# FORCE test, COVID and PERs



## Navy_Pete (13 Jan 2021)

Out of curiosity, anyone know what the direction this year will be on PERs for lapsed FORCES test and COVID?

With the various lockdowns, and restricting part 1&2 medicals for OUTCANS/deployments, probably not alone in looking at no path to having a valid test this year, so wondering if there will be a 'not tested due to COVID' allowance on PERs this year without the normal penalties you would get for lapsing without some kind of valid personal medical reason or similar.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2021)

FORCE tests where I am at have been an "on/off/on" situation;  just today, direction came out that FORCE tests are "on" again.  However, Comd direction (WComd level) is also that you will do your FORCE test on your month of birth, _or as required before that for promotions, deployments_.  This direction is a management strategy so that there is some order to 'who does it when' because of the significant backlog.

* Aircrew and, I'm assuming divers, are continuing to do their Pt 1 and 2 medicals.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Jan 2021)

My personal challenge is there is currently no routine bookings for part 1&2 medicals, so unless you are OUTCAN, deploying, air crew, diver etc. you are SOL, and that's been the party line since at least the summer.

In Ontario, so we're locked down again for another two months, but assuming force tests are off again.

Just a check in the box for me this year, and with the pandemic haven't been worried about it, but figured I'd ask here first. Between the provincial lockdown and a personal quarantine I had to do think I'm up to 4 months total this year, but getting dinged for it would be pretty 2020.


----------



## Weinie (13 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> FORCE tests where I am at have been an "on/off/on" situation;  just today, direction came out that FORCE tests are "on" again.  However, Comd direction (WComd level) is also that you will do your FORCE test on your month of birth, _or as required before that for promotions, deployments_.  This direction is a management strategy so that there is some order to 'who does it when' because of the significant backlog.
> 
> * Aircrew and, I'm assuming divers, are continuing to do their Pt 1 and 2 medicals.


We (Ottawa NCR) were scheduled to re-start FORCE tests next month, and an allocation for L1's and timings was distributed. Not sure what the latest provincial regulations mean in terms of implications.


----------



## kev994 (13 Jan 2021)

They've been shut down in Winnipeg since last Feb, so everyone here will be expired.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jan 2021)

I would expect this to be addressed in the annual PER CANFORGEN, which is usually sent out end Feb after people have been writing PERs for 3 months already....


----------



## Furniture (13 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I would expect this to be addressed in the annual PER CANFORGEN, which is usually sent out end Feb after people have been writing PERs for 3 months already....


The best part about my position right now is not writing PDRs/PERs. The madness of mid-Jan first PER drafts is just a distant memory now...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Jan 2021)

WeatherdoG said:


> The best part about my position right now is not writing PDRs/PERs. The madness of mid-Jan first PER drafts is just a distant memory now...


For one of the few times since I was a Private 40 years ago (I also had no PERs doing undergrad and post grad, or as an LO in a foreign capitol), I do not have to worry about PERs....


----------



## Zoomie (14 Jan 2021)

CFPAS provides direction - it has for years.   PT Test yes or no, no comments required.   CFPAS mentions that any admin measures are a unit function and no impact to PER scoring is implied.  Not even SCRIT covers PT test.

The only official direction that states FOrCE test is required is FGBL (along with weapons handling, NBCD, etc).


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jan 2021)

Zoomie said:


> CFPAS provides direction - it has for years.   PT Test yes or no, no comments required.   CFPAS mentions that any admin measures are a unit function and no impact to PER scoring is implied.  Not even SCRIT covers PT test.
> 
> The only official direction that states FOrCE test is required is FGBL (along with weapons handling, NBCD, etc).


You may want to read CANFORGEN 087/06. It requires a valid PT test for promotion.  Furthermore, CANFORGEN 022/19 required a valid PT test to be admissible to the promotion boards but that was superseded by CANFORGEN 132/19. The direction from 087/06 remains however.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jan 2021)

Last year the direction re: FORCE tests/promotion came out after the PER CANFORGEN;  anyone who is curious to see what last years direction was:

CANFORGEN 071/20 Direction on promotions during APS 20 in response to COVID-19

4.  PROMOTION CRITERIA. EXCEPTIONS TO CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR THE 2020 PROMOTION YEAR ONLY. THESE ARE NOT RETROACTIVE TO PREVIOUS YEARS PROMOTION LISTS NOR TO FUTURE YEARS PROMOTION LISTS. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

b. PHYSICAL FITNESS. NOTWITHSTANDING PREREQUISITES LISTED AT REF D, SINCE THE CONDUCT OF FORCE TESTS IS CURRENTLY LIMITED EXCLUSIVELY TO SUPPORTING CAF OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, MEMBERS WHO DO NOT HOLD A CURRENT FORCE TEST AT THE TIME OF THEIR INTENDED PROMOTION WILL BE EXCUSED FROM HAVING A CURRENT FORCE TEST FOR THE 2020 PROMOTION YEAR

(Ref D to 071/20 is CANFORGEN 012/17 DE-LINKING OF MEDICAL CONDITION FROM PROMOTION CRITERIA)


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Last year the direction re: FORCE tests/promotion came out after the PER CANFORGEN;  anyone who is curious to see what last years direction was:
> 
> CANFORGEN 071/20 Direction on promotions during APS 20 in response to COVID-19
> 
> ...



Why not do it outside like, you know, that 'train like we fight' thing?


----------



## dimsum (14 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Why not do it outside like, you know, that 'train like we fight' thing?


I don't know about you, but I definitely run then drop to the ground when I hear the DCO coming.  

DCO = Extra work


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> I don't know about you, but I definitely run then drop to the ground when I hear the DCO coming.
> 
> DCO = Extra work


But do you do the jazz hands? Otherwise it doesn't count!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Why not do it outside like, you know, that 'train like we fight' thing?


Are we allowed to say the F word still?


----------



## dimsum (14 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Are we allowed to say the F word still?


Forethought?  Fun (without the "forced")?


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> Forethought?  Fun (without the "forced")?


----------



## ballz (15 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Why not do it outside like, you know, that 'train like we fight' thing?



Actually one the problems we ran into was that, in the Reg Force, since it's supposed to be the PSP that runs our tests for us, even if we had a qualified person run the test for us (and there were qualified people, since originally the plan was to enable us to run our own tests so people had the qualification done already), they would not recognize it and enter it into the system.

Where's that emoji for shooting ourselves in the foot when you need it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> Actually one the problems we ran into was that, in the Reg Force, since it's supposed to be the PSP that runs our tests for us, even if we had a qualified person run the test for us (and there were qualified people, since originally the plan was to enable us to run our own tests so people had the qualification done already), they would not recognize it and enter it into the system.
> 
> Where's that emoji for shooting ourselves in the foot when you need it.


I‘d post a PSP logo if we had one


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jan 2021)

I find it pretty insulting that the CAF doesn't trust Snr NCOs, Warrant/Pretty Officers and Officers to administer something as simple as a PT test.  How "qualified" does someone need to be to watch someone lift sandbags above a line of tape on a wall the required amount of times?  

This is what happens when mini-empires are allowed to establish themselves.  There is far too much civilian control in the modern military, for my liking.


----------



## Furniture (15 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I find it pretty insulting that the CAF doesn't trust Snr NCOs, Warrant/Pretty Officers and Officers to administer something as simple as a PT test.  How "qualified" does someone need to be to watch someone lift sandbags above a line of tape on a wall the required amount of times?
> 
> This is what happens when mini-empires are allowed to establish themselves.  There is far too much civilian control in the modern military, for my liking.


I imagine part of it is the PSP empire, and part is that PSP aren't part of a members CoC. They have no motivation to reward or punish someone with false scores. The simple solution to that would be having Snr members from other units conduct the tests, but we already have PSP kicking around, so why bother?


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2021)

WeatherdoG said:


> I imagine part of it is the PSP empire, and part is that PSP aren't part of a members CoC. They have no motivation to reward or punish someone with false scores. The simple solution to that would be having Snr members from other units conduct the tests, but we already have PSP kicking around, so why bother?


Like weapon handling, voice procedure, vehicle and equipment maintenance, small and large unit tactics etc etc, fitness training and testing is an important part of leading the development of a successful fighting force.

Even more importantly, depending on what role you play on the battlefield, physical fitness can be a decisive factor in whether you win or lose, live or die.

In the 'olden days' tasking junior leaders, and potential junior leaders, with running fitness training for the unit was an excellent way to build even better, more physically fit, leaders.

If we are willing to take away the ability of units to do their own fitness training, how can we expect them to take greater ownership over that critically important aspect of preparing for battle?


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jan 2021)

We have two qualified FORCE evaluators, both belonging to the recruiting cell. They are only allowed to conduct FORCE evaluations in that context, but of course they're under employed as civies are not allowed in the building.

For us, PSP comes in monthly and does our FORCE tests, but we're going to have significant numbers of expired pers this year as civies are not allowed in the building.


----------



## Furniture (15 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Like weapon handling, voice procedure, vehicle and equipment maintenance, small and large unit tactics etc etc, fitness training and testing is an important part of leading the development of a successful fighting force.
> 
> Even more importantly, depending on what role you play on the battlefield, physical fitness can be a decisive factor in whether you win or lose, live or die.
> 
> ...


I haven't suggested we don't let units conduct the PT training, I suggested we don't allow them to evaluate the training. It helps prevent units from deciding on their own standards, and as I said earlier rewarding/punishing those they choose. I'm not suggesting most units would do it, but it would happen.  

The training conducted at the unit level is tested by training staff outside the unit CoC prior to a unit going to theater. When on ship, we had Sea Training sail with us several times prior to deploying, to ensure the training we had done as a unit was up to the standard. Having Snr pers from outside the CoC come in and conduct PT evaluations would be no different, apart from some people maybe being offended that a PO1 or Air Force WO is evaluating the fitness of an army Cpl. 

That said, so long as we pay PSP staff to be at the gym it is unlikely that we will not use them for Pt evaluations.


----------



## dimsum (15 Jan 2021)

WeatherdoG said:


> Having Snr pers from outside the CoC come in and conduct PT evaluations would be no different, apart from some people maybe being offended that a PO1 or Air Force WO is evaluating the fitness of an army Cpl.


That's silly.  It's not like you have to be equally fit to see whether their foot is past the line or how high the sandbag went on the lift.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2021)

WeatherdoG said:


> I haven't suggested we don't let units conduct the PT training, I suggested we don't allow them to evaluate the training. It helps prevent units from deciding on their own standards, and as I said earlier rewarding/punishing those they choose. I'm not suggesting most units would do it, but it would happen.
> 
> The training conducted at the unit level is tested by training staff outside the unit CoC prior to a unit going to theater. When on ship, we had Sea Training sail with us several times prior to deploying, to ensure the training we had done as a unit was up to the standard. Having Snr pers from outside the CoC come in and conduct PT evaluations would be no different, apart from some people maybe being offended that a PO1 or Air Force WO is evaluating the fitness of an army Cpl.
> 
> That said, so long as we pay PSP staff to be at the gym it is unlikely that we will not use them for Pt evaluations.



Agreed. It's not about the training, it's about who does the testing.

Based on the FORCE test rationale, I'll assume then that we'll need some kind of supreme being, in the form of a CAF level evaluator, to formally sign off on our TOET's, or run our PWT 3 for us, as well?

I mean, seriously, this is Empire Building of the most obvious type, isn't it?


----------



## kev994 (15 Jan 2021)

But but, can they put it on an iPad? And tell you that if you go faster next year you’ll get more points?


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2021)

kev994 said:


> But but, can they put it on an iPad? And tell you that if you go faster next year you’ll get more points?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2021)

WeatherdoG said:


> I haven't suggested we don't let units conduct the PT training, I suggested we don't allow them to evaluate the training. It helps prevent units from deciding on their own standards, and as I said earlier rewarding/punishing those they choose. I'm not suggesting most units would do it, but it would happen.



Using LRP as an example, Pilot Captains are Aircraft Commander and Crew Commanders.  They sign for aircraft, and lead crews of up to 14+ people and sometimes a small maint team on deployments to foreign countries to conduct operations.  They pass upgrades, boards and are appointed to their Skipper position ultimately with the CO blessing.  ACSOs are Lead ACSOs (TacNavs) and also crew commanders, also after successfully navigating upgrades, boards, and CO appointment.  AES Op Snr and Jnr NCOs are appointed as Lead AES Op by COs and charged with many aspects of leadership and responsibility, including assessment of subordinates and their flying/trade proficiency.  Flight Engineers are responsible for the maint folks, AC serviceability, weight/balance.  They can range in rank from Cpl to MWO and are also appointed as Lead FE by the CO.  A top category Cpl can effectively be a Basic Category qual MCpl -> MWOs boss for all things flying related.

Despite all of the responsibility and trust bestowed on these folks...it's somehow above their ability to oversee a fitness test?  

We, as the CAF, entrust things like UDIs to Warrant/Petty Officers, Junior Officers.  Designated Assistants...same.  Summary Trial, Remedial Measures to correct Conduct/Performance deficiencies.  These are all done by the same people who could administer a simple fitness test. 

I'm not a fan of 'wide brush' restrictions or policy to prevent something that "might happen" on a limited level.  Punish those who abuse their authority.  Simple.  If we can't be trusted with a fitness test, we're truly fucked and should be disbanded as a military.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jan 2021)

FORCE tests by PSP is all about PSP wanting more money.  That the retired Generals that infest Morale and Welfare claim that COs cannot be trusted to administer fitness tests says far more about their tenures as COs than anything else...


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Using LRP as an example, Pilot Captains are Aircraft Commander and Crew Commanders.  They sign for aircraft, and lead crews of up to 14+ people and sometimes a small maint team on deployments to foreign countries to conduct operations.  They pass upgrades, boards and are appointed to their Skipper position ultimately with the CO blessing.  ACSOs are Lead ACSOs (TacNavs) and also crew commanders, also after successfully navigating upgrades, boards, and CO appointment.  AES Op Snr and Jnr NCOs are appointed as Lead AES Op by COs and charged with many aspects of leadership and responsibility, including assessment of subordinates and their flying/trade proficiency.  Flight Engineers are responsible for the maint folks, AC serviceability, weight/balance.  They can range in rank from Cpl to MWO and are also appointed as Lead FE by the CO.  A top category Cpl can effectively be a Basic Category qual MCpl -> MWOs boss for all things flying related.
> 
> Despite all of the responsibility and trust bestowed on these folks...it's somehow above their ability to oversee a fitness test?
> 
> ...


----------



## dimsum (16 Jan 2021)

I'm too lazy to research this, but are we the only military to have fitness testing done by non-military personnel?  I know the UK, Australia, etc have uniformed PT personnel (and so did we until the 90s).


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> I'm too lazy to research this, but are we the only military to have fitness testing done by non-military personnel?  I know the UK, Australia, etc have uniformed PT personnel (and so did we until the 90s).


In the UK, units had PT staff who were trained by the RAPTC (Royal Army Physical Training Corps). a.k.a. 'The Club Swingers'

These RAPTC trained regimental PT staff ran most of our PT testing, and helped the CO build a good fitness program to match whatever we were getting ready for. Coy level PT staff helped the OCs execute. As a Coy 2IC, I had access to these well trained people to help implement great PT for the troops.

On courses, like at RMA Sandhurst and the various Recruit training depots, the RAPTC staff ran much of the physical training. 

And it was always really, really hard. 

I was at Depot PARA in 1982 and recall watching 2  & 3 PARA doing their (really short term) workups for deployment to the Falklands War, surrounded by a cloud of RAPTC staff. They were beasted mercilessly, but scientifically, and did regular 20 milers culminating in a 50 miler carrying up to 70lb loads. No surprise, this training came in handy for the main event, as is well documented. 

Shortly thereafter, I enjoyed a similar 'privilege' at the hands of the Club Swingers


----------



## kev994 (16 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> I'm too lazy to research this, but are we the only military to have fitness testing done by non-military personnel?  I know the UK, Australia, etc have uniformed PT personnel (and so did we until the 90s).


USCG doesn’t have a fitness test, they have weight limitations. Their aircrew has an annual swim test overseen by the swimmers. Though in fairness it would be pretty obvious if someone failed the swim test.


----------



## Zoomie (17 Jan 2021)

USAF conduct their own PT tests.


----------



## Quirky (17 Jan 2021)

I miss the old shuttle beep test and watching the completely out of shape hippos barely make it to level 4/5. Why women had lower standards for that test I never knew, cardio and running is something that's universal and doesn't discriminate on gender. It was always fun watching hardcore gym rats who didn't do any sort of endurance training to back their weights fail before level 8. I could still bench/dead/squat 2 plates for reps in my 20s but I backed it up with reaching at least level 10 on the run. Too many people failed that test so they eroded fitness standards to sandbag lifts because that's easier. Probably for another thread though.


----------



## MJP (17 Jan 2021)

They didn't change it because people were failing nor were many people failing it outright anyway. They changed it became the EXPRES test had little correlation to the  six Common Military Tasks. It made as it should be one common standard for all members of the CAF regardless of trade, age or gender that is scientifically correlated to the actual standard. Hard to kick someone out for not meeting the standard if your standard isn't linked to the Bona Fide Occupational Requirements.

*Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation*

The Canadian Forces developed the Minimum Physical Fitness Standard for all military personnel, regardless of trade classification, age or gender. Extensive research provided six Common Military Tasks, which all personnel might be expected to perform in time of emergency. This rationale was used as the basis to establish Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFOR) in compliance with the Charter of Human Rights.

There are six common military tasks which form the new Minimum Physical Fitness Standard for Universality of Service. They are essential, physically demanding tasks anyone in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is expected to be able to perform. These tasks are derived from real operational scenarios which have been identified and described by military subject matter experts, and have been scientifically validated by the PSP Directorate of Fitness.


----------



## Quirky (17 Jan 2021)

How many trades does the six common military tasks affect on a daily basis? I have never done any of those things, including on international ex’s or deployments. The minimum standard for our current FORCE test is a joke and doesn’t encourage a healthy active lifestyle.


----------



## kev994 (17 Jan 2021)

Quirky said:


> How many trades does the six common military tasks affect on a daily basis? I have never done any of those things, including on international ex’s or deployments. The minimum standard for our current FORCE test is a joke and doesn’t encourage a healthy active lifestyle.


When it first came in I said the same thing... about a week later Portage-la-Prairie flooded and I had to send a bunch of pilots to fill and pile sandbags.


----------



## MJP (17 Jan 2021)

Quirky said:


> How many trades does the six common military tasks affect on a daily basis? I have never done any of those things, including on international ex’s or deployments. The minimum standard for our current FORCE test is a joke and doesn’t encourage a healthy active lifestyle.


Likely very few but that isn't the point nor is the FORCE designed to encourage a healthy life style. It is a bare minimum physical standard that applies to all military personnel as they could have to do any one of those six tasks at some point in their career regardless of trade. Lots of folks that thought they would never have to encounter those tasks got introduced to them from 2002-2012. 

CAF L1s are free to create their own tests to encourage physical fitness standards that better meet their environments needs including more stringent testing/standards for certain courses or trades.


----------



## dimsum (17 Jan 2021)

MJP said:


> CAF L1s are free to create their own tests to encourage physical fitness standards that better meet their environments needs including more stringent testing/standards for certain courses or trades.


RCAF tests:  Endurance-sitting, speed-reading, and accurate-typing.  Add some coffee-cup bicep curls too.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> RCAF tests:  Endurance-sitting, speed-reading, and accurate-typing.  Add some coffee-cup bicep curls too.


NCR test

Rope pushing, meeting endurance tests, max patience reps.

Also you could do the specialist 'Working Group Evasion' and 'conduct after bureaucratic capture' courses.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2021)

MJP said:


> Likely very few but that isn't the point nor is the FORCE designed to encourage a healthy life style. It is a bare minimum physical standard that applies to all military personnel as they could have to do any one of those six tasks at some point in their career regardless of trade. Lots of folks that thought they would never have to encounter those tasks got introduced to them from 2002-2012.
> 
> CAF L1s are free to create their own tests to encourage physical fitness standards that better meet their environments needs including more stringent testing/standards for certain courses or trades.


Are there any examples of such tests introduced by L1s? 

Seriously, I have no idea (as per SOP  ).


----------



## MJP (17 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Are there any examples of such tests introduced by L1s?
> 
> Seriously, I have no idea (as per SOP  ).


You know some of them, we just don't think of them in that fashion

BFT
Combat Force Test
CANSOFCOM has a few like Coopers Test for JTF2 and the CSOR Selection

Trade/course specific
SAR Tech 
Fire Fighter
Para
Close Protection


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2021)

SOF and SAR, I believe.

The Army brought in FORCE combat, which is... wanting.


----------



## MJP (17 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The Army brought in FORCE combat, which is... wanting.


FORCE Combat strikes me as the brain child of some staff officer that was asked to recreate the BFT but make it seem like it wasn't the BFT.  Funny part is is we wasted so much money making fake magazines instead of just upping the weight carried by 5 pounds.

The good part is we finally got training plates something that took a force of nature to do before.


----------



## Furniture (17 Jan 2021)

Quirky said:


> How many trades does the six common military tasks affect on a daily basis? I have never done any of those things, including on international ex’s or deployments. *The minimum standard for our current FORCE test is a joke and doesn’t encourage a healthy active lifestyle*.







Eye In The Sky said:


> Using LRP as an example, Pilot Captains are Aircraft Commander and Crew Commanders.  They sign for aircraft, and lead crews of up to 14+ people and sometimes a small maint team on deployments to foreign countries to conduct operations.  They pass upgrades, boards and are appointed to their Skipper position ultimately with the CO blessing.  ACSOs are Lead ACSOs (TacNavs) and also crew commanders, also after successfully navigating upgrades, boards, and CO appointment.  AES Op Snr and Jnr NCOs are appointed as Lead AES Op by COs and charged with many aspects of leadership and responsibility, including assessment of subordinates and their flying/trade proficiency.  Flight Engineers are responsible for the maint folks, AC serviceability, weight/balance.  They can range in rank from Cpl to MWO and are also appointed as Lead FE by the CO.  A top category Cpl can effectively be a Basic Category qual MCpl -> MWOs boss for all things flying related.
> 
> Despite all of the responsibility and trust bestowed on these folks...it's somehow above their ability to oversee a fitness test?
> 
> ...



I did say it was above their level, and I find it amusing the people feel the need to get that absurd when countering my point. Look at the quote at the top, now place that attitude in charge of testing people's fitness, and remove oversight from outside the CoC. Maybe you have only experienced perfect leadership in your years in the CAF, but I have certainly encountered enough people who would seek ways to abuse the authority. 

Having PT testing done by PSP is hardly a "wide brush" restriction, and having it devolved to Snr members from outside the CoC is not a "wide brush" restriction either.  It is a loosening of the current rules, while creating a system to prevent possible abuses and prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest in the event someone fails and requires administrative measures.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jan 2021)

You didn't say it was "above their level", agreed.  I never suggested you said that; I said it is certainly within their level.

What you did say was...and what I replied to was...



WeatherdoG said:


> I haven't suggested we don't let units conduct the PT training,* I suggested we don't allow them to evaluate the training*. It helps prevent units from deciding on their own standards, and as I said earlier rewarding/punishing those they choose. I'm not suggesting most units would do it, but it would happen.



You do realize, of course, the same people you're suggesting shouldn't evaluate PT tests are the same people who do more important things with the same (un) biased approach and ethics as the mbr's PER?  If they can't be trusted to fairly evaluate a PT test, why are they ok to produce / influence a PER, PDRs?


----------



## Quirky (17 Jan 2021)

kev994 said:


> When it first came in I said the same thing... about a week later Portage-la-Prairie flooded and I had to send a bunch of pilots to fill and pile sandbags.


I hope for the recruiting systems sake a bunch of pilots in their 20s don’t keel over and die after moving some sand bags. After 10-15 years in the rcaf and a couple larger flightsuit/combats, not everyone can handle the same simple tasks without stopping for a monster and a smoke.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jan 2021)

MJP said:


> FORCE Combat strikes me as the brain child of some staff officer that was asked to recreate the BFT but make it seem like it wasn't the BFT.  Funny part is is we wasted so much money making fake magazines instead of just upping the weight carried by 5 pounds.
> 
> The good part is we finally got training plates something that took a force of nature to do before.


That's probably because there's some weak individuals who thought that because the BFT said your rifle and helmet had to be carried, they could put it in their rucksack.


----------



## Furniture (18 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> You didn't say it was "above their level", agreed.  I never suggested you said that; I said it is certainly within their level.





Eye In The Sky said:


> Despite all of the responsibility and trust bestowed on these folks...it's somehow above their ability to oversee a fitness test?


That's fair, you didn't say it you simply implied that I had said it..


Eye In The Sky said:


> You do realize, of course, the same people you're suggesting shouldn't evaluate PT tests are the same people who do more important things with the same (un) biased approach and ethics as the mbr's PER?  If they can't be trusted to fairly evaluate a PT test, why are they ok to produce / influence a PER, PDRs?



Using PERs as an example here is a bad choice. The PER system is a proof positive that CAF will create their own standards at every level possible to suit a Commander's whim.  I am fairly certain we have all experienced the "no more than 10% "immediate" PERs" regardless of performance, or the "it's your first PER so it has to be developing". The PER system is pretty much the perfect argument as to why we shouldn't let units conduct their own PT testing. 

To me it comes down to the seriousness of the offence, and the potential consequences for breaking the rules. Almost everyone breaks the law every time they drive, by speeding. We do it because as long as you don't go nuts, you can get away with it, and if caught the consequences are minimal. I'm willing to bet none of us have committed fraud, because the consequences both legal and moral are severe.

Passing someone as a Aircraft Captain because they are a "good guy" might lead to death, or the loss of an aircraft. Giving an out of shape "good guy" a pass on the FORCE test has no real consequence, so the supervisor can give a pass with a "stern warning"  and nobody dies, no planes fall from the sky. 

Now picture the opposite, the out of shape member is bag of hammers on their last leg, their supervisor decides that dropping their PT scores to below a pass is a way to "solve a problem".  The member, who may have been a bag of hammers, or maybe the supervisor just disliked them, gets released from the CAF. 

I'm not saying all, or even most units would do it, but pretending it wouldn't happen is unrealistic. Just as unrealistic to my mind, is pretending the CAF would catch all or even most of the instances of it happening. If you were looking into a claim that someone's CoC had falsely given a failure on the PT test, who would you believe in the last scenario I presented? The bag of hammers, or the CoC?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jan 2021)

I'm not talking about a CAF process, such as CFPAS, specifically.  I'm using it as an example of, more importantly, the PEOPLE who the CAF entrusts to properly employ processes to evaluate other CAF members, etc.   In that context, PERs/PDRs are a good example, I think.

"if they can't be trusted to administer a PT test, how can the same people be entrusted to administer a PER, of which PT test results for a small part of".

If the CAF leaders from the rank of MCpl and up can't administer a simple PT test, then we as a military have some kind of systemic ethical deficiency.  Personally, I do not think that we do and that NCOs, Warrant/Petty Officers, and Commissioned Officers are fully capable of administering the FORCE test.  Will there be some who "score unnecessarily harshly"...of course;  the RCAF recognizes that junior instructors will mark harder than experienced ones - it is included in the Flight Instructor Course content and explained "why" this might/does happen.  Knowing/accepting that as fact, I monitored junior personnel new to any instructional roles more closely than those with 6, 12 + months of instructional experience.  I think that is normal, as well.



> I'm not saying all, or even most units would do it, but pretending it wouldn't happen is unrealistic. Just as unrealistic to my mind, is pretending the CAF would catch all or even most of the instances of it happening.



Using your logic, no one should drive a car because someone will drive impaired.  Punish those who abuse their authority accordingly.



> If you were looking into a claim that someone's CoC had falsely given a failure on the PT test, who would you believe in the last scenario I presented? The bag of hammers, or the CoC?



I would believe neither;  it would be an abuse of authority allegation and that is not something I'd "flip a coin" over;  failing a fitness test AND abuse of authority are fairly serious performance and/or conduct deficiencies.  A PT test failure is pretty routine in the COAs to be taken;  the abuse of authority, not so much. In that case,  I would gather all the facts available, and using the balance of probabilities, make the best recommendation, to the superior officer who tasked me to investigate, for their determination.   If conducting an informal AI, up to a UDI or SI, I'd have some left/right of arcs in the form of verbal/written TORs.

If I had an NCO that was one of my subordinates who was intentionally failing other subordinates of mine/theirs, that individual would be dealt with as harshly as my CofC would permit.  RMs, charges if warranted, required PER scoring and narrative...the more serious the transgression, the more serious the consequences.

I'll agree that there is a likelihood someone will abuse their position as "test evaluator".  If I had a NCO in my unit I thought "might" do something...as a leader it would be for me to mitigate that risk for my subordinates and superiors.  We have tools, policies and procedures to mitigate that, and to deal with those who have _ethical choice issues/deficiencies_.

My last thought;  DS SOLUTION.  NCMs and Officers do not test people from their own unit/section.  As an Aircrew WO, I would administer the tests to the maintenance pers at the Sqn, Maint NCMs and Officers would administer test to aircrew pers.


----------



## kev994 (22 Jan 2021)

If someone ‘protects the force’ by not exposing himself to the barber does that fall under initiative or reliability?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jan 2021)

Both, but you lose marks for Accountability and Ethics and Values for not following CAF dress instructions.


----------



## kev994 (22 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Both, but you lose marks for Accountability and Ethics and Values for not following CAF dress instructions.


The standard has been ‘relaxed’ here as they’ve all been closed for months. I’ve seen some taking it to the extreme, probably falls under the ‘supervising’ bubble of someone else.


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Jan 2021)

kev994 said:


> If someone ‘protects the force’ by not exposing himself to the barber does that fall under initiative or reliability?


I bought some clippers and have been cutting my own hair; can I get marks for self directed learning and hand skills?

Some hilarity has ensued for everyone else when something didn't blend, or I missed a chunk in the back. Easy fix, but kind of silly to have 3 phases of a haircut evolution.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jan 2021)

We'll send someone with a red helmet and matching mask to watch you cut your hair next time, and throw thunderflashes at you while you do it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2021)

MJP said:


> FORCE Combat strikes me as the brain child of some staff officer that was asked to recreate the BFT but make it seem like it wasn't the BFT.  Funny part is is we wasted so much money making fake magazines instead of just upping the weight carried by 5 pounds.
> 
> The good part is we finally got training plates something that took a force of nature to do before.


It was actually an old CWO who did the Pathfinder Course back in 1990ish.  So obviously scientifically validated of course 😄


----------

