air Force Red Speedos! :}

:cool:

TOG

Every time the jockstrappers start off with this bull they avoid the question why different levels for the girls and boys if it's all about operational requirements? Surely the ability to rough-it out in the field or run away bravely requires the same standards for all?

Case in point, young Maple pre Nazi fitness test, lugs LMG around like a good-un during tacevals, Maple's babeluscious friend, same age, complains the SMG is too heavy and can't keep up. Who is operationally fitter?

Fast forward 20 years, Maple can still outrun said girly, even if lumbered with GPMG but fails fitness test at level x for 38 YO bloke. Madam is only required to pass FT at level x-y so is fitter according to decidedly non-op PTIs, but now has problems shifting self, SA80 and kit more than a few yards.

Apart from the obvious charms of young lady who would you rather have in your improvised fire team?

Now to answer a few points from a wannabee PTI

Dunno what section/flight you worked in, it was always the sports freaks off sick with a strained metatarsal or some other nonce excuse

Proof? Or propaganda?

So that's why sportsmen need to high altitude train to play netball on Mt Kilimanjaro but the RAF are happy there is no requirement for same when dispatching unfortunates to Kandahar?

Er, except racing snakes are the first to fall out in extreme cold so NOT FACT


Woopie doo, spot the sweeping generalisation, are you Rosemary Conley? - Ever been on real ops where the choice is compo or compo?

But failing the RAFFT doesn’t mean you immediately reach for the B&H so an irrelevant observation.

Apart from that what Pontius Navigator said

I think it ironic that having gone up 3 age levels, I will be required to attain 1 level higher than when I was 21.

However, that isn't my point. Taken in isolation, this isn't an overwhelmingly unreasonable request from our lords and masters. What I object to is the timing.

During the busiest time the Armed Forces have had in several decades, the RAF have decided to change everything at the same time.

Fitness testing, pay and conditions, EO, kitting, working practices, lean and pulse, JPA, technician rank structure, rank badges, terms of engagement, blah blah blah.

People do not know whether they are coming or going. For Christ's sake, leave us alone for 12 months to get to grips with the stuff that's already changed.

The goalposts never stop moving, the hoops never stop rising, the beat never slows and the tempo never subsides.

Why are people leaving?.....................

Was it Bastard Bill who decreed that Strike was to stop for a year? No inpections except mandatory ones, no tacevals, minivals etc just mark time and catch up?

Sorry week after next it is no longer Strike. Still nothing on the Strike Web but then the January bulletin has only just hit the streets and the website was last updated last month.