I’ve seen plenty of people pre-OASC whom I wondered how on Earth they wound up wearing the uniform of an RAF officer - since the introduction I can’t recall seeing any new officers about whom I thought that.
1 Like
Unfortunately I know a couple that got through OASC that should of been told goodbye…
The staff at the local pool (sports centre) I use are not by any stretch all fit looking paragons of virtue, in fact some are quite large.
But I wonder where does mental fitness come into ‘fitness’? I know many people who are overweight but their minds are pin sharp and it takes a lot to get one over them and similarly with us. I would say that mental fitness is far more important than physical.
Negative.
And the reason they have a job? “Political correctness”. “Fat discrimination”. It’s the same argument, why should anyone want to pay for a fat Personal trainer?
If they didn’t get a job, they would claim discrimination, the SJW would go mental and the council/company wouldn’t have the spine to get people told.
Ultimately though, it will cost lives. Lifeguards need to be and should be held to high fitness standards. Same with public services (which are an absolute joke, in the name of “gender equality”) and especially with the military, which is also a bit of a joke. And now they want to drag down standards for political correctness of women joining frontline combat units. (Another debate for another day).
Because we as society have become weak. Caring about feelings, over facts. We keep making excuses for people’s lack of discipline.
Why can we not strive for mental and physical fitness? Socrates said that a mans body was a reflection of his mind.
But overall you are correct, the food that enters the mind is as important as the food that enters the body.
I beleive in freedom and liberty for all, so if people want to get fat, fair enough but don’t expect the rest of us to bend the facts or be held down. For example the “Health at Every Size” pseudoscience that’s now poisoning the youth.
When I left the regulars I hit a bit of a low, wrapped my bangers in with phys and it got to a point where I said enough was enough and dragged my fat ass back. I could recognise the damage I was doing and the shambles that was my fitness. I was walking round wit effectively a set of full webbing on. The damage on my joints, my heart, would have been incredible.
Ultimately it’s up to the individual. Either suffer the pain of discipline, or suffer the pain of regret.
You have no heart.
3 Likes
Cold fusion unit pump I heard.
3 Likes
As long as they can respond to an incident at the pool in a timely manner, does it matter what size they are?
Google tells me that to be a lifeguard, they need to be able to:
Jump / dive into deep water.
Swim 50 metres in less than 60 seconds.
Swim 100 metres continuously on front and back in deep water.
Tread water for 30 seconds.
Surface dive to the floor of the pool.
Climb out unaided without ladder / steps and where the pool design permits.
Does it matter what size they are?
Surely bigger lifeguards means they are more buoyant?
But come with more drag.
Then again, the bigger the drag, the bigger the thrust needed to reach the required standards. Bigger thrust = bigger muscles…
So larger lifeguards are stronger lifeguards, and therefore must be better…?
Larger? Muscular or just fat?
And as far as I am concerned they are minimums. Any self respecting lifeguard and to project that to the forces, soldier would expect and train to exceed those expectations.
And have those standards been “lowered” for “gender neutrality”?
Or have excuses been made and exceptions made? Public services are prime example of dropping standards under the “equality” bracket. The study into women on the frontline even admits that fitness standards will be reviewed for gender neutrality. Which means, dropped.
Key phrase being do the job. If they can’t do the job…
And those standards are embarrassingly low. Climb unaided out of the pool, that’s great but what about the casualty, you just gonna leave them in there?
Having had to drag a body out of a pool. It’s not an easy feat.
And that’s just pools, what about open water or beaches? How is climbing out of a pool unaided going to hell you there.
This is the problem, the bar is set low and people make excuses for it being low. To stop hurting people’s feelings.
Why do you want bouyant when you have to duck dive to the bottom of a pool and drag someone up?
Unless they are being used as a floatations device.
Nope, the NPLQ (renewed every few years) includes a timed swim - not meeting the standards = no pass = no job.
But a higher dive = more weight to break water surface tension = deeper dive? Am I getting this wrong?
On the suggestion of lowering standards in the name of gender equality, I’m quite certain that in the 90’s there were quite a lot of wimmin in the west coast American lifeguards. I studied them carefully whenever it was on TV or there was a VHS available. Very carefully. I didn’t see any blokes.
Edit to add: do not go an Google fat lifeguards. What has seen cannot be unseen.
2 Likes
That’s just as well, considering the standards are so low anyway.
What if you aren’t diving into the pool?
What if you are conducting a water rescue outside of a pool?
What if you are duck diving to reach a casualty?
Any self respecting lifeguard would have the pride to train to exceed those standards.
The professional does not expect to rise to an occasion, but to fall to their lowest form of training.
Fortunately, being a lifeguard isn’t one of the roles a CFAV needs to fill.
2 Likes
I may have set my aim a little high for you.
But they will not be, as the whole lifeguard thing came about from Teflon’ s observations at his local pool. The standards I got from Google are the National Pool Lifeguard Qualification. Qualifications relevant to a pool.
You inadvertently have acknowledged that different roles need indifferent standards. Pool Lifeguard standards are not relevant to any job other than pool lifeguard.
By your own rationale, then, RAF fitness standards are relevant to the role that the RAF carry out. And therefore not relevant to the roles that CFAV carry out, despite us wearing the same uniform.
I could call anyone not fit enough to pass SF selection a “disgusting fat body”, but just because they are not at that standard, doesn’t mean they can’t function in the role they occupy.
Edited to add that I include myself in the group of people unable to pass any SF fitness test!
Actually, when I failed selection there were still tubbies passing me - there were some really fit blokes who were gone by week 3, and blokes who just looked like randoms off the street who were still going strong at week 12. Moobs and all…
It wasn’t fitness per se, it was mental and physical ‘hardness’ that got people through it - there were certainly people I was fitter than who were still going when I failed.
I didn’t get injured, or slap the DS, or any of the normal fairy stories, I simply wasn’t physically or mentally hard enough, and was there for the wrong reasons.
STA Patrols was probably physically and mentally more demanding, but because I was older, bit more focused, bit more laid back, more experienced, and doing it because it was a natural progression I found it easier - not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but I didn’t feel the internal pressure that i think helped me fail selection for 22, just a more measured confidence that I could do what was being asked of me.
(Derail, but who cares…).
1 Like
Completely different. You can not compare SF selection to lifeguard standards.
And it’s most certainly not about being a sculpted god. Yea fair one lads carrying a few pounds in a professional fighting force but some of the life guards I have seen were horrendous. And quite honestly this aren’t high standards.
Now that doesn’t mean I am saying they need SF swimming tests.
Beach life guard is slightly different granted but still pretty low standards. And level 1,2 and 3 water rescue is again a different kettle of fish.
Mental toughness, resilience and determination is a completely different topic and I would more than happy to debate or talk about how science can not measure the will to succeed or motivation, or how the mind can push the body beyond its limits.
But the basic standards for the RAF are low. We as a society need to strive to get the young people more educated and interested in taking their fitness seriously, instead of allowing these festering health at every size pseudoscience poison our kids. There’s a statistic that predicts by a certain year in the future that 50% population of the U.K. will have diabetes. And We are in an obesity epidemic.
You shouldn’t be reading the RAF standards and think they are hard. (Nor if you want to be a life guard) I wasn’t saying CFAVs need to do the fitness test but personal fitness should be encouraged and as it’s an aviation theme, why not get the kids involved.
Maybe if we had more cadets doing RAF fitness tests, we could maybe start good habits and maybe bring down the national average for obesity by a tiny margin.
And when they grow up they will talk to their kids and encroached healthy attitudes to fitness, etc. The cycle goes on.
And yes the female standards need to be brought up to equal standards as blokes.
Why would it be acceptable for a woman to do it at a different standard to a bloke? If they want to do the job, they should reach the same standard. Simple.
strong post Angus. Strong.