USMC prove the point about women in GCC units.

Last edited:
The RAF Regiment, an infantry unit that fought with distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its primary roles are to guard air bases and provide troops to support Special Forces operations.

The Mail stretching the truth a little bit.
... along with the "endurance marches " in the first fortnight of trg which she had problems with ...
 
How many of you read the article and saw the video from the Daily Mail (Army instructor reduces female recruit to tears in shocking video | Daily Mail Online Aside from making the female soldier cry, I didn't find his language or actions out of the ordinary, but he never should have taken the video or posted it on line. Does anyone know any more about the story?
With the usual caveats about anything viewed through the prism of the Daily Mail, it's not a PC CoC story, the problem is filming the exercise, identifying the soldier involved and posting the video on social media - which is a definite no no. It also suggests that, despite everything, that rather important lesson is still not being driven home, particularly to Juniors, which is rather disappointing.
 
March of death I recall?
The 'five-miler of death' is hardly in the first fortnight.

I'm genuinely surprised that someone already serving in the RAF who applied for a transfer to the RAF Regt wouldn't be up to the physical standards required of inf recruits in the first couple of weeks of training, which really aren't that demanding for trained personnel - considerably lower than that for trained soldiers anywhere in the Army, from blanket stackers to dental techs.

Considering that her CoC considered her physically up to it that's a pretty sad indictment of the RAF.
 
With the usual caveats about anything viewed through the prism of the Daily Mail, it's not a PC CoC story, the problem is filming the exercise, identifying the soldier involved and posting the video on social media - which is a definite no no. It also suggests that, despite everything, that rather important lesson is still not being driven home, particularly to Juniors, which is rather disappointing.
Agree with you 100%, @ F_F, as evidently do most here and elsewhere, but the problem is that wasn't the issue for the VSOs, past and present, however much it should have been - for them it was his actions on the ground, which everyone else seems to see as not just acceptable but necessary.

Looking at the vid as publicised I'm not sure if the Cpl actually did identify the soldier involved or even her unit as in the versions I've seen her face was blanked out and she wasn't named, but it's unclear if he did that or it was edited later; similarly with the addition of the 'Belonging' and Army logo at the end.

While he shouldn't have posted it and should be dealt with accordingly for doing so, if he did edit out her identity I can't really see it as that heinous a crime - certainly not something that should lead to a CM and dishonourable discharge.
 
The 'five-miler of death' is hardly in the first fortnight.

I'm genuinely surprised that someone already serving in the RAF who applied for a transfer to the RAF Regt wouldn't be up to the physical standards required of inf recruits in the first couple of weeks of training, which really aren't that demanding for trained personnel - considerably lower than that for trained soldiers anywhere in the Army, from blanket stackers to dental techs.

Considering that her CoC considered her physically up to it that's a pretty sad indictment of the RAF.
Firstly, there's no such thing as the "5 miles of death" it was just the distance from the DOP to the LOD at the start of a movement box during LFTT.

I don't know why you're surprised at the level of females fitness in the RAF, I'm 48 and a 20 year old female has to get to the same level as me on the bleep test. However, in this case she would have had to pass the Potential Gunners Acquaintance Course. But as I'm sure most of us know, the start state standards are exactly that, a start state. The 2 weeks of constant phys, BLs, early starts and late finishes grind you down rapidly. The whole idea is to weed people out, I've no doubt plenty of blokes binned it as well.
 
Firstly, there's no such thing as the "5 miles of death" it was just the distance from the DOP to the LOD at the start of a movement box during LFTT.
Simply going by what the SNCO in charge of it called it in the much publicised vid; I assumed he knew what he was talking about as the vid was apparently approved for media distribution.
I don't know why you're surprised at the level of females fitness in the RAF, I'm 48 and a 20 year old female has to get to the same level as me on the bleep test. However, in this case she would have had to pass the Potential Gunners Acquaintance Course. But as I'm sure most of us know, the start state standards are exactly that, a start state.
I wasn't talking about "the level of females fitness in the RAF" but about the level considered suitable for someone who was already trained and serving to transfer to inf / RAF Regt.

I'm surprised because while I'm unfamiliar with RAF fitness requirements I would have expected her CoC to either be familiar with the inf standard or to familiarise themselves with it. According to the reports she clearly wasn't up to that standard, even for the first two weeks which is very basic, and that should have been obvious - that's a failure on the part of her CoC and that's what I'm referring to.

She was reportedly a transferee and so would have already completed her own recruit trg, and in the Army even her trg to be a blanket stacker or dental tech would, on completion of Ph1, have put her at a considerably higher standard of fitness than that required of an inf recruit in their first two weeks of trg. Since you raise the point, though, that the RAF apparently doesn't require anything approaching that very basic level of fitness is a surprise; mea culpa.
The 2 weeks of constant phys, BLs, early starts and late finishes grind you down rapidly. The whole idea is to weed people out, I've no doubt plenty of blokes binned it as well.
"constant phys" ... and "BLs "? In the first two weeks?

Dream on.

I suggest you read the reports on why she left. They may not be correct, but in the absence of other details they're all there is to go on and they're very specific - she wasn't up to the physical fitness requirements for the first fortnight of trg and constantly dropped behind, nothing else.

... and I strongly doubt "plenty of blokes binned it as well" as only transferrees would have been able to do so after two weeks.

If the reports are correct she was a transferee and so had already completed her basic trg and was a known quantity. That she failed so badly and so soon is a sad reflection of her CoC and the RAF, not of her or even women generally.
 
Simply going by what the SNCO in charge of it called it in the much publicised vid; I assumed he knew what he was talking about as the vid was apparently approved for media distribution.
I wasn't talking about "the level of females fitness in the RAF" but about the level considered suitable for someone who was already trained and serving to transfer to inf / RAF Regt.

I'm surprised because while I'm unfamiliar with RAF fitness requirements I would have expected her CoC to either be familiar with the inf standard or to familiarise themselves with it. According to the reports she clearly wasn't up to that standard, even for the first two weeks which is very basic, and that should have been obvious - that's a failure on the part of her CoC and that's what I'm referring to.

She was reportedly a transferee and so would have already completed her own recruit trg, and in the Army even her trg to be a blanket stacker or dental tech would, on completion of Ph1, have put her at a considerably higher standard of fitness than that required of an inf recruit in their first two weeks of trg. Since you raise the point, though, that the RAF apparently doesn't require anything approaching that very basic level of fitness is a surprise; mea culpa.
"constant phys" ... and "BLs "? In the first two weeks?

Dream on.

I suggest you read the reports on why she left. They may not be correct, but in the absence of other details they're all there is to go on and they're very specific - she wasn't up to the physical fitness requirements for the first fortnight of trg and constantly dropped behind, nothing else.

... and I strongly doubt "plenty of blokes binned it as well" as only transferrees would have been able to do so after two weeks.

If the reports are correct she was a transferee and so had already completed her basic trg and was a known quantity. That she failed so badly and so soon is a sad reflection of her CoC and the RAF, not of her or even women generally.
You've done a lot of assuming there JohnG. The video wasn't approved by anyone, it was one of Scouses training team who put it on YouTube.

You seem to think that all the others on the course were in their first 2 weeks of training, they had already done phase 1 so all the drill, CBRN, weapon lessons, first aid etc had already been done. They were in the first 2 weeks of Regt training, so your bizarre idea that a female on completion of phase 1 would be fitter than someone starting infantry training on phase 2 is odd. Also they are long days with constant phys, even if it's just going from lesson to lesson or the armoury and back.

As I pointed out, but you just ignored, she would have successfully completed the physical tests on the Potential Gunners Acquaintance Course. But that is the level required to start the course, the clue is in the word "potential". It's not a failing of her CoC, she met the standard to start but subsequently found it too hard, like lots of blokes do.

I'm on leave this week, when I go back I'll give my mate who runs the Trainee Gunner course a ring, but I won't post my findings on here as you would argue black was white.
 
You've done a lot of assuming there JohnG. The video wasn't approved by anyone, it was one of Scouses training team who put it on YouTube.
Absolutely no assuming at all. As is being discussed here (in this thread, currently) training staff posting videos of training without approval is strictly not permitted and is an offence; given the number of views of that video it is impossible for the RAF not to have known of it, giving them the choice of i)charging those concerned at most or at least having it removed, or ii)ignoring it and consequently giving their tacit approval. As no-one was charged and the video not removed it can only be the latter - there is no middle ground.
You seem to think that all the others on the course were in their first 2 weeks of training, they had already done phase 1 so all the drill, CBRN, weapon lessons, first aid etc had already been done. They were in the first 2 weeks of Regt training, so your bizarre idea that a female on completion of phase 1 would be fitter than someone starting infantry training on phase 2 is odd. Also they are long days with constant phys, even if it's just going from lesson to lesson or the armoury and back.
Neither "bizarre" nor "odd" - simply going by what was stated in every media report which, as I thought I had stated very clearly "... may not be correct, but in the absence of other details they're all there is to go on and they're very specific - she wasn't up to the physical fitness requirements for the first fortnight of trg and constantly dropped behind, nothing else." I've put the key part in bold as you appear to have missed it.

You have an entirely different version. You may well be correct (and I'm guessing probably are) but that's not what was reported.
As I pointed out, but you just ignored, she would have successfully completed the physical tests on the Potential Gunners Acquaintance Course. But that is the level required to start the course, the clue is in the word "potential". It's not a failing of her CoC, she met the standard to start but subsequently found it too hard, like lots of blokes do.
I didn't ignore it at all - totally the reverse. What I pointed out was that as she was reportedly already serving and transferring in her CoC should have been well aware of her physical ability after completion of full trg and of her ability to build on her fitness and, more particularly, her stamina and endurance. That can't be done with normal recruits who've only completed Ph1 as obviously that's all they've done, but any CoC worthy of being a CoC should know their people and their strengths and weaknesses better than that, as well as ensure they're properly prepared - that's the most basic part of command, FFS!

She was reportedly fully trained, serving and a transferee, not a half-trained recruit. If that's the case, in my view her CoC should have known that she lacked the potential to improve on her stamina and endurance to a minimum inf level or if they didn't know they should have found out and ensured she had the potential rather than just leave it up to some not particularly demanding / selective tests (by any Army post Ph1 standards) and the probability of failure.

To me command responsibility doesn't get much more basic than that. You don't agree? Fine, we clearly have very different ideas on the subject.
 
As I pointed out, but you just ignored, she would have successfully completed the physical tests on the Potential Gunners Acquaintance Course. But that is the level required to start the course, the clue is in the word "potential". It's not a failing of her CoC, she met the standard to start but subsequently found it too hard, like lots of blokes do.
What are the physical tests on the Potential Gunners selection Course?
 
The whole idea is to weed people out, ...
If true that's an incredibly wasteful process and the Army aren't the only ones who need to get their act sorted out.

Not strictly relevant to this thread, but looking at the standard required by the PGAC it's little different to that set for men in all arms of the Army at the end of Ph1 (although not all reach the set standard) which is hardly the ideal standard for infantry Ph2 trg to put it mildly.

More on topic, though, I note that the RAF Regt fitness tests (not the PGAC but the annual tests) were changed in October last year and the 1.5 mile run time substantially increased to 11.52 (from 11.11). While they're not directly comparable with the infantry's (Army) and they're arguably considerably easier it seems more than a little co-incidental that the time was increased just as the decision was made to accept women, confirming the worst fears of many here.
 
If I reading these correctly

https://assets.publishing.service.g...9909/FOI_03769_RAF_Fitness_Tests_Redacted.pdf

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/media/2405/20171107-oactu_information_book.pdf

You have to get 7.7 on the bleep test, someone 28 years your junior but female only has to do 7.2.
Cheers mate, I haven't done it since December, I knew it was something like that from idly reading the poster while waiting for my turn. I was a bit annoyed and suggested identifying as female next time.
 
If true that's an incredibly wasteful process and the Army aren't the only ones who need to get their act sorted out.

Not strictly relevant to this thread, but looking at the standard required by the PGAC it's little different to that set for men in all arms of the Army at the end of Ph1 (although not all reach the set standard) which is hardly the ideal standard for infantry Ph2 trg to put it mildly.

More on topic, though, I note that the RAF Regt fitness tests (not the PGAC but the annual tests) were changed in October last year and the 1.5 mile run time substantially increased to 11.52 (from 11.11). While they're not directly comparable with the infantry's (Army) and they're arguably considerably easier it seems more than a little co-incidental that the time was increased just as the decision was made to accept women, confirming the worst fears of many here.
The 1.5 mile run isn't an annual test, it's done at the start of training only. The annual tests are RAF fitness test (bleep test) 8 mile CFT, 100m REEF and withdrawal to a beep in 10m bounds, static lift, dummy drag, leopard crawl and Jerry can carry.
 
The 1.5 mile run isn't an annual test, it's done at the start of training only. The annual tests are RAF fitness test (bleep test) 8 mile CFT, 100m REEF and withdrawal to a beep in 10m bounds, static lift, dummy drag, leopard crawl and Jerry can carry.
Really?

So the RAF never sent this out on their twitter feed on 20 September last year detailing the changes that took place WEF 2 October?

... and those commenting claiming to be RAF Regt and noting the conditions for the one-and-a-half-miler had changed were making it up?

According to the RAF those are now also the RAF Regt tests pending joint service tests sometime in 2020/21, although obviously you may know differently.

FWIW, @Stacker, it's very similar to the plans detailed for the Army in the ongoing PFA thread, including binning the CFT.
I don't know, there was no such thing when I joined. I've watched a couple, it's just as you'd imagine, running about and doing the assault course. I've just googled this from a few years ago, but I doubt it's changed much. RAF Regiment
Well, at least you got part of that right - you don't know.

According to the RAF it's changed totally from the link given and is in three parts: a beep test (9.10), press ups and sit ups; a swim; and an assault course. Only a pass in the gym is a mandatory pass / fail, with the swim being a minimum of 25m and the assault course a best effort.

The time for the mile and a half run, in sports kit, has been extended to 11.52; that's way below the standard set for inf in the Army on completion of Ph1 trg.


(edit: I know that's more than three parts, but I didn't write the links!)
 
Last edited:
Really?

So the RAF never sent this out on their twitter feed on 20 September last year detailing the changes that took place WEF 2 October?

... and those commenting claiming to be RAF Regt and noting the conditions for the one-and-a-half-miler had changed were making it up?

According to the RAF those are now also the RAF Regt tests pending joint service tests sometime in 2020/21, although obviously you may know differently.

FWIW, @Stacker, it's very similar to the plans detailed for the Army in the ongoing PFA thread, including binning the CFT.
Well, at least you got part of that right - you don't know.

According to the RAF it's changed totally from the link given and is in three parts: a beep test (9.10), press ups and sit ups; a swim; and an assault course. Only a pass in the gym is a mandatory pass / fail, with the swim being a minimum of 25m and the assault course a best effort.

The time for the mile and a half run, in sports kit, has been extended to 11.52; that's way below the standard set for inf in the Army on completion of Ph1 trg.


(edit: I know that's more than three parts, but I didn't write the links!)
Really? Yes really. How do I know this? Because I have a copy of the current RAF Regt fitness standards on my desk. The link you provided isn't for annual tests. I said I didn't know about PGAC or PGSC, because it doesn't affect me, and I wasn't going to ring someone up on a bank holiday Monday. So to save Stacker a job I had a quick search that was obviously wrong.
But that brings us to the main point of this argument. I'm arguing from a position of knowledge and experience due to the fact that I'm currently serving. You're arguing from a position of frantic Google and Wikipedia searches due to the fact that your military service is so out of date that it's irrelevant or you've never actually been in (I know which one I'm veering to) Either way, this subject doesn't affect you in the slightest.
 
Really? Yes really. How do I know this? Because I have a copy of the current RAF Regt fitness standards on my desk. The link you provided isn't for annual tests. I said I didn't know about PGAC or PGSC, because it doesn't affect me, and I wasn't going to ring someone up on a bank holiday Monday. So to save Stacker a job I had a quick search that was obviously wrong.
But that brings us to the main point of this argument. I'm arguing from a position of knowledge and experience due to the fact that I'm currently serving. You're arguing from a position of frantic Google and Wikipedia searches due to the fact that your military service is so out of date that it's irrelevant or you've never actually been in (I know which one I'm veering to) Either way, this subject doesn't affect you in the slightest.
I'm afraid your "position of knowledge" is very clearly contradicted by the official RAF facebook link, which is self-explanatory, and you're as wrong about that as you were about your out of date post on the PGAC and that about beep test standards which you posted. There is little as misinformative as someone who relies on the rather tired old 'I'm serving, you're not, so I know and I'm right' - particularly when, as here, they're so completely contradicted by their own service. You're serving (allegedly) but out of date and misinformed - it's that simple and, unfortunately, no longer unusual.

The "main point of this argument" is nothing to do with your or my experience but is about whether women should be in GCC units and, currently, this particular woman in this particular GCC unit.

Evidently she shouldn't, nor should she ever have been put in that position . The standards set by the PGAC are so abysmally low that it isn't fit for purpose and it shows the RAF Regt in the poorest of lights - to my genuine surprise as, unlike most here who see the RAF Regt as a rather sad joke, I've found the few I've worked with to be reasonable.

An 11 minute 52 run time (1 1/2 miles in sports kit) is totally unacceptable for infantry (Army) at the end of Ph1 trg - as it is, incidentally, for the rest of the Army even if they're to be stacking blankets. Even now, with the pressure on numbers, they'd have been back termed - as would inf Ph1 recruits who could only manage the 'old' PGAC pass time of 11.11. That's not even near borderline for Inf Ph2 trg, yet that's the abysmal standard set by the RAF Regt at the start of Ph2.

No trained, in unit soldier who could only manage an 11.52 run time would have been considered by their CoC for transfer to inf (nor would they even if they could manage 11.11) - if male they'd have been doing remedial PT instead. Yet you not only see this standard as acceptable but see nothing wrong with the CoC (and the RAF) allowing her to waste not juat her time but everyone else's.
Either way, this subject doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Fortunately neither, apparently, does it affect you as in practice the RAF Regt has no GCC role, nor has it had for half a century, and given the 'standards' you're happy with it's easy to see why.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top