Dropping of PFT for TA

[junglist01]

Can anyone comfirm if they have heard this as well ,that they have dropped the PFT for the TA unless you are going to be Deployed....

 

[Tartan_Terrier]

You have got to be kidding!

I sincerely hope that you've heard wrong.

 

[polar]

3 letters went out at about the same time which said 3 different things. Just tell the pie eaters its still on, to be on the safe side

 

[junglist01]

Our pie eaters never even attempt it, never mind pass 1 !!!!!!

 

[scaryspice]

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.

 

[junglist01]

Again another document from the powers that be, that is clear as mud, surely that new that it wasnt gender-neutral when when it was introduced.

 

[Blyth_spirit]

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.

Be on the safe side - do the PFT.

 

[Werewolf]

No good idea ever included the phrase "gener neutral".
If it's true, whoever came up with this should fcuk off back to the Guardian.

 

[msr]

Do you think that someone has been reading arrse?

msr

 

[scaryspice]

No good idea ever included the phrase "gender neutral".
If it's true, whoever came up with this should fcuk off back to the Guardian.

To be fair the (revolting I agree) phrase wasn't used in the letter itself - it's my interpretation of what they meant.

I think you will find it has to do with equality and pay and all that malarkey.

 

[Un-Friendly-Fire]

Just out of interest surely the test has seperate standards between genders why isn't it gender neutral already?

 

[MikeL]

loggie mate of mine seems to think the PFT is still a bounty requirement... PFT is a test, whereas the BPFA was an Assessment, sort of makes sense by the wording that its needed to pass...

 

[scaryspice]

UFF - I've explained it badly. The test cannot be used as bounty earning one because male and female standards differ.

MikeL - your "loggie mate" is wrong. I have the letter in front of me. I quote "we have removed a PFT pass as a Bounty requirement".

 

[BusyDoingNothing]

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.

 

[msr]

I have the letter in front of me. I quote "we have removed a PFT pass as a Bounty requirement".

From where? I don't see it in TA Regs...

msr

 

[FluffyBunny]

LAND/RF/5657 15 Nov 06 refers.

 

[tothepubandbeyond]

Well the CFT isnt "Arm Neutral"-ie 25kg for inf, 20kg for cav etc, so why shouldnt the PFT be used if the CFT is? plus PFT is a MATT in itself so it must be a requirement.

 

[FluffyBunny]

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.

 

[scaryspice]

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.

Expect further clarification.....

 

[msr]

Apologies for being boring, but TA Regs don't even mention MATTS. How can a letter from Land alter our Terms of Service?

msr

P.S. Having read that letter it is very clear that some Staff Officer somewhere may be losing the plot... anyone who needs 17 or 18 footnotes is on a hiding to nothing.