# Research into different fitness standards for each element



## MARS (15 Aug 2008)

Did not see this anywhere else.  Pls feel free to merge/move or delete as appropriate.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2008/08/15/6458891-sun.html

Fri, August 15, 2008

New standards fit to be tried
UPDATED: 2008-08-15 03:01:04 MST


Canadian military to come up with different fitness guidelines for army, navy and air force

By CHRIS LAMBIE, THE CANADIAN PRESS

HALIFAX -- Does a sailor who spends hours hunched over a console listening to sonar signals need to be as fit as a soldier who humps his gear through the mountains of Afghanistan? 

Is there any point in making sure helicopter mechanics can do as many pushups as members of a naval boarding party who might need to scramble aboard a ship full of unfriendly folks in the middle of the night? 

"Do I know whether my pilots need to be more fit than my cooks?" said Mike Spivock, who conducts fitness research for the military. 

"Well, you would imagine that maybe, yes. But, then again, lifting 80-pound bags of potatoes might be very physically demanding. So, to a certain extent, we're just going into this completely blind." 

Researchers are assessing thousands of troops across the country to come up with different fitness standards for the army, navy and air force. 




They've already tested some sailors on the West Coast and plan to do the same in Halifax-based warships this fall. 

"We're going around to all the bases and to all the wings and I'm even going to Camp Mirage in the Persian Gulf next week to sort of measure what do people push, pull, lift, carry and all that stuff, to get a better idea of what they do," Spivock said. 

"We're not going to really know for about a year which tasks are more demanding or which jobs are more demanding." 

Historically, most people in the Canadian military have all had to pass the same fitness test, said Spivock, who holds a doctoral degree in health promotion. 

"What we've decided was that it might make more sense to break this up by the three environments," he said. 

"Our current fitness standard is 20 years old, and with changes in technology, changes in the nature of warfare, changes in operations, there's probably a need to give (it) a facelift." 

He's planning to develop different fitness standards for the army, navy and air force by 2010. 

"The aim of this is to make sure that we are putting the healthiest, fittest, most capable people in operational theatre." 

Civilian investigators have been assigned to study each branch of the military, as well as the elite JTF2 commandos. 

"We've just launched these . . . large-scale projects to kind of get a better idea of what these people do in their jobs to then be able to prepare them better," Spivock said. 

Researchers "have absolutely no idea" who has to be the most fit in the military, he said. 

If it turns out that people aren't fit enough for their occupation, "then, I'm sorry, but we're going to have remedial fitness; we're not just going to just kick you out of the Forces if you can't do it," he said.


----------



## gwp (15 Aug 2008)

PUBLICATION: 	The Chronicle-Herald
DATE:        	2008.08.15
SECTION:     	NovaScotia
PAGE:        	B2 
BYLINE:      	Chris Lambie Staff Reporter
WORD COUNT:  	  741
________________________________________
Forces: How fit is our fitness test?
________________________________________
Does a sailor who spends hours hunched over a console listening to sonar signals need to be as fit as a soldier who humps his gear through the mountains of Afghanistan? 
Is there any point in making sure helicopter mechanics can do as many pushups as members of a naval boarding party who might need to scramble aboard a dhow full of unfriendly folks in the middle of the night? 
"Do I know whether my pilots need to be more fit than my cooks?" said Mike Spivock, who conducts fitness research for the military. 
"Well, you would imagine that maybe, yes. But, then again, lifting 80-pound bags of potatoes might be very physically demanding. So, to a certain extent, we're just going into this completely blind." 
Researchers are assessing thousands of troops across the country to come up with different fitness standards for the army, navy and air force. They've already tested some sailors on the West Coast and plan to do the same in Halifax-based warships this fall. 
"We're going around to all the bases and to all the wings and I'm even going to Camp Mirage in the Persian Gulf next week to sort of measure what do people push, pull, lift, carry and all that stuff, to get a better idea of what they do," Mr. Spivock said Thursday. 
"We're not going to really know for about a year which tasks are more demanding or which jobs are more demanding." 
Historically, most people in the Canadian military have all had to pass the same fitness test, said Mr. Spivock, who holds a doctoral degree in health promotion. 
"What we've decided was that it might make more sense to break this up by the three environments," he said. 
"Our current fitness standard is 20 years old, and with changes in technology, changes in the nature of warfare, changes in operations, there's probably a need to give (it) a facelift." 
He's planning to develop different fitness standards for the army, navy and air force by 2010. 
"The aim of this is to make sure that we are putting the healthiest, fittest, most capable people in operational theatre." 
Civilian investigators have been assigned to study each branch of the military, as well as the elite JTF2 commandos. 
"We've just launched these . . . large-scale projects to kind of get a better idea of what these people do in their jobs to then be able to prepare them better," Mr. Spivock said. 
Researchers "have absolutely no idea" who has to be the most fit in the military, he said. 
"Basically what it comes down to is whether you're tall or short, obese or thin, male of female, whether you're 18 or 58, there's a job to do and you need to be able to do that job," Mr. Spivock said. If it turns out that people aren't fit enough for their occupation, "then, I'm sorry, but we're going to have remedial fitness; we're not just going to just kick you out of the Forces if you can't do it," he said. "We're going to help people and give them every chance we can." 
The army has developed its own battlefield fitness test that's "a little bit more rigorous" than the standard fitness test that requires, among other things, men under 35 be able to do 19 pushups, 19 sit-ups and a short timed run. 
The study will involve physiological testing among all military occupations. 
"We'll actually strap a heart rate monitor onto somebody and say, 'Go do your job for eight hours.' And then we'll come back and we'll follow the trace of their heart rate and we can say, 'You know what, this job requires exactly this level of fitness and this job requires exactly this oxygen consumption to be able to do it.' But we know how to prepare them for it and how to measure that they're actually there." 
The military is hoping to use the information to develop exercise regimes that cut down on injuries, Mr. Spivock said. 
Whatever happens, he doubts fitness standards will be lowered for anyone in uniform. 
"Even the guys who do have sort of sedentary, day-to-day jobs, we don't evaluate only what they do in their daily job, but what they could be called to do in (an) emergency," Mr. Spivock said. "Even your sailor who is sitting looking at a periscope all day or doing something like that, if there's a fire on the ship, he's a firefighter; if there's a man overboard, he has to rescue him as well." 
As the military fights to stave off attrition, he is aware of the need not to make new standards so onerous that people leave the Forces in droves. 
"If this is not handled properly, of course there could be an issue around retention," Mr. Spivock said. "And that's why our goal is to develop this culture in which it just makes sense for people to want to stay, to want to be fit and to want to improve themselves." 
( 'Our current fitness standard is 20 years old . . . there's probably a need to give (it) 
a facelift.'


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2008)

I would think that this is a silly/dumb move.  The CF as a whole, no matter what Trade, no matter what Environment, has to have high standards of physical fitness.  This article is an oversimplification of someone's argument.  When I read it, I suddenly saw Naval Sensor Operators falling out of their oversized chairs due to having strokes at the early age of 25.  This is ridiculous.  

Who gets selected for a Boarding Party?  Who gets chosen to repel an attack?  These are jobs that can fall on ANY member of the CF.  Just because you may be a driver, doesn't mean you can  let your physical fitness drop.  What would you do in the middle of nowhere Afghanistan if your vehicle broke down?  

We train for the worse case scenarios.  Physical Fitness is part of that training.  In the end, one's physical fitness may be the one and only thing that will save their life.


Obesity kills.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would think that this is a silly/dumb move.  The CF as a whole, no matter what Trade, no matter what Environment, has to have high standards of physical fitness.  This article is an oversimplification of someone's argument.  When I read it, I suddenly saw Naval Sensor Operators falling out of their oversized chairs due to having strokes at the early age of 25.  This is ridiculous.
> 
> Who gets selected for a Boarding Party?  Who gets chosen to repel an attack?  These are jobs that can fall on ANY member of the CF.  Just because you may be a driver, doesn't mean you can  let your physical fitness drop.  What would you do in the middle of nowhere Afghanistan if your vehicle broke down?
> 
> ...



Well said George! As an aside, our PT standard is already pathetically low and any justification for lowering it further will hurt the CF in the long run. At my age I can still keep up with most of the 20-somethings, it really only comes down to personal drive. (Not counting people injured or on a medical category, before anyone calls me heartless)


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Aug 2008)

Fitness is a big part of why I CT'd to the Infantry...I couldn't respect myself if I wasn't fit. How could anyone else?


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Aug 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Fitness is a big part of why I CT'd to the Infantry...I couldn't respect myself if I wasn't fit. How could anyone else?



After 20+ years in the Forces it seems quite a few members don't have any issues with being slovenly, out of shape, obese members.(For those who I've witnessed falling out of the Expres test after the FIRST 20 meters! :rage


----------



## Run away gun (15 Aug 2008)

They should start by cutting desserts out of the menu not dropping fitness standards.


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Aug 2008)

I did a brief stint teaching elementary school gym class as a coop placement, and I had fat little Grade 4's even make it past the first few levels of the shuttle run.

Pathetic


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Aug 2008)

Run away gun said:
			
		

> They should start by cutting desserts out of the menu not dropping fitness standards.



What are we 5 years old? As members of CF we are suppose to be adults and can make our own decisions..if we follow the food guide and maintain a decent level of fitness cutting out certain foods is not the answer. Eating them in moderation goes a lot further. If you decide you need to have that 4th slice of apple pie at lunch then you have to wake up.


----------



## Run away gun (15 Aug 2008)

Look around the CF, I don't think plan A is working. Time to switch to plan B.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2008)

Article on Project SOAR.

So I'll ask this question.  Do the US Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy all have the exact same PT testing standards?  How about the Brits?  Australia?


----------



## jacksparrow (15 Aug 2008)

Hmmm....interesting debate


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Aug 2008)

Run away gun said:
			
		

> Look around the CF, I don't think plan A is working. Time to switch to plan B.



So will you be removing coffee and tea as well with cream and sugar? Because that too taken to excess has the same effect. Anything too much is bad...


----------



## Snafu-Bar (15 Aug 2008)

Well being a relative noob here and having no experience within the military itself, i will throw myself on the spikes of self opinion.

 Fitness is a general health requirement. The CF obviously wishes to have a minimum standard that ALL members must maintain and adhere to. The jobs within the forces are varied and have vastly different requirements pertaining directly to the task being done. Having the CF wide minimum standard(for all members) and then a task specific fitness level would accomplish the differing levels of fitness according to the requirments of the jobs being done.

 Just my take on how to deal with it if it's not already being delt with.

Cheers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2008)

My concern is likely the same as many others...that the currently low standard will be allowed to go lower.

The CF already does have different PT standards for some trades, such as firefighters, SAR Techs, CSOR, JTF 2, etc.  The EXPRES test is the standard for all CF personnel posted to units outside the CLS, exempt trades listed earlier.

Are we not just expanding on a current practice folks?


----------



## Run away gun (15 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So will you be removing coffee and tea as well with cream and sugar? Because that too taken to excess has the same effect. Anything too much is bad...



Coffee itself is not bad for you. Chalked full of creamers and sugar though, yeah it's not great for you. Desserts like twinkies and Joe Louis'  are chalked full of fats, not all that great for you. In moderation I guess anything is acceptable. But it appears that at least a sizable portion of the force cannot decifer what moderation is. Or maybe it comes down to daily PT?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Aug 2008)

Daily PT works for me


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Aug 2008)

This could be a positive move.  Nowhere in the article do I see any indication that the principal researcher is beginning this project with the notion that some trades do not have to meet the current minimum standards.  If anything, the perception seems to be that standards (and thus testing to that standard) for some occupations need to be higher.  In some of those occupations (cbt arms for example) there is no occupation specific fitness standard, one that is published and tested to anyway.  However, from experience, there is a different fitness standard in those units that is usually enforced, albeit informally.

The principle of universality of service has already been challenged and successfully defended.  So the expectation should be that common (battlefield) physical tasks will be included in the measurement process, as well as those common physical tasks that one could be required to perform (even occasionally) at sea or in support of air operations.  Thus there is a good possibility that CF fitness standards may rise.

We went through a similar exercise back in the 80s, though the measurement of tasks was probably limited to what was necessary to get through basic training and a study to determine which occupations needed to lift the most weight.  The testing regime that came out of that was the EXPRES test, though it was significantly altered from the original proposal to accommodate the numbers that needed to be tested.  Hopefully what comes from this study translates into easily conducted and cost effective fitness tests.


----------



## Nad (16 Aug 2008)

"The CF as a whole, no matter what Trade, no matter what Environment, has to have high standards of physical fitness."{

Then, how can you justify the vast difference in standards between a male under 34 and a female over 34?
Won't they be treated alike in the battlefield by the enemy?
If the CF can justify this difference, then there can be different standards for different trades as well.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Aug 2008)

Someone with an HR background trying to force singular occupational standards on the CF - without considering that the occupational title means nothing - since the primary duty of every CF member is to be able to act as an able-bodied member of security enforcement or humanitarian assistance at some time or other...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2008)

This is a quote taken from the Project SOAR link.  I did a double take when I read this part.

And, according to Air Force research manager Dr. Michael Spivock, the transformation in fitness standards is about more than improving operational effectiveness; it’s about ensuring that our fitness standards are in accordance with Canadian law. 

“When we develop these fitness standards, we are bound by Canadian human rights law to something called ‘bona fide occupational requirements’,” Dr. Spivock says. “Basically, that tells us that any test we administer has to be representative of a person’s job. It has to be reflective of job requirements and it must hold up in court; therefore, the process we are using to develop these standards is absolutely scientific, not anecdotal.”

WTF, over?  So I currently work on a Svc Tm that administers IT.  What do I do, a friggin' typing speed PT test?  

I've said it before; I'll say it again.  The civilianization of the CF must stop before it is too late.


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Aug 2008)

This just keeps getting better and better  ???

Well even if PT goes down the drain at least the army will still help fund my dream porsche and education..self respect whats that?  :


----------



## rmc_wannabe (16 Aug 2008)

This seems to me to be a lazy man's approach to fitness.
 "Let's train to do solely one thing, and one thing only, and target only the muscles and reflexes that are required for work." Screw that!

 Talk to any Sig Op and they'll tell you that your job as a soldier changes at the drop of a hat. 

Case in point, last week I spent a day dismantling furniture and moving it to R&D, the next day I was doing server maintainence. Some days  I can be humping a 5-22 or setting up a mast antenna or simply sitting in front of a screen killing time. How in the hell does someone plan a PT programme around a job that has so many odd tasks and fills multiply roles?

I think this waste of money.


----------



## krustyrl (16 Aug 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> This just keeps getting better and better  ???
> 
> Well even if PT goes down the drain at least the army will still help fund my dream porsche and education..self respect whats that?  :




Are you assuming someone overweight and a little long in the tooth lacks self-respect.?   At the risk of being "fragged" I know several people that fit the older, heavier body style that are damn good techs and know their shyte......just as I also know the stereotypical athletic, slim build tech that is about as thick as they come.  By comparison, one "looks better in uniform" than the other.!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2008)

The issue of 'being physically fit' is discussed in a one aspect always, and that is the "ability to preform physical tasks".  It is thought of in terms of things like ability to hump a ruck, handle arty/tank ammo, run distances, etc.

The other things that are medically proven to being physically fit include ability to handle stress, fight off sickness and illness, perform well under minimal sleep, mental alertness/critical thinking, and the list goes on.

I think if we are going to accurately discuss and debate fitness in the Forces, we should discuss ALL aspects of being physically fit and the way ALL of those factors apply to CF members.

I have known some folks that you would look at and say "he's overweight" who would surprise you how nimble and quick they are, how far and fast they can ruck, etc etc.  Might be something to consider judging books by their covers when you haven't seen them perform before.

The thought of judging people by 'having a few extra pounds on' reminds of the the BMI Bible Thumpers of yester-year, and how many good soldiers, sailor and airmen/women did the Forces loose because of that mistake?

I think the medical and Trade professionals that will be selected to complete this difficult task will have the best interest of their MOCs in mind; they will assumedly have vast knowledge of what IS actually required.  If they make up a PT test for pilots that doesn't involve a ruck march but focuses on more important aspects of their jobs, as they would be done in the applicable operational context, I have problems with that.

Personally, I don't think this will mean the lowering of the current MPFS, rather the ability of MOCs that desperately need it, to up the standard, or expand on it.


----------



## krustyrl (16 Aug 2008)

Well said Eye in the Sky.   Some out there think if you pass the CFExpres Test ,  you are, physically fit .......when it actually means " you passed the Expres Test". Nothing more , nothing less.!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2008)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Well said Eye in the Sky.   Some out there think if you pass the CFExpres Test ,  you are, physically fit .......when it actually means " you passed the Expres Test". Nothing more , nothing less.!



Agreed.  On the EXPRES Test sheet (can't remember the CFXXX number...) it says "Met MPFS" with a check for Yes or No.

MPFS=Minimum Physical Fitness Standard.

Which...IMO...is low.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (16 Aug 2008)

Standards are low. The sad part is while working out, I have seen many members scream and yell when PSP staff tell them that if they do the test they may die. It's interesting to see the same person come back and thank the PSP'er for opening their eyes. This of course is after they have seen a Physician.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2008)

I've been thinking about this issue for a bit tonight.  What would be very refreshing is for suggestions as to what SHOULD be in the testing.

So...that is the question from myself, to those who would like to weigh in.

What would a PT test for those of you who are in the Cmbt Arms look like?  Navy?  Air Force?

Should there be different PT tests for CF mbrs, based on the environment they are in?  Example:  Med Techs.  Should they have one standard for all in this MOC, or should it vary based on whether they are with an Inf unit?  What about if they are posted to a CPF?  Should these Environmental standards be the same for Reg or Res?  

We've been long at identifying the problem; lets put some feedback into what we think is/are the solution(s).

Having said that, I will offer this;  PT is a daily part of the day of Cmbt Arms/CSS units, generally speaking.  How do we address that in units where there simply isn't time for more PT?  I spend part of my days in the shop staffed by 2 Cpls (techs) with no MCpl, and one Sgt who runs that shop, and another shop as well...and with the 3 mandatory PT sessions per week, there is just not enough time now to add PT into each day.  If they add PT in 2 more days a week, equipment might not work that is crucial to key gear that is required for flight ops.  

I am sure there are many more units like this...so I invite comments and ideas for solutions;  the problems are evident to all of us that have a working GAFF.


----------



## BernDawg (16 Aug 2008)

At work we were sent a link for a survey for task based exertional activities.  Things like how much do you lift, how often, how far do you need to walk, do you ever need to run, stuff like that. It seems to me that it's part of this new directive.  This, of course, was directed specifically to the Airforce side of the house.  Of course, being a dedicated Engineer like I am (zippit!! you know who you are) filled out all the items honestly and they may be surprised how physical our job is, even on a Wing.


----------



## Greymatters (17 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And, according to Air Force research manager Dr. Michael Spivock, the transformation in fitness standards is about more than improving operational effectiveness; it’s about ensuring that our fitness standards are in accordance with Canadian law.
> 
> “When we develop these fitness standards, we are bound by Canadian human rights law to something called ‘bona fide occupational requirements’,” Dr. Spivock says. “Basically, that tells us that any test we administer has to be representative of a person’s job. It has to be reflective of job requirements and it must hold up in court; therefore, the process we are using to develop these standards is absolutely scientific, not anecdotal.”



This is exactly what I was talking about - the view is a tunnel-vision view of a job position for a position and that position only.  If physical duties are not written into the job description (requirements), then physical standards are eliminated.  It completely ignores the fact that any and every soldier can be tasked at any time to move equipment, carry boxes, help with cleaning, standing guard duty, firing a weapon, driving a vehicle, filling a sandbag, or carrying a wounded comrade (etc, among other tasks).  

Next stop - soldiers saying they cant perform tasks they are expected to reasonably do because its "not in my job description".  Like a lot of civilians already working for DND...


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I was talking about - the view is a tunnel-vision view of a job position for a position and that position only.



Everyone's employment includes both trade specs and general CF specs ( NCMGS for someone like me) and this review, as i was told, encompasses both.


----------



## Greymatters (17 Aug 2008)

Ive seen them, and there are loopholes, which is what this guy is talking about...


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Ive seen them, and there are loopholes, which is what this guy is talking about...



Then the problem is not the review but the NCMGS ( or officer equivalent)........Making things a military problem and not "civillianization".


----------



## Greymatters (17 Aug 2008)

I agree with that...


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> “When we develop these fitness standards, we are bound by Canadian human rights law to something called ‘bona fide occupational requirements’,” Dr. Spivock says. “Basically, that tells us that any test we administer has to be representative of a person’s job. It has to be reflective of job requirements and it must hold up in court; therefore, the process we are using to develop these standards is absolutely scientific, not anecdotal.”



*WHOA!*  "Bound by Canadian Human Rights LAW"  WTF!.  Is this survey going to be asking questions of CF members referencing their "workplaces", be they on land, in the air or at sea, as "sterile PEACETIME environments" or as "burning/sinking" workplaces in time of WAR?  

There is a very good line expressed on the commercial (short clip from) the new TV show, Flashpoint, "You are expected to be able to haul the bigest person of your team out of danger", or something to that effect.  That is what all members of the CF must be able to do; and should they be that "bigest member" of the team, and they are not physically fit, then why do they expect two other members to have to put their lives in danger to haul their ass out of danger?

What does the LAW have to do with Physical Fitness in the CF?


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What does the LAW have to do with Physical Fitness in the CF?



Quite a bit actualy. You might recognize that if you calmed down just a little. It doesnt mean we have to bend to every little civillian quirk but we, the CF, have to do a better job at articulating the needs of our job so that they meet the " bona fide occupational requirements" as laid down in Canadian law.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...
> What does the LAW have to do with Physical Fitness in the CF?



Evidently, there is a perception, I'm guessing, that some CF 'leaders' might (or, at least might want to) use physical fitness standards to discriminate based on age or sex - and that would violate charter rights which apply, equally, to the CF. If there was no such perception the there would be no reason to mention it. As with e.g. conflict of interest the CF must avoid unfairness and the perception of unfairness.

Someone mentioned that we you already have low fitness standards. That has always been the case: to ensure that the middle aged, female clerk would not be denied opportunity, in her part of the organization, just because she was unfit to be, say, a soldier in a combat engineer field troop. There is - and should be - a lowest common denominator which is applied absolutely without exception each and every person. There also need to be higher, specialized denominators for e.g. fighter pilots and infantry soldiers and so on.

If I read the original article correctly, the 'object of the exercise' is to ensure that we have the right standards for everyone - beginning with an appropriate 'lowest, common' one.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Quite a bit actualy. You might recognize that if you calmed down just a little. It doesnt mean we have to bend to every little civillian quirk but we, the CF, have to do a better job at articulating the needs of our job so that they meet the " bona fide occupational requirements" as laid down in Canadian law.



Actually, it will be a big can of worms that can easily go astray.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, it will be a big can of worms that can easily go astray.



 :

Stop being so indignate. The can was openned well before i joined. You are preaching to the choire anyways. The simple fact remains that the CF, like any other employer, has to follow the laws unless it can manifestly demonstrate that there needs to be an exception. This can only go "astray" if we, the CF, cannot clearly articulate our requirements and justify them apropriately.

If our requirements cannot withstand lawful scrutiny there is 2 causes :

1- They were poorly laid out
2- Those requirements never really existed in the first place.

Now, as for those wondering why the AF would be lookignat a PT standard that meets its needs, ask yourself why the army uses the BFT and firefighters have their own PT test.The EXPRES test suits nobody.


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Evidently, there is a perception, I'm guessing, that some CF 'leaders' might (or, at least might want to) use physical fitness standards to discriminate based on age or sex - and that would violate charter rights which apply, equally, to the CF. If there was no such perception the there would be no reason to mention it. As with e.g. conflict of interest the CF must avoid unfairness and the perception of unfairness.
> 
> Someone mentioned that we you already have low fitness standards. That has always been the case: to ensure that the middle aged, female clerk would not be denied opportunity, in her part of the organization, just because she was unfit to be, say, a soldier in a combat engineer field troop. There is - and should be - a lowest common denominator which is applied absolutely without exception each and every person. There also need to be higher, specialized denominators for e.g. fighter pilots and infantry soldiers and so on.
> 
> If I read the original article correctly, the 'object of the exercise' is to ensure that we have the right standards for everyone - beginning with an appropriate 'lowest, common' one.





I disagree totally!

It is my opinion that there should not be a middle standard or even a low standard there should only be ONE standard and that standard should be the highest standard. Regardless of sex and age, You fail to meet the requirements you are gone, discrimination HELL YES! but we are not a civilian occupation. That middle age female clerk cannot meet the same requirements as me then you need to leave. and before anyone says anything I am missing a tricep and was hamstung in my left leg so seriously what is their excuse for not meeting a standard...oh and I am not 19-21 I am 30 not old but by no means the young buck in the herd.

The CF needs to stop being run like a civilian business using civilian law as our benchmark. It that very reason that is slowly killing our hollowed institution and again IMO making us a laughing stalk in the eyes of our Allies.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> That middle age female clerk cannot meet the same requirements as me then you need to leave.



I cant wait until you are 40.




> using civilian law as our benchmark.



It is not *civillian* law....it is *Canadian* law. Get aquainted with what that means.








[/quote]


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Aug 2008)

Then Canadian LAW needs amending....There is such thing as amendments to LAW or exemptions...oh and it is Civilian law as there is also Military law it's a semantic

I am 30, 10 years to go, and I meet all the standards of my occupation and my speciality DESPITE serious physical imparment. Again I state what is thier excuse?ss


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> or exemptions...



There already is an exception. Did you miss that in the previous posts or just feel like going off half-cocked ?

To be an exception, the CF needs to demonstrate that there is a valid, justifiable need for it. If not , the CF must follow Canadian Law like everyone else.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> oh and it is Civilian law as there is also Military law it's a semantic



CF members are subject to both the Canadian legal system and the military justice system. The CF must follow all Canadian law. The CF justice system exists and not too long ago, The SCC upheld the need for a CF justice system because there was.....you guessed it.....a bona fide reuirement for it.


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> CF members are subject to both the Canadian legal system and the military justice system. The CF must follow all Canadian law. The CF justice system exists and not too long ago, The SCC upheld the need for a CF justice system because there was.....you guessed it.....a bona fide reuirement for it.



Right and I am saying National (Canadian) Law is civilain law, an argument of semantics.

As for exemptions I am saying the rules governing CF discrimination policy needs to be goverened by CF not by Cvilian standards. I trust the CF to set a policy that is fair and applicable tou OUR standrad of service and need in our job. We all are in the end Rifleman first and must be able to meet that standard before we move off to follow on trade specific training. 

This is of course just my opinion and I have been accused before of being narrow minded and set to only a narow scope of view when it comes to this topic.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Right and I am saying National (Canadian) Law is civilain law, an argument of semantics.



Far from being semantics. Your "civillian" law applies to everyone, military or otherwise.



> As for exemptions I am saying the rules governing CF discrimination policy needs to be goverened by CF not by Cvilian standards.



You are in fact being narrow minded. The CF, just like police, firefighters and other organizations have to live within that laws of the land. We, the CF, just like them have unique requirements. Unless we can show what they are and justify why they are needed, then they dont really exist.




> I trust the CF to set a policy that is fair and applicable tou OUR standrad of service



How many CF policies have you questioned in the few years i have known you ? 

Yeah exactly......


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> How many CF policies have you question in the few years i have known you ?
> 
> Yeah exactly......




You are right of course and I always will it's who I am I guess. But I do believe in the system to the exent that they would set a standard not so narrow as to to unachieveable by any means. Perhaps it's the final remants of the idealist in me from when I first joined.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> But I do believe in the system to the exent that they would set a standard not so narrow as to to unachieveable by any means.



Yet you openly question the validity of the EXPRES test.........


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Aug 2008)

Because the Express test is set to a standard to accept the mediocre as in within Canadian law to be non discriminatory. Were we (The CF) allwoed to discriminate on a physical fitness standrad the express test or the test created would be less of a joke.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Because the Express test is set to a standard to accept the mediocre as in within Canadian law to be non discriminatory. Were we (The CF) allwoed to discriminate on a physical fitness standrad the express test or the test created would be less of a joke.





The CF , within the scope of Canadian law, can set whatever standard it wants, as long as it can prove it is required. There is nothing in Canadian law that says that the CF cannot have high fitness standards.

Furthermore, what evidence does anyone here have that any test comming from this research, would be more of a joke ?

If anything, an PT test that is representative of my MOC would have higher requirements in the pushup and sit up parts of the test because, we need more upper body strenght to lift sonobouys at 2Gs or hoist a person from the water during a rescue. I dont run anywhere unless shit realy went south.


----------



## DVessey (19 Aug 2008)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> This seems to me to be a lazy man's approach to fitness.
> "Let's train to do solely one thing, and one thing only, and target only the muscles and reflexes that are required for work." Screw that!
> 
> Talk to any Sig Op and they'll tell you that your job as a soldier changes at the drop of a hat.
> ...



CrossFit (aka Combat Fitness Program). The whole point of the program is NOT to be specific.


----------



## Rodahn (20 Aug 2008)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> How in the hell does someone plan a PT programme around a job that has so many odd tasks and fills multiply roles



And herein lies the crux of the problem, in that everybodies rolls are different. Defining ones requirements of fitness level is by an average is futile,. Each trade has specific levels of requirements... Having stated that, the basic level during "basic training" is something that all personnel should be able to achieve.


----------



## Greymatters (20 Aug 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Each trade has specific levels of requirements...



Quite true - but we are not seeking an 'average'.  We should be seeking a minimum standard, even if its a piss poor one compared to some of the more active trades.  Once a member passes the minimum for basic, they must take the next test (with presumably higher and specific pass requirements) as required for their specific trade.  It must also be applicable to every single member regardless of age, try and figure that one out!


----------



## Rodahn (20 Aug 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Quite true - but we are not seeking an 'average'.  We should be seeking a minimum standard, even if its a piss poor one compared to some of the more active trades.  Once a member passes the minimum for basic, they must take the next test (with presumably higher and specific pass requirements) as required for their specific trade.  It must also be applicable to every single member regardless of age, try and figure that one out!



Over all I concur, however, what would happen if a clerk is posted to a static unit for 5 - 6 year period? Hence the basic requirement... I know that I, as a combat diver had to pass specific requirements over an above thumperhead's needs, however requirering that all thumperheads  pass said requirements is not feasible, nor realistic..

"to add" and the above is within a single trade specification...


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Over all I concur, however, what would happen if a clerk is posted to a static unit for  5 - 6 year period? Hence the basic requirement... I know that I, as a combat diver had to pass specific requirements over an above thumperhead's needs, however requirering that all thumperheads  pass said requirements is not feasible, nor realistic..



I'm at a static unit. Pri 6 manning in LFC.

But, we deploy pers as individual augmentees for Afg and other UN/UNMFO tours ... all the time. Not all of them are getting lots of 'advance warning' either. I don't know a support trade out there that isn't subject to the exact same thing. 

The long and the short ... even as a support trade, and even while in a static unit, we've got to be at a _minimum_ standard (and, preferably -exceeding that minimum standard) that will enable us to perform our primary operational tasks - not our primary static tasks - because you just never know when the shit is going to hit the fan. I'd have given the same answer on Sept 10th 2001 as well. 

I really hope it doesn't take another wake-up call for our "masters" in the "rights" world to figure that out.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Aug 2008)

Personaly speaking......

If deploying and universality of service is the main concern ( as it should be) then the BFT should be the standard for everyone in the CF. The march, the fireman;s carry, trench dig and all.

The EXPRES test proves jacks**t IMHO.

I completed the survey for project SOAR and its wasnt that bad a questionair and i hope that the people who should be filling it out (those having just deployed to TFA) have done so and have answered honestly.


----------



## Adamant (20 Aug 2008)

This concept was already argued about extensively in another thread.  And the following message:

http://forums.air-force.ca/forums/threads/76434/post-723401.html#msg723401



> We could spend as much time on PT as Combat Arms folk, but to what benefit to anybody? Those who think that we should have a choice: we can do that, certainly, but at the cost of fifty percent of the helicopter support that you are currently getting (which is nowhere near enough, but that's a subject for other threads and I've already ranted about the reasons for that previously). Every minute spent running around is a minute less spent fixing or flying. We cannot afford to spend time on things that do not contribute to our primary purpose.
> 
> And for those of you carrying on with this "lowest common denominator" stuff, let's all go to one common medical standard, too. As LCD is not good enough, we can adopt the highest medical standard CF-wide: Pilot. Enjoy your early pensions, those of you who fall below that (presuming that you got past the recruiters in the first place).



Seems to have the most logical conclusion.  Having one fitness standard is about as logical as having one medical standard.  Air Crew, Divers,etc.., all have medical requirements way higher than the vast majority of members who might see the inside of the MIR every 5 years.

Having specific trade / element fitness AND medical requirements just makes sense.


----------



## muffin (20 Aug 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Next stop - soldiers saying they cant perform tasks they are expected to reasonably do because its "not in my job description".  Like a lot of civilians already working for DND...





			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> Ive seen them, and there are loopholes, which is what this guy is talking about...



I can't speak for all civi DND, but my job description has the "and other tasks as deemed necessary by the Division" type clause in it 
It's hard to say "That isn't in my job description" when "everything else they tell you to do" is the last line.  ;D

Also, for Public Servants, if a higher than baseline physical standard is required for a position, it is asked for. If the position calls for someone to be able to lift 100lbs repeatedly etc, then that's what you ask for. It's not descrimination - it's common sense. I couldn't do - and I'd kill myself trying. The Law allows for this sort of thing, so I don't see how someone could claim discrimination if they don't meet a higher standard in the CF. If the job required me to be able to run 10K with 80lbs on my back - then I'd better be able to do it! I don't know why anyone would want to argue that. The standards aren't there to be "mean" - they are there to make sure you aren't going to hurt yourself (or anyone you work with!)  

I am not sure I understand the idea behind this SOAR thing... I read through this thread, and then read the article from the Maple Leaf and re-read the article on the Navy (1st post)
When I read these two articles, I understood them to apply to individual trades with the idea of increasing the standards on a trade specific basis. I took the comment regarding the "legality" of the testing as the reason for the individual testing, vs just having a board decide what the standards should be. I didn't read anywhere that they would lower the current standard, only that as required, they would increase it. 
From the article:
_If it turns out that people aren't fit enough for their occupation, "then, I'm sorry, but we're going to have remedial fitness; we're not just going to just kick you out of the Forces if you can't do it," he said._

This reminds me of something I vaguley remember being given in Part 1 medicals that outlined physical tasks that were specific to my trade... "walk up and down 100's of steps dozens of times a day" or something similtar was one for Int... I remember thinking that was an odd thing. I had to check a box saying I could do it - but it was never tested. Perhaps they are going to start to manage these things from a physical standard perspective, vice a "honour system" medical.

There are already trades and/or positions that have higher requirements than the express test - this could just make more of them.

Am I way off base?

Maybe there could be some positions for wounded members who can't meet the requirements of thier trade due to a combat injury - instead of medically releasing them. (Do they have something like this now?)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

I was looking for something else, but found this one today...


CANFORGEN 156/08 CDS 022/08 151834Z AUG 08
CF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS STRATEGY
UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 198/05 
B. CANFORGEN 002/07 
C. CANFORGEN 042/08 
D. CF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS STRATEGY 

FURTHER TO REFS A, B, AND C, I AM PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THE OFFICIAL LAUNCH OF THE CANADIAN FORCES HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS STRATEGY (REF D). THIS STRATEGY PROVIDES THE MOTIVATION, AWARENESS, SUPPORT AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO ENHANCE AND SUSTAIN A FIT AND HEALTHY FIGHTING FORCE. IT IS MY INTENT TO STRENGTHEN THE CULTURE OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS ACROSS THE CF 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MUST MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONING THROUGHOUT THEIR CAREER TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE STAMINA AND ENDURANCE TO SUCCESSFULLY PERFORM AMID PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DEMANDING OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS. HEALTHY AND PHYSICALLY FIT SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIRMEN AND AIRWOMEN ARE LESS PRONE TO FATIGUE AND INJURY AND ARE THEREFORE MORE EFFECTIVE IN CARRYING OUT THEIR CRITICAL MISSION TASKS 

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CF TO DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN A STRONG, HEALTHY AND FIT CF. THIS BEGINS WITH LEADERS WHO ARE FULLY COMMITTED TO A QUOTE CULTURE OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS UNQUOTE, SETTING THE EXAMPLE FOR EVERYONE TO TAKE THEIR HEALTH SERIOUSLY AND CHOOSE A LIFESTYLE DEDICATED TO EATING WELL, ENGAGING IN REGULAR PHYSICAL FITNESS ACTIVITIES, MAINTAINING A HEALTHY WEIGHT AND LIVING ADDICTION FREE 

EFFECTIVE 01 APRIL 2008, SOME OF THE IMPACTS OF REF D INCLUDE: 

THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WILL PROVIDE THE TIME, RESOURCES AND PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT CF PERSONNEL TO ADOPT AND MAINTAIN A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 

REGULAR, PRIMARY RESERVE, OUTCAN AND REMOTELY POSTED PERSONNEL WILL ALL COMPLETE ANNUAL FITNESS EVALUATIONS 

IAW REF C, POINTS WILL BE AWARDED FOR EXPRES TEST RESULTS AT MERIT BOARDS 

PSP FITNESS AND SPORTS STAFF WILL PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR SPECIALIZED AND REMEDIAL TRAINING 

CF PERSONNEL WILL BE PROVIDED THE NECESSARY TOOLS (STRESS MANAGEMENT, COPING SKILLS, AND BEHAVIOURAL COUNSELLING, ETC) TO MAINTAIN A HEALTHY AND ADDICTION-FREE LIFESTYLE 

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION RELATED TO HEALTH AND FITNESS WILL BE BETTER INTEGRATED INTO CF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

COMMITMENT TO A LIFELONG HEALTHY LIFESTYLE WILL IMPROVE MORALE AND PERSONAL WELL-BEING, AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARD SUCCESS IN OPERATIONAL MISSIONS AND TASKS. THE CF WILL PROVIDE PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT TO ALL CF PERSONNEL AND THEIR FAMILIES TO FOSTER THEIR INTEREST AND MOTIVATION FOR MAINTAINING AND SUSTAINING A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO A PHYSICALLY FIT AND HEALTHY, ACTIVE LIFESTYLE 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MUST POSSESS THE HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS NEEDED TO FUNCTION IN COMPLEX AND DEMANDING ENVIRONMENTS AND THIS STRATEGY PAVES THE WAY TOWARDS GENERATING A FORCE THAT IS HEALTHY AND FIT TO FIGHT. I EXPECT YOUR SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT IN IMPLEMENTING THIS STRATEGY 

REF D IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AT HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DOCS/HRMIL-DOCS/PDF/CF(UNDERSCORE)HEALT H(UNDERSCORE)FITNESS(UNDERSCORE)E.PDF. HARD COPIES WILL SOON BE DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE CF. ENQUIRIES REGARDING REF D MAY BE DIRECTED TO XXXXX XXXX, DMPSC 2-2, XXX-XXX-XXX, XXX.XX(AT SIGN)FORCES.GC.CA 

SIGNED BY GEN WJ NATYNCZYK, CDS


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Aug 2008)

Here's the MERX posting (.pdf attached if link doesn't work) - deadline for proposals listed as 22 Sept 08.


----------



## Wookilar (21 Aug 2008)

I know my CO has pushing for the unit training plan to get revamped and modernized for the last few weeks, not just PT wise but also basic field craft wise. All these new directives and CANFORGEN's are great....until you try and update a training plan with the latest ref's  
I've been trying to keep up with it for 3 weeks now lol

Wook


----------

