Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
- Post and participate in discussions.
- Send and receive private messages with other members.
- Respond to polls and surveys.
- Upload and share content.
- Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Trending
This Week
View More Trending
- Status
BillyBunter
Techie & Proud
- 1,264
- 0
- 0
Well dunno about all you folks here i joined the RAF a while back and yes i passed what they wanted me to acheive to make it i succeded like everyone else at Swinderby etc . Now they pushing more from us trusted people who have never let the Air Force down, we go to war /hot zones and do our job we are damm fecking good at that ,when was the last time you had a RAF guy go down with fitness problems etc..... Never in my books through lack of fitness. We are being asked to change to Army style ,thats fine, all us proper engineers are near all gone you have done well to get rid of us all , few more years and you got the young playstation genre. Good luck
- 7,141
- 113
- 642
What is the problem here
What is the problem here
If the RAF is managing to do its role and not too many people are keeling over why do we need to have a higher fitness test standard.
Is the problem that some body high up has a gripe about seeing the occasional lardy about camp, you'll probably find he's got a reason, even if he hasn't, putting the test up for the rest of us won't make him try any harder, bit like using a blunderbus to kill an ant if you ask me.
If fitness is a part of your job, Gnr, then yes get it during the working day, if it is just to make you a leaner fitter individual, do it in work if you can but dont gripe that you cannot just get out and try getting time off with a civi company
What is the problem here
If the RAF is managing to do its role and not too many people are keeling over why do we need to have a higher fitness test standard.
Is the problem that some body high up has a gripe about seeing the occasional lardy about camp, you'll probably find he's got a reason, even if he hasn't, putting the test up for the rest of us won't make him try any harder, bit like using a blunderbus to kill an ant if you ask me.
If fitness is a part of your job, Gnr, then yes get it during the working day, if it is just to make you a leaner fitter individual, do it in work if you can but dont gripe that you cannot just get out and try getting time off with a civi company
I
Isis
Guest
Aparently it's to bring us into line with other NATO forces. As for the RAF managing it's role without people keeling over I think that's half the problem - plenty of people are fit enough for their trade but not fit enough to fufill the other part of the job; thus a higher level for fitness and more frequent testing.
To be honest the average level of fitness for joe public is pretty low and that's where the RAF has to recruit from so it makes sense for the fitness level to be higher then what average joe achieves on these tests.
To be honest the average level of fitness for joe public is pretty low and that's where the RAF has to recruit from so it makes sense for the fitness level to be higher then what average joe achieves on these tests.
- 4,519
- 38
- 4
It's not fitness we need to be addressing, it's people downgraded for having a twisted sock or "shin splints". Isn't it funny how some people seem to be downgraded for all the gash jobs, guard, parades and deployments, but magically seem to be able to go on detachments?
I'm certainly not a model of fitness, and never will be. I will never fail my fitness test, it find it embarrasing. For 20 minutes of pain once a year, getting through it certainly saves a world of hurt...
Plenty of people aren't the fittest in the world, but have no problem doing any part of their job, including OOA, Guard, Parades and anything else that is required.
I
Isis
Guest
OK, but apart from fitness testing how would we determine who is physically capable of handling such duties and who isn't? As for the downgraded folks for most medically downgraded types there should be an alternative fitness programme implemented alongside medical treatment/physio/whatever is required. So if you have shin splints or whatever and can't run/liftweights/etc the PTI's would be responsible for working with the medical folks to provide a fitness programme that helps retain fitness without causing further harm.
T
tonibaloni
Guest
I find it bizarre that as a 46yr old guy, my higher number of press-ups to achive a pass is the same as the minimum a 17yr old guy has to achieve! its as if they thought , all these codgers keep passing, and the youngsters are failing. I know, make it more difficlult for the crusties and easier for the youngsters, that'll even things up!
I
Isis
Guest
Ah but an 18-29 year old male will have to do more then you.
I have always wondered why under 18's have lower targets - surely they should be super fit?!
T
tonibaloni
Guest
thats my point exactly! they should be fitter than some of us old knackers!:0
I
Isis
Guest
I think this might have something to do with rate of growth/development now I think about it, could be wrong. Not sure what that has to do with the price of butter but im pretty certain that's the offical line.
Having said that I stopped growing at around 13, upwards anyway.
Having said that I stopped growing at around 13, upwards anyway.
yeah i thought that aswell just didnt want to post it incase i looked daft.
but if im wrong am not the only one to look daft now
DT_Xtremez_34:
I
Isis
Guest
yeah i thought that aswell just didnt want to post it incase i looked daft.
but if im wrong am not the only one to look daft now
I've been doing it so long I'm no longer worried about looking daft
Off Topic your location is where I'm from! Yeahy for the Northerners!
I read with interest the "Warfighter first" argument. Many moons ago in BFG when on the deployment, we had to crash into our own flying site, as techies with guns was still relatively new we all got dead (according to the observers).
End of a two week deployment, because when the aircraft arrived they could not be refuelled or re armed as the only people who could carry out these tasks were out of the picture. All of a sudden we were alive again.
The point being that our engineers are as valuable a resource as the pilots, because without them the aircraft are just expensive lumps of metal.
Sorry if this upsets some of the non aircraft trade people, its just a fact.
End of a two week deployment, because when the aircraft arrived they could not be refuelled or re armed as the only people who could carry out these tasks were out of the picture. All of a sudden we were alive again.
The point being that our engineers are as valuable a resource as the pilots, because without them the aircraft are just expensive lumps of metal.
Sorry if this upsets some of the non aircraft trade people, its just a fact.
I
Isis
Guest
Gazza - I'm sorry, i must be misinterpreting - are you saying you believe engineers and pilots to be more valuable a resource then the other trades? If you are how very offensive of you. In the RAF all the trades are valuable, some become more urgently required resources/skill sets at different times, but to imply trades are somehow on a sliding scale of value is simply a reflection on how little you understand the organisation of which you are a part.
On a second point I've totally failed to understand what your post had to do with fitness testing - any chance you might enlighten me?
- 4,757
- 113
- 749
So, have these new standards been applied anywhere yet? The latest story I heard was wef 1 Oct, and twice a year, but that was from an Engineer at Cottesmore, not a PTI.
TrickyTree
Sergeant
- 518
- 18
- 2
Pilots simply are a more valuable resource. If we didn't have any, there wouldn't be any point in having an Air Force.
The sole point of everybody being in the RAF is to ensure that pilots can put bombs on targets. Anybody who disputes this obviously has an empty head. So yes, I agree with Gazza. Some trades are more valuable, and aircraft engineers are top of the tree here. If this is not the case, how come over 22 years I've seen trade after trade after trade being declared obsolescent and then obsolete - but never in TG1 or 2 (unless you count L Tech ST)?
ISIS,
To reply to your questions.
Firstly relevance. The Warfighter first argument is the primary driver for the fitness testing regime. If this argument is weakened because of its lack of relevance the whole requirement for fitness testing can also questioned.
To answer your other issue. It was not my intention to disrespect anyone. Not relevant but, in my opinion everyone is doing stirling work often under the most trying of circumstances.
The point I was trying to make is, it is the primary purpose and mission of the RAF to operate aircraft. This means that not only the hardware but people become assets.
It takes varying amounts of time and money to train these assets (people) depending on their role. It is the duty of the senior management to utilise these assets as effectively as possible.
It takes about 5 years for an aircraft engineer to be trained and experienced. Where is the value in using such a person to stand guard at a gate, when another asset which has not taken as long or cost as much to train could do a better job because that is their primary role.
I was merely trying to point out that if our assets were better managed and employed, there would be no need for mandatory PT or fitness testing.
To reply to your questions.
Firstly relevance. The Warfighter first argument is the primary driver for the fitness testing regime. If this argument is weakened because of its lack of relevance the whole requirement for fitness testing can also questioned.
To answer your other issue. It was not my intention to disrespect anyone. Not relevant but, in my opinion everyone is doing stirling work often under the most trying of circumstances.
The point I was trying to make is, it is the primary purpose and mission of the RAF to operate aircraft. This means that not only the hardware but people become assets.
It takes varying amounts of time and money to train these assets (people) depending on their role. It is the duty of the senior management to utilise these assets as effectively as possible.
It takes about 5 years for an aircraft engineer to be trained and experienced. Where is the value in using such a person to stand guard at a gate, when another asset which has not taken as long or cost as much to train could do a better job because that is their primary role.
I was merely trying to point out that if our assets were better managed and employed, there would be no need for mandatory PT or fitness testing.
Whilst agree with what you say Gazza and it makes a lot of sense there are several other reasons why the RAF should want to keep you fit.
If your fit you can deal better with long hours, dare I say stress of job.
Keeping your self fit helps your health, if you are well then you can be in work doing your job.
Also should you become ill, you have more chance of getting over it quicker.
But as I have said before, fitness should be a personal issue.
I
Isis
Guest
TrickyTree - I'm afraid your simplifying far too much; but to follow your logic on a bit further, Pilots are important because they are the guys (and gals) who out bombs on targets (and lets be honest here your simplifing the role of pilots to such a narrow focus at this point you clearly either mean you consider fast jet pilots alone are a more valuable resource and all others are mere mortals like the rest of us or you aren't fully conversent with the RAF definition of airpower, but no matter we can argue this point at a later stage)
anyway - in accordance with your theory (and that of Gazza) engineers are also important because they are the ones who ensure the aircraft are operational. I can agree they too do an important job.
So taking it further:
Suppliers - vital or the engineers won't have any equipment with which to fix the aircraft to make them operational, we also have no personal kit
Catering - vital or no-one gets fed and we all starve to death in the back end of nowhere
Regt - vital or none of us can shoot properly or use NBC kit therefore we're all dead long before we can get aircraft up
ATC - Pretty hard for a pilot to get off the ground or land back at base without these guys
Intell - No point in even taking off without the information these guys supply.
and I could go on.
End of the day the RAF is a team effort - yes the pilot is the one that gets the aircraft to the target (I was under the impression WSO's actually arranged the bomb to meet the target but I'm willing to be told I'm wrong) or intercepts enemy aircraft, etc etc but without the rest of the team in place they can't do any of it and therefore all trades are valuable.
However - if you truely believe Pilots are more valuable then surely they should be required to perform at a higher level of fitness? After all if they are more valuable we need them to be at a peak fitness above that of the 'support personnel', after all they have to endure G-forces within the aircraft, and if they are shot down we need them to be able to get out of hostile territory.
I disagree (and my head isn't empty); whoever wrote and approved the RAF website also disgreed - thinking here about the sections on the purpose of the RAF, the role of air power, types of air operations, and in the careers section the blurb on the job spec for pilots.
gazza260 said:
possibly that is the case - but I truely believe a fitter RAF is a more effective RAF
- Status