RNFT, should it be changed?

Do you think the RN should have a different RNFT rather than a mile and a half?

  • No - fine as it is

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • other, please state

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1,134
D

Deleted 7

Guest
The RNFT is always good to see the levels of fitness, however, where exactl are you going to run onboard ship? Keeping in mind that you are not actually allowed to run onboard unless you are ont he upper deck doing circuits.

Do you think that ratings would be better off doing a RNFT based on strength and swimming? I don't know about other trades but I know that Dabbers have to have some strength, need it when pulling the frigging ropes and retreiving the towing line! But a test of ability, think Action Stations, your pretty nackered after 5hrs and yet you have another fire to fight, where is testing your ability and stamina to run 1,5 miles going to come in use?

You fall over the side or the ship is sinking, you have to get your arse into the ogin, where is the 1.5 mile run going to help you here?

Am I just being silly or would this make more sense?

Jenny
xxxx
 

Sea_Dodger

Lantern Swinger
Running is the basis of all fitness and the 1.5 mile run/bleep test is also aligned to test your vo2 max that, according to some boffins, determines your fitness level.
There should be some sort of strenght test involved, cause lets face it is is hard graft carrying 2 AFFF drums around at Action Stations, casuality evacuation, damage control...etc.
But I don't think they will change the fitness test 'cause even though it is not at all difficult at the moment there are a number of lard asses who can't drag themselves around are current fitness test and if it was changed we would end up with even more pathetic gym shy fat bodies on remedials.

Oh and if you find yourself swimming in the ogin it is probably because the lard ass you sent to get some more soft wood wedges to plug the hole in the side of the ship stopped off at the NAFFI for a pie!
 

MightyCrash

Badgeman
I am inclined to agree with Sea_Dodger. It is a basic level of fitness and it's not hard - once a year and takes no more than quarter of an hour maximum. Even if they did bring in another CV workout, rowing or cycling for example there would still be people failing it! The RAF don't even get the choice of 2.4km run/bleep test. They have to do the bleep test at the moment followed by press ups and sit ups. At least we get a choice not to shag our knees up.
 
Hve to side with Jenny here, running a mile and a half is ok but a much better test to measure fitness (suitability wise) to do the job, i.e. carrying a 90 Kilo dummy up a ladder or humping a submersible pump around. Much more practical than running.
 

Shakey

War Hero
As stated above, the mile and half is a good measure of VO2 max. It is calibrated for gender and age and is a good measure of overall fitness. Therefore it should stay.

However, and as I mentioned in a post ages ago, it is a 'gender fair' test. There was work underway on introducing a 'gender free' test, based around combat efficiency, damage control, firefighting etc. Unfortunately in the pilot tests, a lot of the females failed.

This puts the mob in a sticky situation 'cos we've already manned the ships with females, so to introduce a test which a significant proportion of ship's companies will fail through no fault of their own would mean ships that are not operationally capable due to lack of crew.

So they had to dump the gender free test.

To amplify the story, as you probably know women are not allowed in the infantry. The army did an experiment to see if women were physically capable of fulfilling this role.

At the moment, about 70% of males who join the army can pass the infantry physical tests.

About 0.1% of women who join the army can pass the same test.

After a special training programme for the women, they managed to raise this figure to 1%.

All this was in a report hidden away in a little corner on CHOTs about three years ago. It might still be there for those of you with access.

Moral considerations aside, the army isn't going to be putting women in front line posts 'cos they know that the overwhelming majority are not physically capable. The navy has already put women in front line posts but has backed itself into a corner manning-wise IMHO.

Some might say that the physical requirements onboard are less than those imposed on infantry so there is no problems with women onboard. I feel unable to pass a considered opinion on this but my gut impression is that they are not.

Don't mean to wind anyone up, am just stating the facts that I know.
 

Sea_Dodger

Lantern Swinger
Lingyai said:
Hve to side with Jenny here, running a mile and a half is ok but a much better test to measure fitness (suitability wise) to do the job, i.e. carrying a 90 Kilo dummy up a ladder or humping a submersible pump around. Much more practical than running.

I do agree that there should be a strenght test, but can you imagine the injuries if we tried to get people carrying 90kg dummies or running through flats with submersibles.

We lose so many people to injury just by asking them to put one foot in front of another at a speed a little faster than walking pace. The alternative would be would be carnage and not that practical either.

At the end on the day we are supposed to be a fit military service and by not being able to pass a basic fitness test does not put us in a good light. It's a requirement to pass it, so until a more suitable test comes along people need to knuckle down and just pass the test we have.
 
A

angrydoc

Guest
There'll always be people dripping about the RNFT - as there will be for anything which is compulsory! It's a good test of general fitness though - I see why people advocate carrying Fred up and down ladders but we get enough injuries from people running on the flat never mind moving in a second dimension!

11 laps of a T23, I believe!
 
I like the RNFT because the pass levels mean that even the fattest knackers can get round in time if they have enough mental discipline. It should really be called the RN Motivation Test. Leave it be!
 

bunnyjumper

Lantern Swinger
Personally, I prefer the bleep test to the 1.5 mile, so as long as they keep the choice I'll be happy. The 1.5 is a pass or fail, whereas the bleep test allows you to go on past the pass mark and give you an idea of how fit you actually are, so I think in the long run the bleep is a better measure. I guess you could argue that the 1.5 is the same, but I think most people just aim to pass that, whereas most people would try to push past the pass mark on the bleep - well that's the way I think anyway. Have to admit I'm out of shape though. Definitely need to get out running again. :lol:
 

Brains

Lantern Swinger
The RNFT as it stands is probably good for helping to maintain long-term health, rather than as a measure of ability to perform a current job.

Everyone is expected to be able to do their own job anyway, but with some incentive (ie having to pass RNFT) to at least make sure we don't become couch potatoes (the chance would be a fine thing, but some seem to manage anyway! :p ) the RN has a fair chance of keeping its people fairly healthy for the duration of their time in the mob.

Am I just making excuses or does this sound reasonable?
 

TheCommunicator

Lantern Swinger
bunnyjumper said:
The 1.5 is a pass or fail, whereas the bleep test allows you to go on past the pass mark and give you an idea of how fit you actually are, so I think in the long run the bleep is a better measure. I guess you could argue that the 1.5 is the same, but I think most people just aim to pass that, whereas most people would try to push past the pass mark on the bleep

Disagree with you here shippers, the faster you run the 2.4K (as it is more correctly known as!!) the better the pass! All RNFT results are now given a grade - Fail, Pass, good pass etc

From my experience of RNFT I tend to stop shortly after achieving the pass on a Bleep test but when doing the 2K4 I run at max effort to complete the distance and find out how good the pass is when the time is read out.

Personally though, I'd rather not have to do either!!!!!
 

bunnyjumper

Lantern Swinger
TheCommunicator said:
Disagree with you here shippers, the faster you run the 2.4K (as it is more correctly known as!!) the better the pass! All RNFT results are now given a grade - Fail, Pass, good pass etc

From my experience of RNFT I tend to stop shortly after achieving the pass on a Bleep test but when doing the 2K4 I run at max effort to complete the distance and find out how good the pass is when the time is read out.

Personally though, I'd rather not have to do either!!!!!

Yeah, I guess it comes down to the individual really. I think the 1.5 (sorry I'm an old git and still work in good old British units :wink: ) though is almost a constant effort sort of thing (depending on how you run it), and the bleep is a gradual increment that gets harder as you go on. I guess the reason I prefer the bleep is that the lower levels effectively give you a warm up, but boy does it start to get hard after level 9 8O . Really is a personal preference I think, and it's good to have the choice. RNR's problem unfortunately is they let the RNFT slide for WAAAAYY too long, so it's a bit of a shock to us. But unfortunately, it needs to be done, so I guess we'll just get on with it. Motivation is definitely the problem.
 

New Posts

Top