Staff fitness

Adult Staff Execs
1

Good morning!!

I have heard rumors (I know stupid me for listening to them) that there will be a fitness test for uniformed staff. Anyone else heard of this? I would also be intrested to know if people think its a good or bad idea. I am on the fence with this one I would say no as we are not RAF and all that jazz but I would be tempted to say yes for one reason this being that I have seen a few photos flying around with larger officers being mistaken for Reg RAF on parade and it makes the RAF look very bad.

In all fairness I have put a bit of a beer belly on in the last few years could staff like myself do with it more than likely yes but should we?

2

Not sure on the source of the info about the introduction of the fitness tests…but this element was dropped from the new officer selection process after the first trial group along with the medical part.

3

There was initiall a fitness ‘assessment’ (note not a test…) for commissioning candidates going through OASC. This got binned as getting the required medicals completed prior to the OASC date was causing a great deal of delay.

There has been multiple discussions on here of the pros and cons of fitness tests. PErsonally I’m of the opinion that if you wear the uniform you should meet a certain standard (PJFT as a min perhaps) but that’s becuase I do plenty of phys anyway.

4

as mentioned here http://aircadetcentral.net/acc/forum/execs/600-tcos-review-one-for-vrt?start=60
started by cygnus maximus and the conversation springing from there

in short i would agreed with redowling, if you wear the uniform at least look the part. which doesnt require a 1.5m run time, just physically not overwieght.
the easiest, although controversial, measure is BMI

we apply weight restrictions to VGS pilots so why not the rest of us?

5

[quote=“steve679” post=11240]we apply weight restrictions to VGS pilots [/quote]for operational reasons.

6

Yes, there should be a requirement. We are the face of the light blue element, so should look the part. Yeah, okay, some people will come back with the age old arguement ‘but we are only volunteers’, I’m sorry you take on the position/uniform then you should look the part and if that means meeting a fitness standard, then so be it. I’m no young racing snake, far from it, but if at my next renewal I had to meet a standard, I would make the effort and not make excuses.

I’m sure every Wing has the individuals who make you wonder why they are in uniform; how about the hofficer who has to use a walking stick to get around, wears a wrist splint and still in charge of cadets (and drives MT) or the individual who has to get their uniform (blue and DPM) tailored so they can get into it. Good image to cadets, onlookers and our parent service, not…

Will get coat and leave…

7

[quote=“romeo bravo” post=11245]Yes, there should be a requirement. We are the face of the light blue element, so should look the part. Yeah, okay, some people will come back with the age old arguement ‘but we are only volunteers’, I’m sorry you take on the position/uniform then you should look the part and if that means meeting a fitness standard, then so be it. I’m no young racing snake, far from it, but if at my next renewal I had to meet a standard, I would make the effort and not make excuses.

I’m sure every Wing has the individuals who make you wonder why they are in uniform; how about the hofficer who has to use a walking stick to get around, wears a wrist splint and still in charge of cadets (and drives MT) or the individual who has to get their uniform (blue and DPM) tailored so they can get into it. Good image to cadets, onlookers and our parent service, not…

Will get coat and leave…[/quote]

I must admit I am leaning more towards this view point I know of two people that are going for a commission and they will not fit into an RAF uniform unless its special measure I seem to be the only person on the wing that has an issue with that I really dont know if its a good or bad thing

8

i dont disagree but should the rest of use not be fit for our “operations”??

yes there is the argument that for many they “operate” in a classroom or as a CO’s operate behind a desk but is that an excuse for the RAF instructors or Officers who “fly a desk”?

when off Sqn for weekend events or exercises it is clear who are the fitter staff and those who struggle…

9

New motto of the VR(T) and ATC staff: manducare minus, movere magis.

10

i dont disagree but should the rest of use not be fit for our “operations”??[/quote]

Most are. What do you consider to be “operations”?

For a pilot, if they are too heavy they can exceed the seat weight limitations or adversely impact the CofG of the aircraft, limiting the weight of the passenger or potentially adversely affecting the handling characteristics. They could not actually do their job. That is a world away from pretty much any squadron activity.

What proportion of the general RAF manning are at a level of fitness that the specialists (regiment, PTIs) are at? Nowhere near 100% and for good reason - they do not require to be: their fitness “bar” is set at a level suitable for their role and that role requires them to be warfighters.

The role of a CFAV does not require that level of fitness, though the role of some of our own specialists may well do. Consequently our bar should be set lower. If a person is healthy enough to actually carry out their role within the cadet forces and has valuable skills to bring then there seems to be little logic in excluding them for an ideal.

Everything else is aesthetics and aesthetics is no basis on which to run any organisation. I do sympathise with the “Fat RAF” perception and perhaps we shouldn’t be wearing the uniform of a fighting force (shut up, Army :wink: ) so as to make that distinction clearer.

Besides, us fatties also serve as an example to the young 'uns: a cautionary one :wink:

11

[quote=“incubus” post=11255]
The role of a CFAV does not require that level of fitness, though the role of some of our own specialists may well do. Consequently our bar should be set lower. If a person is healthy enough to actually carry out their role within the cadet forces and has valuable skills to bring then there seems to be little logic in excluding them for an ideal.

Everything else is aesthetics and aesthetics is no basis on which to run any organisation[/quote]

i dont disagree one bit with what you are staying and is the long and short of the argument.

however what “operational” requirement is there for a large majority of the RAF who dont go out on “operations”/have an “operational” need?
there are stacks of these personnel at each Station, Admin, MT drivers, chefs, nurses, even the Station Commander…they dont have a “operational” requirement like a pilot, PTI, or policemand would…so why adopt a fitness requirement?

what “operational” differences are there between a Station Commander and an ATC Squadron CO?

there is argument due to the level of activities and qualifications likely to be found in an ATC Sqn the CO has potential to be fitter than a Station Commander, or Starred general given the different roles and tasks that are performed on the weekends with the Cadets in comparison to a X Star General attending a formal function…

i would say there is an element of aesthetics involved in the RAF standard for those who’s trade or role is not specifically “operational”.
the MOD cant be seen as a leading fighting force is everyone is overweight and therefore set very achieveable fitness standards for a “moderately fit person” to weed out the fatties…

yet on the other hand there appears to be little concern about the image of a CFAV - why?

12

[quote=“steve679” post=11265][quote=“incubus” post=11255]
The role of a CFAV does not require that level of fitness, though the role of some of our own specialists may well do. Consequently our bar should be set lower. If a person is healthy enough to actually carry out their role within the cadet forces and has valuable skills to bring then there seems to be little logic in excluding them for an ideal.

Everything else is aesthetics and aesthetics is no basis on which to run any organisation[/quote]

i dont disagree one bit with what you are staying and is the long and short of the argument.

however what “operational” requirement is there for a large majority of the RAF who dont go out on “operations”/have an “operational” need?
there are stacks of these personnel at each Station, Admin, MT drivers, chefs, nurses, even the Station Commander…they dont have a “operational” requirement like a pilot, PTI, or policemand would…so why adopt a fitness requirement?

what “operational” differences are there between a Station Commander and an ATC Squadron CO?

there is argument due to the level of activities and qualifications likely to be found in an ATC Sqn the CO has potential to be fitter than a Station Commander, or Starred general given the different roles and tasks that are performed on the weekends with the Cadets in comparison to a X Star General attending a formal function…

i would say there is an element of aesthetics involved in the RAF standard for those who’s trade or role is not specifically “operational”.
the MOD cant be seen as a leading fighting force is everyone is overweight and therefore set very achieveable fitness standards for a “moderately fit person” to weed out the fatties…

yet on the other hand there appears to be little concern about the image of a CFAV - why?[/quote]

I think this is a bit of a common misconception…

All trades are expected to carry out FP duties in addition to their main role. That could be limited to GASP, but they could be expected to patrol (potentially as part of post attack recovery or just routine due to the ground situation) and could be involved in road moves or similar.

As much as I’m horribly prejudiced against fat people, I’ve met a few who make me look sluggish once they get shifting, so I don’t think introducing a fitness test would necessarily do anything to get the rotund folks slimmed down, it certainly hasn’t in the RAF.

13

Its get getting shifting and the stopping (especially if you’re in the way) that’s the problem :wink:

Only joking, I love fatties, but I couldn’t eat a whole one.

14

[quote=“tango_lima” post=11269][quote=“steve679” post=11265][quote=“incubus” post=11255]
The role of a CFAV does not require that level of fitness, though the role of some of our own specialists may well do. Consequently our bar should be set lower. If a person is healthy enough to actually carry out their role within the cadet forces and has valuable skills to bring then there seems to be little logic in excluding them for an ideal.

Everything else is aesthetics and aesthetics is no basis on which to run any organisation[/quote]

i dont disagree one bit with what you are staying and is the long and short of the argument.

however what “operational” requirement is there for a large majority of the RAF who dont go out on “operations”/have an “operational” need?
there are stacks of these personnel at each Station, Admin, MT drivers, chefs, nurses, even the Station Commander…they dont have a “operational” requirement like a pilot, PTI, or policemand would…so why adopt a fitness requirement?

what “operational” differences are there between a Station Commander and an ATC Squadron CO?

there is argument due to the level of activities and qualifications likely to be found in an ATC Sqn the CO has potential to be fitter than a Station Commander, or Starred general given the different roles and tasks that are performed on the weekends with the Cadets in comparison to a X Star General attending a formal function…

i would say there is an element of aesthetics involved in the RAF standard for those who’s trade or role is not specifically “operational”.
the MOD cant be seen as a leading fighting force is everyone is overweight and therefore set very achieveable fitness standards for a “moderately fit person” to weed out the fatties…

yet on the other hand there appears to be little concern about the image of a CFAV - why?[/quote]

I think this is a bit of a common misconception…

All trades are expected to carry out FP duties in addition to their main role. That could be limited to GASP, but they could be expected to patrol (potentially as part of post attack recovery or just routine due to the ground situation) and could be involved in road moves or similar.

As much as I’m horribly prejudiced against fat people, I’ve met a few who make me look sluggish once they get shifting, so I don’t think introducing a fitness test would necessarily do anything to get the rotund folks slimmed down, it certainly hasn’t in the RAF.[/quote]

just bringing a bi yearly fitness test and cracking down on it all got rid of a load of people I know of 3 that got kicked out in 2011 but as has been mentioned we are not RAF so I wouldnt expect an RAF fitness test.

Many of us get a bit of extra weight on later in life its just one of those things what worries me is the ones that are clearly too big for the uniform to fit it looks very bad and not smart at all when they are out in the public eye and as far as the public know they are RAF.

15

Fatness is one thing, but what of disability?

16

Most sensible position on disability I heard was that we can’t take staff who themselves need staff supervision. Otherwise it kind of negates the point of having them.

17

[quote=“Baldrick” post=11273]Most sensible position on disability I heard was that we can’t take staff who themselves need staff supervision. Otherwise it kind of negates the point of having them.[/quote]I’ve seen a few able-bodied staff members who could fall foul of that assessment :wink:

18

[quote=“redowling” post=11237]There was initiall a fitness ‘assessment’ (note not a test…) for commissioning candidates going through OASC. This got binned as getting the required medicals completed prior to the OASC date was causing a great deal of delay.

There has been multiple discussions on here of the pros and cons of fitness tests. PErsonally I’m of the opinion that if you wear the uniform you should meet a certain standard (PJFT as a min perhaps) but that’s becuase I do plenty of phys anyway.[/quote]Indeed - as a bronzed Adonis* it would make very little difference to me anyway.

[sub]* Only joking. I’m actually quite pale.[/sub]

19

This has been done to death on here. I’m tempted to lock it and direct people to the other thread already existing, but I’ll let it continue for a while to see if anything new comes up.

20

[quote=“pEp” post=11276]This has been done to death on here. I’m tempted to lock it and direct people to the other thread already existing, but I’ll let it continue for a while to see if anything new comes up.[/quote]Can’t you simply merge the threads?