This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live
The letter accompanying the first revision of MATT and the TA Bounty says that the PFT is no longer to be a Bounty earning test because it is not gender-neutral. The letter does NOT say TA don't have to do it, just that a PFT pass will no longer be a Bounty-earning requirement.
Such a test should "not be used to select individuals for reward or advancement". The letter does go on to say the focus for TA should be on the CFT rather than just personal fitness.
I have to say that the Annex to the letter, which sets out the required standards isn't particularly clear as it still lists the PFT as a requirement.
It is still a requirement for all personnel to attempt a PFT at least once a year. All personnel should, naturally, pass! Failing the PFT is covered in the MATT documentation and should lead to training and retesting and AGAI 67 action if no improvement is achieved. Quite how this is to be enacted in a TA environment is unclear.
To achieve bounty it is no longer a requirement to pass PFT. It has not been stated whether it is a nationwide TA requirement to attempt a PFT to qualify for bounty but most units (and those whom I have spoken to) believe it to be. Hopefully there will be clarification on this as there is a chance of two different interpretations.
What a load of nonsense. And we wonder why some of the regulars don't take us seriously? One Army my arse. Don't tell the fat pie eaters - instead tell them there's a pie at the end of it for them, and have the duty officer follow up in the rear with the mess webley to put any of the bloaters that can't pass out of their misery. Death before dishonour and all that. What what.
There is no legislation the Army could be sued under that suggests standards between different arms and corps cannot vary. As an example, if this were the case, fat folk could sue for being denied parachute pay as they didn't pass P Coy.
There are stringent laws that suggest that any difference in standards due to race, sex or sexual orintation that resulted in financial penalty could be actionable.
Whether this means that Pte Doris could sue for being denied parachute pay due to her sex is open to a finer legal mind than mine.
On your second point, the MATT 2 (level 2) includes both the PFT and CFT.
As I read LAND/RF/5657, it suggests that the PFT must be attempted (like the old BPFA), with AGAI 67 action if you fail to pass, but the CFT, which is gender neutral as opposed to gender fair, must be passed.
Thanks FB for clarifiying the discrimination point.
The document you quote is indeed the one I was referring to. I agree it implies that the PFT must be attempted but it is not specific, which I suggest is what is required here.
In fact while the cover letter clearly says "PFT pass not required" the enclosure clearly says "successful passing of MATT ... is a requirement for Bounty" and then goes on to state (in the table) that the PFT is still part of MATT 2.