Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

RNFT

Hang on a mo.

The RN and RNR need people who are fit to fight, not just numbers to impress the statisticians. Many RN/RNR personnel are not deploying to Ships any more - instead they will be on land in Iraq, Afganistan, Lebanon (!), etc. It is _not_ hard to run 1.5 miles in c12 minutes. The Army have to do it in 10.5 mins.

I fully support the idea of RNR bods being RTU'd if they can't do this. They may be reservist, but if they want to play the Armed Forces game then they have to be of a reasonable standard of fitness. Granted, their employers may be pissed off, but if they are not fit then they are of little use as deployed personnel.

Officer Cadets at BRNC have to perform the fitness test in their first week, and I understand the MSFT is now being performed at AIB. I can see no logical argument against this.

The tests are devised by the Institute of Naval Medicine and have been found to be representative of general fitness - as are the remedial training programmes for those who fail.

Oh, and the swimming test is not hard to pass. Two lengths of a pool then treading water for 3 mins - bloody hell, I am the most shit swimmer in the Fleet and I passed it!
 
angrydoc said:
Hang on a mo.

The RN and RNR need people who are fit to fight, not just numbers to impress the statisticians. Many RN/RNR personnel are not deploying to Ships any more - instead they will be on land in Iraq, Afganistan, Lebanon (!), etc. It is _not_ hard to run 1.5 miles in c12 minutes. The Army have to do it in 10.5 mins.

I fully support the idea of RNR bods being RTU'd if they can't do this. They may be reservist, but if they want to play the Armed Forces game then they have to be of a reasonable standard of fitness. Granted, their employers may be pissed off, but if they are not fit then they are of little use as deployed personnel.

You have my vote - but with one over-riding caveat.

RTU for not being up to the standard is a fact of life and, in principle, one I support but, regrettably, I have heard of courses (POLC for a couple of my guys in recent years as an example) where 1 or 2 people failed the Fitness bit and were RTU'd which then brought the viable numbers on course below the 'safety' level and the whole course was scrapped (1 day in when everyone had arranged time off work etc etc.)

The argument was that the course had to have a minimum number of students, and with a heavy emphasis on fitness, anyone who had fallen at the first hurdle was going to be a liability to themselves and others.

I can't help agreeing with the sentiment but find the fall out implications a bit galling.

This has also happened for other reasons than fitness (I think I remember one course being pushed pretty close to the wire because some of the students had turned up without a full set of docs). Whatever the reason though this is (IMHO) total bo**ocks - there HAS to be a better way of doing it than sending the whole course home because someone fails fitness (or twists an ankle) - it's not like these courses are preliminaries for Olympic competition.

Anyone else got any personal experiences to support this - or clever suggestions that could be fed up the food chain?
 
I'm a bit confused..!!

It was my understanding certianly for the LRCC not sure about SRCC that it was necessary to be medically certificated prior to attending the course and that this was to take place within 28 days of the course. As part of this it is necessary to complete the RN fitness test by either bleep test or 1.5 mile run.

Therefore if this is the case why are people failing the fitness when they arrive on course and.....
If you pass the bleep test prior to attendance of the course then as far as the Navy is concerned you are fit for duty to the Navys standard how then in the space of a week can I be deemed unfit simply because another element of the test is applied...
In order for this to be a legitimate surely it should be the case that in order to pass the RNFT that you must pass both the bleep test and 1.5k run..!!

The reason for the choice in the RNFT is due to the fact that as stated before some people have a good fitness level overall but are not able to run.....is this not why senior rates ad people over a certian age are allowed to do the rockport walk rather than run..

If it is the inference of previous messages that as we are now spending more time land based in Afghanistan, Iraq etc that there is a need to be able to run 1.5km to be deemed fit to deploy how can SR's who pass the Rockport Walk be deemed as fit on the basis that this option is taken for medical reasons i.e. it is not suitbale for them to run due to age etc etc.....how are these people therefore deployable theatres as described..

It seems to me that the whole issue is contradiction, inflexibility and double standards.

As a trouble making litte s**t, afterall what is this site for are we suggesting that if you cant pass a 1.5 mile run then you are unable to fulfil your role as a good leader...I for one have met a number of people that whilst passed the fitness test with flying colours on their LRCC I would not follow into the water..!!!
 
Warmonger,

I'm not suggesting those who cannot run a mile and a half in 12 minutes (or whatever) cannot lead, rather that lack of physical fitness should not be tolerated in the Armed Forces.
 
That was not my implication either however I can probably make my point clearer by way of example and would be open to your views:

A senior AB/LH within the RN/RNR attends the LRCC having completed his RNFT prior to joining passing his bleep test.
On his 1.5m run fails marginally to meet the required standard and I mean marginally by a minute for example
As my understanding with a marginal fail there is the opportunity to retake the run later in the course
In the mean time that leading rate/AB has performed to a high standard completing all relevant tasks i.e. briefings, leadership tasks etc
On second attempt fails to meet the required standard again by less than a minute and gets RTU'd

From a professional stand point bearing in mind the level of experience and the fact the rating has obviously performed well in order to get to the LRCC in the first place and that fitness issues very rarely occur whilst undertaking his duties..what is acheived by RTUing that person and labelling them as a failure...!!

As a reservist whose civilian role requires a high degree of people management I cannot see how RTUing someone adds value to any training process. In some cases I have heard of people being RTU'd on the Wednesday before completion on Friday.

If the trainee is 20st obese and looks like the 1.5m is likely to give him a sean connery then yes common sense prevails and they are binned and if this were the case I would question the medical certification in the first place.

Wouldnt a system of continual assessment throughout the course and in the event of marginal results that a conditional pass is granted and the rate is awarded on the previso that another RNFT is completed within a 3 months period etc.
 
Warmonger,

On LRCC you do not get RTUd for failing the 1.5m. In fact, you get a chance to do the bleep test instead, and there are other physical aspects such as the 3m. If you pass those, but not the 1.5m they may still let you stay. The point of RTUing someone on fitness is that the Assessed Command Exercise is very physical, and if you can't manage it you are out with your team, it is them who have to look after you, and cover you. The RN has a duty of care, and cannot allow people who they consider will injure themselves, to attend the ACE. The ACE is based on real-life, as a situation you could find yourself in, such as in the Asian Tsunami, or even evacuating civilians from Lebanon.

If you are RTUd, you are not treated as a failure, and in fact, the staff do all they can to get you on another course, including giving the phone no of the booking staff, plus you will know what to expect next time. (Obviously a bit more difficult for RNR getting more time off work). On my course, there where people who failed the fitness, but still passed. There where also people who failed, and where RTUd, because, as you say, there was a real risk of injury.

The real question is why do we allow people to go on these courses unprepared? It must be the responsibility of people who have recently returned from LRCC etc to educate those about to attend, and provide advice and guidance. Unfortunately this seems to happen very little. If there is no way they are going to pass, then they should not be sent in the first place.

As regards the difference between RN and RNR, yes, some years ago, whe n we had our own boats, there was a split between RN and RNR. Now we do the same courses and get the same qualifications; how can this happen if we have different rules?

BTW, I loved every minute of LRCC, and didn't get RTUd! If anyone wants any advice, who is about to attend, let me know. Finally won't be 3 badge AB. Well, we'll see...
 
Well without discussing specific names I know of people that have been RTU'd as a result of failing the 1.5m run.....can only speak as I see!!.

However your post is usfeul info and by posting you have higlighted the problem that the units do not take a hold of prospective LRCC candidates and make a concerted effort to ensure they are ready in all respects..!!

Yes it is the responsibility of people returning...but surely the units should be taking a hand in this as well!
 
WarMonger said:
I'm a bit confused..!!

It was my understanding certianly for the LRCC not sure about SRCC that it was necessary to be medically certificated prior to attending the course and that this was to take place within 28 days of the course. As part of this it is necessary to complete the RN fitness test by either bleep test or 1.5 mile run.

The point you make there is very valid. same for SRCC, you must have your physical fitness chit stamped to say are physically fit and have completed 1.5 mile or beep test in time laid down. So who is signing these chits?? If people are failing both RNR/RN somebody should look at the validity of the documenation. On my SRCC at collingrad people were calling it a day on the 1st and 2nd corner. :roll:
 
It's pretty simple. You lay off the pies and get a bit of exercise in. It's a simple matter of discipline and doing as you're told. There is no room for lazy fat unfit feckers in the modern Navy, and I have to say this is at least one area where "Standards" are improving. :wink:

The BRNC RTU issue arose because one or two people weren't fit enough to do the ACE/BILD phase and other trainees were having to lug them around as a result.
 
A guy from my unit has just been rtu'd from his LRCC.The problem was not one of his making either, he had been tested on the bleep test and signed off to a lower standard than that required for his age before attending the course, and he didn't realise this until it was pointed out by the staff on the first day of the LRCC.
As a result he was rtu'd and wasn't even allowed to attempt the 1.5m run, and was told heb wouldn't be allowed to attempt the 1.5 m run for 'health and safety' reasons. This meant him being rtu'd not because he was unfit but because of an admin error, and a totally inflexible member of staff. What an absolutley farcical state of affairs.
 
Swimming test has just got even easier by the way.
Now you jump in, stay afloat for 2 minutes, then swim 40m, then climb out unaided.
(As opposed to jumping in, swimming 40m, 3mins afloat then getting out.)
 
Lingyai said:
Should be, swimming would be much more relevant than running. The fitness test is a load of toss
Although if the lard ass could have run a bit faster to the section base to get some wedges for leak stopping no one would be swimming!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top