CFAV Fitness


#121

I don’t believe this. The mods have removed my post voicing concerns over the posting of Op Nimrods inflammatory statement.

Obviously, someone is wanting to hide something rather than bring it out into the open.

Delete this if you will but I do have a screenshot of it.


#122

I concur, that maybe I was a little pointed towards obesity, and apologise. What got me was the poor attitude towards a little bit of exercise every week, which in the long run would make you much healthier. As you say glass half empty you play rugby, more than likely the reason for your medical/sickness record or lack thereof. Each to their own, drinking, smoking, feeding, do what you want, all I’m saying is a basic level of self-respect should lead you to look after yourself to some degree.

glass half empty 2 wrote:

100% agree, I’ve seen regulars who can’t even pass the MSFT but somehow manage to keep slipping through the net and keep their job. Similarly I know people who miraculously manage to do themselves some sort of ‘horrific injury’ whenever they’re due to deploy, yet the RAF keep them on and give them chance after chance.


#123

[quote=“Gunner” post=2062]I don’t believe this. The mods have removed my post voicing concerns over the posting of Op Nimrods inflammatory statement.

Obviously, someone is wanting to hide something rather than bring it out into the open.

Delete this if you will but I do have a screenshot of it.[/quote]

I do. The mods have forgotten the members make a site, not the mod team.


#124

In fairness, I’ve just picked up a PM explaining why it was removed but I wrote the above post before seeing the message.

I still stand by my comments though.


#125

Indeed,

Op mod accounts ARE to be beyond reproach - if you want to say something that may be reproachable then use your regular log in.

Thanks

Dave


#126

I also agree. However, for all we know, there may be a simultaneous attack being made on the RAF, RAuxAF and the RAFVR(T) in relation to fitness and image.

SVS and rockape3 are both right. There’s absolutely no excuse - barring disability - for people not putting 2 hours in each week for keeping fit.

Angus mentioned something about the ego of some posters, especially those who espouse a fitness test? How about the egos of those who reach for another handful of biscuits, lean back and smirk knowing that the ACO may well be powerless to get rid of them, no matter how they look?

THAT’s ego.

No wonder they get ridiculed.


#127

Sent to Sirvicalsmeer:

[quote=“sirvicalsmeer”][quote=“Gunner”]I don’t believe this. The mods have removed my post voicing concerns over the posting of Op Nimrods inflammatory statement.

Obviously, someone is wanting to hide something rather than bring it out into the open.

Delete this if you will but I do have a screenshot of it.[/quote]

I do. The mods have forgotten the members make a site, not the mod team.[/quote]

I have removed this post as it breaches our AUP, specifically this bit:

12.16 Moderators decisions are final. If you wish to complain about moderation, in the first instance, contact the moderator directly, then an Admin, and finally DJRice. Moderating decisions will not be questioned in the open forums as this is unconstructive.


#128

Sent to Gunner:

[quote="Gunner]I don’t believe this. The mods have removed my post voicing concerns over the posting of Op Nimrods inflammatory statement.

Obviously, someone is wanting to hide something rather than bring it out into the open.

Delete this if you will but I do have a screenshot of it.[/quote]

I’ve removed this and your other post explaining that you had received a PM. I’m more than happy to continue discussions in private, but not at the expense of the thread.


#129

[quote=“rockape3” post=2063]
glass half empty 2 wrote:

100% agree, I’ve seen regulars who can’t even pass the MSFT but somehow manage to keep slipping through the net and keep their job. Similarly I know people who miraculously manage to do themselves some sort of ‘horrific injury’ whenever they’re due to deploy, yet the RAF keep them on and give them chance after chance.[/quote]

The issue with people in the first situation above is more often than not they are injured. Due to their weight the injury cannot be rehabilitated. If the injury cannot be rehabilitated they cannot be discharged. So if you were in this situation would you a) got to the gym, get fixed and loose your job or b) go down the mess eat more and not go to the gym and keep you job?

Its now getting to the point where the Forces are taking people to court over the issue as a way of discharging them, or giving them an incentive.

As for dealing with the issue thats complicated as if a ‘Line manager’ fails to put someone on warnings for such failings it makes a mess of the whole situation and drags it out.

Just wanted to point out the forces are doing everything they can to deal with this issue where as in comparison you could say the ACO are doing nothing, that is if you think it is needed.


#130

flago wrote:

In that 1st situation I refer to people who are not injured (or not declaring that they’re injured) are still attempting the MSFT and do not pass it, I know of one example of this on my old station, and to my knowledge he is still employed. There are also examples of people who repeatedly fail, then use remedial training to get back up to standard to pass their 2nd/3rd attempt, only to fail again 6 months later and they are allowed to continue to repeat this cycle time and time again. Alongside this are people who don’t bother to turn up to the MSFT at all, whether they would pass it or not, who can say?

There is also an increasing number of those that claim injury due to the high tempo of ops we were on, funny how they can be fit as a fiddle in AT periods, but as soon as MST/PDT comes round there’s suddenly that recurring issue with their knees/back, and its always the same people.


#131

responded by PM as largely off topic and not anonymous


#132

Thats not hard at all!


#133

I suspect that any proposal to bring in a uniformed CFAV fitness test is another example of the RAF trying to bring ACO practices more into line with the parent Service and what is done across its other reserve elements. Indeed, we have already seen this with officers’ selection and I am sure there will be more to come. There is in my view, a key question to be asked here and that is does the RAF have the right to set certain standards of its members? And by its members, I mean uniformed CFAVs.

We’ve already had comments along the lines of ‘Well I’m not actually in the RAF and I don’t see why I should have to maintain their standards’ and ‘It’s not up to the organisation I volunteer in to impose such rules’, so we know where some of our contributors fall on this argument. But I believe that unequivocally, yes, the RAF does have an absolute right to set standards of its members, regardless of their ‘volunteer’ status (everyone is a volunteer in the RAF after all) and whether some of us like it or not, this includes uniformed CFAVs, because we ARE part of the RAF. After all, we like to style ourselves Flt Lt/WO/Sgt or whatever and we like to wear the uniform, so just accept that with this privilege (because that is what it is) comes certain responsibility. The Service is in my view perfectly entitled to expect that these responsibilities include having to maintain a certain level of ‘fitness’ (suitably defined of course) and being able to wear Her Majesty’s uniform in a smart and officer/airman-like manner. Furthermore, those who persist with the attitude of ‘I’m not part of the RAF’ simply add weight (no pun intended) to the arguments against the cadet forces in general receiving Defence Budget funding and if we’re not careful, such negative attitudes from the grass roots of our own organisation will result in drastic cuts in public spending on the cadet forces and the ACO becoming little more than the air scouts.

I agree that imposing the standard RAF fitness levels for unformed CFAVs is probably not the best way to go as these levels are in general intended to ensure people are fit for operations. However, the overall concept of some form of test has undoubted merit as we have heard from many contributors; we should also be able to wear the uniform without major surgery (to either uniform or wearer). We like to pride ourselves that we do more than simply teach our young men and women aviation-related topics; the aims of the Corps have us inter alia providing training which will be useful both in the Services and in civilian life. I therefore fail to see how CFAVs setting a good example in terms of healthy lifestyle, and smartness of dress and deportment does not fit with this aim!


#134

We are already the ‘victims’ of defence budget cuts, noticed the number of stations closed over the last 20 years and general reductions in personnel, that have affected us and have diddly squat to do with the attitude of adult staff. In the last 5 years it has been more difficult to get cadet uniform demands filled first time, due to lack of stock and staff don’t fair much better. Again due to the reduced number in the parent service, ie less personnel less uniform required and I imagine that the wearing of cabbage is a factor reducing the amount of blue kit required as well.
As for the overweight staff, they are outnumbered by overweight cadets, but these are far less easy for the hierarchy to attempt to control, unless they don’t want to have a nice little golden sunset job, playing at RAF. I don’t buy into the argument that having ‘slim’ staff will ‘inspire’ teenagers who join and maybe a bit on the bulky side to forcibly slim down. They see more of and are influenced by parents, family and teachers than us and I would suggest they are going to be more of an influence/role model. That’s where my role models/influences for general life came from.

The unalienable truth is that the armed forces are shrinking and will continue to do so, thus we the cadet forces will become in effect a bit like a large benign tumour, you can live with it but it’s getting uncomfortble/annoying, but you don’t know what will happen if you remove it, so you leave it. I wonder if there isn’t a top level plan to reduce numbers of the cadet forces in line with the regulars, as they will become an even greater drain on resources and this is one way to achieve it.


#135

The people I know who do this sort of thing build their lives around. But the majority of us don’t. I’ve forgotten the number of people who’ve started out as suggested and fall off after 6-8 weeks, as “two hours isn’t just 2 hours”. On reflection the only people I know who can make the time sustainably are personally wealthy such that they don’t have to work, retired or single with no family commitment. I’ve excluded those I know who participate in sport of some kind or other.

The ACO officially occupies c.3% my life each week and is a not a net contributor to my finances, IF the ACO wants to force people down a route, fine, but they will need to make it worthwhile. My employer doesn’t say to me you must fit some body image ideal as it’s not a requirement in my job. If conditions are changed for uniformed CFAV in the ACO a level playing field needs to be in place.

[quote=“Gunner” post=2067]Angus mentioned something about the ego of some posters, especially those who espouse a fitness test? How about the egos of those who reach for another handful of biscuits, lean back and smirk knowing that the ACO may well be powerless to get rid of them, no matter how they look?

THAT’s ego.

No wonder they get ridiculed.[/quote]
Do you think people think like this, you obviously don’t have a clue and or have some major hang ups/prejudices?
People won’t act as you suggest thinking the ACO won’t not be able to get rid of them, to even suggest it is rubbish.

If the ACO did get rid of them and they all walked away, who loses? Not the individual concerned that’s for sure and to suggest otherwise is not really understanding the organisation. Also what do you do in the interim between them leaving and the “image of perfection” walking through the door to replace them? Given that people aren’t knocking the door off its hinges to become staff.

Something I was told by a 2 ex Wg Cdrs, my old cadet CO and my 2 previous COs when I first took command of a unit is that you have to work with what you get and it won’t be perfect and not everyone stays. I have held this particular thought everytime cadets join or someone enquires about becoming staff. Because if they hang around I am going to have to be able to use them and give them roles and responsibilities. What they look like is not something that bothers me.

Among those who do stay there is not a rush to become VR(T), as people cotton on to the fact pretty quickly, even those with no experience of the Corps, it’s not much fun running a squadron (only reason IMO you commission), it was once enjoyable and I remember those days. I’ve got staff, CIs and SNCOs and they laugh at the WSOs when they rattle on about “career” progression and going for a Commission. They’ve given up asking me about “progressing” onto Wing Staff. Career progression to me means work, with a salary increase attached. No CFAV are salaried by the ACO to be CFAV, or if there are they are in a minor minority. So start putting extra conditions in place that are all about us as volunteers in a youth organisation doing things to satisfy some administrative exercise and more will either walk or step down. When changes and extra boxes to tick have been introduced staff have left and not always the ones you wouldn’t have minded losing. I saw 4 COs (we were good ATC mates and still keep in touch) walk over (they all cited ‘job pressure’ to avoid grief) pettyminded bureaucracy (LASER Order 4 to be precise) and the same thing brought about a sea change in my attitude to the organisation’s senior management, in as much as not really being in touch with the grassroots.


#136

Are you a shop steward in your day job?


#137

No. Why?


#138

We Can all beat our gums about this but the fact is nothing’s gonna change. Disgusting fats will still be allowed on uniform because in some places volunteers are in short supply.


#139

What was Order 4? I joined as a cadet in 2003, so most of the review went over my head.


#140

So do we turn away cadets with a BMI over 30?

Personally I find your entire attitude to people and other posters disgusting does that mean you can’t be in the corps?