RAF recruits paid compensation for marching injuries

Everyone Uniform and Drill
1

Considering the size difference between 13 year old cadets and 20 year old cadets, what’s the likelyhood we’re going to have to have reduction in our Pace size for all cadets (or a string of claims from cadets who’ve left on poor terms!)

[quote]From BBC Website

Three female RAF recruits are to be paid compensation for injuries reportedly suffered while marching alongside male colleagues.

They claimed parading alongside taller male recruits caused them to over-stride and develop spinal and pelvic injuries, the Mail on Sunday reported.

RAF recruits paid compensation for marching injuries
[/quote]

2

Subtle difference:

We don’t employ cadets
We don’t “force them” to match
We don’t march for hours on end during training
We also don’t beast them daily for 16 hours a time

You’re probably right however

3

Marching!? What the BBC means is Route marching, as in ‘carrying weight and walking for 20miles’ marching. Not parade marching. And also, you need to remember that it the press! They like to put in ‘jargon’ to sound professional and often get it wrong as usual… :mad:

Just thought I’d clear this up! :mad:

4

It’s reads only slightly better than the original in the Daily [hate] Mail.

“extended”? Notice how they make this sound as though it’s something out of the ordinary, as opposed to the standard length of pace for everyone as it’s been for ages.

Doesn’t matter how tall anyone is…They could be 8’ tall or 3’6"… 30" is still 30". :dry: Typical media bull**** to make it sound more than it is…

The only bit of this which doesn’t irritate and annoy me is:

[quote]RAF official policy now states female recruits should not be expected to extend the length of their strides beyond 27in[/quote].

Interesting.
What happens when women are on parade with men? They can’t march at two different lengths of pace.
There’s no point whatsoever in teaching one pace for men and one pace for “when women are present”. Will we be switching to a 27" pace for all?
Will they be properly updating AP818, or will it be a DIN?
If it’s a DIN then we’ll probably never see it in the ACO, despite being more affected by ‘the issue’ than 99.999999% of RAF women.

5

[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=13637]Subtle difference:

We don’t employ cadets
We don’t “force them” to match
We don’t march for hours on end during training
We also don’t beast them daily for 16 hours a time

You’re probably right however[/quote]

Neither did the recruits in 2003… This whole thing makes me sick women moan about equal rights in the forces when it suits them I cant belive they paid her for loss of earnings and pension up to 9 years since when do you get a pension after 9 years??

6

I noted the comment to say that female personal are to march at 27in. If they have adopted this policy then surely we should be marching at 27in as well. That being said I very rarely “pace” my cadets, perhaps when illustrating slow march as some cadets shorten their pace to about 12in!

Good to see the Daily Mail picked a great picture to demonstrate their point, puts the comments in the ATC marching thread in perspective.

[attachment=129]DM.jpg[/attachment]

7

[quote=“arl” post=13643]I noted the comment to say that female personal are to march at 27in. If they have adopted this policy then surely we should be marching at 27in as well. That being said I very rarely “pace” my cadets, perhaps when illustrating slow march as some cadets shorten their pace to about 12in!

Good to see the Daily Mail picked a great picture to demonstrate their point, puts the comments in the ATC marching thread in perspective.

[attachment=129]DM.jpg[/attachment][/quote]

The only problem with the picture is that its of an officer doing drill and we all know that is a lie…lol

8

[quote=“hobrocket” post=13638]Marching!? What the BBC means is Route marching, as in ‘carrying weight and walking for 20miles’ marching. Not parade marching. And also, you need to remember that it the press! They like to put in ‘jargon’ to sound professional and often get it wrong as usual… :mad:

Just thought I’d clear this up! :mad:[/quote]

Sorry, but this is not a route marching issue but a normal marching. PSI were and have been a recognised issue for which guidelines were put in place; Namely the 2-week pre RTS course that ran until recently, splitting of females from the main Flt where necessary, gradual buildup of load bearing and a general recognition that no-one marches at 30in unless marking a route etc…

Unfortunately, part of the decision in this case, was that RTS Staff ignored these guidelines and therefore caused or worsened the injuries.

While it is very easy to blaim the claimant, there are circumstances in this case conveniently left out of the news.

9

[quote=“zinggy” post=13642]

This whole thing makes me sick women moan about equal rights in the forces when it suits them [/quote]

May I ask what you mean by this?

Surely suffering from 4 hip fractures is a case of health and wellbeing issues of our troops rather than equality. It’s to do with the physiology of the body being substantial different between genders, not merely because females are choosing not to.

I don’t think this comment sends a great message to other members especially young female cadets who may be viewing this page.

It seems to me that: there was a problem with 30" steps so they have reduced them to 27" to make it safer for everyone involved, albeit perhaps required a small part of readjustment to get used to the reduction. All other problems are general caused by the media interpretation of a story and todays culture of encouraging blame for financial gain?

10

[quote=“Lima Oscar” post=13648][quote=“zinggy” post=13642]

This whole thing makes me sick women moan about equal rights in the forces when it suits them [/quote]

May I ask what you mean by this?

Surely suffering from 4 hip fractures is a case of health and wellbeing issues of our troops rather than equality. It’s to do with the physiology of the body being substantial different between genders, not merely because females are choosing not to.

I don’t think this comment sends a great message to other members especially young female cadets who may be viewing this page.

It seems to me that: there was a problem with 30" steps so they have reduced them to 27" to make it safer for everyone involved, albeit perhaps required a small part of readjustment to get used to the reduction. All other problems are general caused by the media interpretation of a story and todays culture of encouraging blame for financial gain?[/quote]

What makes me sick is someone gets blown up and they get £6000 pay out she has this which she admits no longer gives her problems and gets £100,000 for it.

As for marching No one is forced to march 30 inches at Halton trust me on this I was a DI at Halton… I have seen girls and a lad being no more than 5ft tall marching with no problem what so ever do you think a lad would of got 100,000 quid because he was “forced” to march with short legs?? Not a chance in hell.

She has just ruined the whole we can do the same job as men argument for plenty of women out there that can do it she should feel ashamed of her self for that and the fact that she has all that cash when injured soldiers get a fraction of that

11

i which case you ought to ring the MOD’s lawyers, because obviously they’ve been had.

if someone offered me £100,000 for an injury that didn’t bother me i’d take it, and i would not for a minute be concerned that it was a greater sum than would be paid to me had i lost a lower limb in Afghanistan. if society has a problem with it, perhaps they ought to change their own rules, or indeed just implement the rules that were in place that would, had they been followed, have prevented this debaclé in the first place.

no outrage bus for me…

12

[quote=“LilStill” post=13647][quote=“hobrocket” post=13638]Marching!? What the BBC means is Route marching, as in ‘carrying weight and walking for 20miles’ marching. Not parade marching. And also, you need to remember that it the press! They like to put in ‘jargon’ to sound professional and often get it wrong as usual… :mad:

Just thought I’d clear this up! :mad:[/quote]

Sorry, but this is not a route marching issue but a normal marching. PSI were and have been a recognised issue for which guidelines were put in place; Namely the 2-week pre RTS course that ran until recently, splitting of females from the main Flt where necessary, gradual buildup of load bearing and a general recognition that no-one marches at 30in unless marking a route etc…

Unfortunately, part of the decision in this case, was that RTS Staff ignored these guidelines and therefore caused or worsened the injuries.

While it is very easy to blaim the claimant, there are circumstances in this case conveniently left out of the news.[/quote]

So if its just normal marching…what te hell are they complaining about. If they cant cope then they shouldn’t have joined up!

13

Something tells me we don’t have a lot of women on this forum. Some of this rhetoric has been seriously sexist, in fact aggressively so. It does not reflect well upon any of us.

To me, it makes a lot of sense that forcing someone short to over stride will cause damage in the long term. Not that I think this will be a problem for the ATC as in my experience cadets very rarely march at 30in for drill. And for route marches I have tended to train my Nijmegen fems to walk faster not by increasing stride but by increasing their pace. (I rarely rigidly enforce a cadence if to do so would cause someone discomfort, it can be just as uncomfortable forcing a lanky lad to walk at a shorter stride.)

And as for the moaning that the justice system arbitrarily issues such awards, this is not the case. There is a lot of method to the madness. But I’m a bit rusty on PI, so may be for someone more current to update your gen.

14

Is it really a sexist group of comments?
I don’t think so.
The band wagon can be jumped on if you want. All the liberalists can scream all they want. The fact remains this is repulsive. Plenty of leeching lawyers will see £ signs here and the ambulance chasing brigade will be having a field day. A number of my former colleagues have suffered horrendous injuries over the last few years; both visible and the unseen ones. This woman has abused their memory and duty to the Crown and this nation.
Not sexist. Just fact.
I would like to point out what Zinggy said. No one marches at the 30" pace anyway. Try doing it properly and see what we mean.
The 30" pace is purely historic.
Sadly, this thread is not history. This is the here and now and I sense more of these monstrous litigations coming to the fore.
I hope this woman (oops, there I go being sexist again!) manages to sleep well at night. And you know, I bet she does!!

15

[quote=“Racing Stick” post=13665] This woman has abused their memory and duty to the Crown and this nation.
Not sexist. Just fact.[/quote]

You mean to say,

“Not Sexist, just highly inflammatory insulting opinion dressed up as fact.”

16

in which case, why have the MOD paid out?

generosity perhaps, or has the MOD got a couple of million quid burning a hole in its pinstriped trousers?

Zingy and yourself can claim as much as you like that this didn’t happen, but in order for the MOD’s lawyers to have decided to make the offer, they will have been convinced that it did.

17

in which case, why have the MOD paid out?

generosity perhaps, or has the MOD got a couple of million quid burning a hole in its pinstriped trousers?

Zingy and yourself can claim as much as you like that this didn’t happen, but in order for the MOD’s lawyers to have decided to make the offer, they will have been convinced that it did.[/quote]

A 30in pace is written down as the pace to march at but it is almost impossible to enforce with different leg lengths in a squad which is why it is not enforced in basic training as Racing Snake says its “purely historic”.

The big question is how on earth has it justified a £100,000 pay out if by her own admission it no longer effects her???

Oh and for the record I am not sexiest I just expect women to do the same as men if they are both doing the same job that is the equal rights women spent god knows how long fighting for if I were to say women are weaker so we will let them do it the easy way that in my mind would be sexist and I am sure most women would agree.

18

Just to be a difficult sod - it may change your thoughts to know that I went through RAF Halton with a 5’8 male who received compensation from the AF Compensation people for… PSI due to marching.

Unfortunately, it is a recognised condition, the cause of which varies greatly between people of both sexes. It just so happens in this case, that women are the people to have won the claim…

As another aside, how many people would like to bet this has happened forever and those who came before us just manned up and got on with it. You may or may not think those days were better, but unfortunately they are gone and we are left with the claim culture of today. I would rather rant at the culture than at the people who claimed. At the end of the day, they volunteered to serve and ended up injured. They went on to do what is expected of them in this day and age, and claimed. Times change, and rarely due to the people involved in the present day.

19

Interesting link here concerning female “over-use” injuries (no jokes please!):

Whilst there is some typical sexist commentary within, there are also so very reasonable discussions (& factual information) on this topic here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/528486-females-can-not-march-like-men.html

In short, whilst the compensation claim(s) may be abhorrent to some, the legislation is very different from the “injured in action” type of claims. If you don’t like it, get the legislation changed; bitching & whining will continue for ever unless this happens.

I used to be DS at DIOT at RAFC Cranwell, & the rules/protocol changed considerably over several years to reduce the amount of “over-use” injuries (male & female). For example, cadets could only complete a certain total distance whilst on the external leadership camps (it used to be about 10 km in the morning, 10 km in the afternoon, & 5 km in the evening, for 6 - 7 days); this was shortened considerably. The LAT run was changed. We trialled several versions of the new “military trainer” as the plimmies were useless (for everything!); the result was a khaki-green version (don’t know who the manufacturer was).

Now, there used to be “abuse” of the system there too - despite the rules & limitations, one sqn was well known for beasting the cadets far, far more than the other sqns; surprise, surprise, their levels of injuries for shin splints, etc, was higher than the other sqns. I think they were instructed to back off.

One funny story about shin splints, one of the doctors was very good at assessing such injuries - he used ultra sound = guaranteed to get an “Oooh, ouch” from the cadet in question. One female cadet (assessed by DS as a malingerer), reported sick with shin splints (conveniently, very close to a major physical exercise of some kind). Doc duly did the business with the ultra sound, cadet duly did the “Oooh, ouch” noises as her legs were checked. “Oh dear” says the doc, “It’s a very bad case.” “I know” sobs the cadet. The the doc continued - “Now I will repeat the inspection with the ultra sound ON!” :lol:

20

Now I have been biting my tongue on this one, but will pop my head above the parapet.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “THE COMPENSATION CULTURE”. Every claim for injury is registered with the Department for Work and Pensions whose stats have shown that largly over the past 20 years the number of claims have remained static, with a slight blip in 2001. Numbers over the last 5 years have even slowly dropped.

Have these individuals done anything wrong? They have suffered an injury by process ostensibly as a result of systems or processes not being followed. That has caused them to not be physically able to complete their training and commence a career in the RAF.

Either the Court has decided against the MOD, or the MOD’s own lawyers have said theyre on to a looser here - they do not do so lightly. The MOD is one of the most defensive Defendants there is ever likely to be.

We don’t have any detail on the figures (and I find anything in the Mail to be highly suspect here) but what they would be entitled to is compensation for the injury based on the Court guidelines, hey presto:-

[quote]JC Guidelines 12th Edition - 2013

(D) Injuries to the Pelvis and Hips

(b) Moderate

(i) Significant injury to the pelvis or hip but any permanent disability is not major and any future risk not great.
£19,550 to £28,750

(ii) These cases may involve hip replacement or other surgery. Where it has been carried out wholly successfully the award will tend to the top of the bracket, but the bracket also includes cases where hip replacement may be necessary in the foreseeable future or where there are more than minimal ongoing symptoms. £9,250 to £19,550©

Lesser Injuries

(i) Cases where despite significant injury there is little or no residual disability. Where there has been a complete recovery within two years, the award is unlikely to exceed £5,650 [/quote]

In addition, the Claimants would be entitled to loss of earnings. NOT simply what the RAF Would have paid them (inc pay rises, interest etc) but the difference between what they could have earned and what they did earn. Cost of living would be taken into account, as it is more expensive in general (housing, food etc costs civvies more than mil).

So there would have been some calculator bashing, undoubtly some negotiation and some figures would have been produced. In my experience the figure quoted in the Mail is likely to be “somewhat inaccurate”.

So, have these ladies done anything wrong? If you believe they have then please explain what?

The explanation about the difference between payments due to Tort (i.e. MOD is liable) and the AF Compensation Scheme are totally different and based on a different premise. Do remember that in addition to the AF Compensation, wounded personell receive additional benefits, pension etc over and above the initial payment. But here is not the place to debate the rights, wrongs or otherwise, just understand the circumstances do not directly compare.

Rant Over