PFT pass now mandatory for TA?

#2
I might be being thick, but that document is dated 2006. Isn't it the original one that stated you must pass a PFT and was then changed to say you didn't?
 
#4
From that link:

"From 1 Apr 06, the successful passing of MATTs at the designated level for that individual/unit will become a qualifying condition for the award of Bounty. This initiative is designed to motivate individuals to maintain currency in the fundamental elements of soldiering, and to engender satisfaction and professional self-esteem as individuals attain unambiguous training goals. Bounty linkage will encourage MATT attainment, and will create well trained and more operationally focussed soldiers, who are more readily deployable. "

It doesn't work. Already this has been swept under the carpet at 2 TA units I am in contact with. The TA SSM/CSM was given the lead on ensuring this actually happened. The list was simply doctored to ensure everyone got their bounty.

And the gravy train rolls on...

(Is the cat amongst the pigeons yet?)
 
#7
I know of several regiments where an attempt (or 6) = bounty. However Bounty require cert of effic, cert of effic requires CO's say so - normally based on MATTS. IF CO wants to play differently then maybe there is some leeway?? No idea. Just turn up, complete/do the MATTS, wait and see if the bounty turns up.

How does it work for people on biff chit - no PT, for example?
 
#8
TA_sig said:
I know of several regiments where an attempt (or 6) = bounty. However Bounty require cert of effic, cert of effic requires CO's say so - normally based on MATTS. IF CO wants to play differently then maybe there is some leeway?? No idea. Just turn up, complete/do the MATTS, wait and see if the bounty turns up.

How does it work for people on biff chit - no PT, for example?
if they are on a biff chit they wont be able to do the test/assessment so they wont be able pass

i think its up the CO whether its mandatory, i was told that it wasnt this year - whether he can waiver it im not sure
 
#9
just to add to the mix, i thought the CFT was a bounty requirement but not the run due to the timings for male and female being different, therfore not equal opportunities

Flip
 
#10
It's all a bit of a jumble, which is a shame, as I think it could be solved in two sentences:

Following basic training, as a minimum standard, twice per annum for Regulars, once for the TA:

All soldiers will complete an 8mile CFT in 2hrs with 15kg (Combat Service Support), 20 kg (Combat Support) and 25kg (Combat).

All soldiers will reach the 'Green' standard (according to age and sex) on the PFT.

End of.

It's when people start trying to write in exceptions the whole thing falls apart (see tax/benefits legislation).

msr
 
#11
Yes Flip, that was what I thought, but reading MSR's letter again, and checking through what MATT2 actually says, it appears all of the PFT has to be passed as well.
 
#12
StabTiffy2B said:
I might be being thick, but that document is dated 2006. Isn't it the original one that stated you must pass a PFT and was then changed to say you didn't?
You aren't being thick. It is indeed that letter. MSR this is not new - not sure why you think it is?

The problem arose after the publication of this letter because it made the payment of a benefit (TA Bounty) dependant on different standards for men and women, which is illegal under employment law in this country.

There followed a rather confused episode which seems to have had the outcome that while TA would be expected to attempt and indeed pass the PFT, this was NOT a condition of them getting bounty.

However I agree with MSR that it still needs clarification.
 
#13
Apologies, the dimness is mine - I thought this was a new letter, as I hadn't seen that link on the MATTs web page before.

I am still trying to get a definitive answer on this though...

msr
 
#14
havent read the letter so cant comment on what it says but can only pass on our units outlook on the PFT.

this bounty year it is still an attempt at the pft although most can pass reasonably well at amber/green level. next year according to PTI it is being made into a must pass test and will affect bounty.

the cft is another matter though. the fitter ones do the full 4 mile or 6 mile cft while the biffchits and the sick lame and lazy get a bye ball after a bit of crying about it. FFS its a walk in the park
 
#15
TA ITD's or whatever they are under this new cack need to be solved thus.

PFT / CFT conducted by a regular corps bloke from their regular unit.

Corps blokes have no unit loyalty to the TA Bn thus have no reason to let the lazy mongs get away with what some of them have been getting away with since the Cold War.
 
#16
lemonsuckas said:
havent read the letter so cant comment on what it says but can only pass on our units outlook on the PFT.
And this hits at the nub of the problem: there must be one single standard which needs to be applied to all units.

msr
 
#17
Bad_Crow said:
TA ITD's or whatever they are under this new cack need to be solved thus.

PFT / CFT conducted by a regular corps bloke from their regular unit.

Corps blokes have no unit loyalty to the TA Bn thus have no reason to let the lazy mongs get away with what some of them have been getting away with since the Cold War.
That's such a good idea I'm wondering why it's not done already? Rather than the TA units struggling to find PTI's to conduct testing.

In fact, you don't even need all of the Regular PTI's - ask the local QMSI to conduct the testing, with perhaps support from the TA PTI's, at which time he could also assess the TA PTI's.
 
#18
ok so TA must pass these tests but why do regulars pass out of training without having passed any of them
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
#19
firesquaddie said:
ok so TA must pass these tests but why do regulars pass out of training without having passed any of them
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
because they're not tested by TA PTI's :D

Its gotta be outside examiners doing the testing or its open to paperwork fluffing.

On a serious note what evidence do you have to support your statement.
 

Latest Threads