# New PT Test Requirements...Thoughts?



## Clarkey (25 Sep 2006)

Hey All,

Just finished my swearing in this past Thursday, We were informed that upon arriving at St. Jean there will be a PT test within the first couple of days. Much along the same lines as the pre-recruitment test. We were also informed that if we fail this test unlike before instead of being sent home we would be put in, and I quote a 'Warrior" platoon where we would be brought up to standard while still taking part in some of the classes. What are all your guys thoughts on this? I'm sort of divided on whether this is a good thing or not.

To me if you cannot stay disciplined enough to stay in shape before BMQ then what are you doing there in the first place. But maybe there were circumstances that inhibited your training before you went( ie. health, family obligations, etc.).

I wonder in the long run will this cause a trend of lazy recruits, with the oh well they'll fix it attitude.

Clarkey


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

The test is the standard CF EXPRES test.  

Well, as much as I think recruits should be in shape, atleast they are planning on doing something with the ones that aren't.  Rather than just turfing them.  From a "fiscally responsible" stance, it is a better deal for Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

Remember, if you constantly get rid of the weakest link, pretty soon you will have one link left in your chain/one person left in your unit.

Do I think they should be in shape prior to?  Damn straight!

Do I think in the PC world we now live, people can cry foul and use the "but I wasn't being paid then so I didn't have to be in shape" excuse?  Seems like it.

And, you should only be worried IF you know you are possibly going to end up in a "Warrior" platoon.     If you pass the EXPRES you carry on with training.  Sweet.

See link for the current EXPRES test standards.  Note that you will most likely do the 20MSR (MSR=Meter Shuttle Run).  The PSP staff at CFLRS expect a 100% standard "movement" for it to count as well, so if you don't do your pushup "to standard" it doesn't count.

http://www.rmc.ca/athletics/pe/EXPRES/standards_e.html

Passing the EXPRES test is just making the minimal fitness requirements of the CF.  The minimal.  I passed it and my cardio sucks right now.  The goal is to IMPROVE. 

I am pretty sure when you get there, you will find out that in Week 6 or so, you will redo the EXPRES to see where you have improved.

About your question about lazy recruits, I would wait to see how "inactive" this Warrior Platoon is.  I am betting, if they are there for NOT passing the EXPRES test, they won't be eating fat pucks and watching Jerry Springer to get up to snuff.   ushup:.  Also remember that they have to pass the min standard as part of the application, right?

If they go downhill between their entrance test and BMQ, they are asking for a beasting and are going to get one with PT, IMHO.   You reap what you sow. 

Good luck with the EXPRES and your BMQ


----------



## navymich (25 Sep 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Also remember that they have to pass the min standard as part of the application, right?



This was brought up last week in another thread, and it would be great to get a recruiter on here to deny or confirm.  When I was at CFRC last week for my own PT test, the clerk confirmed that there is a new directive out effective 1 Oct 06 regarding the PT test for the applications.  I was to be sent a copy, but have still yet to receive it.

I'm not trying to start (continue?) rumours or "I was told's", but with that date fast approaching, there is going to be alot of questions and comments about this.  I will continue to ask for a copy of this directive, but if there is anyone else out there that can lay their hands on it too, it would be good to have it posted.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> This was brought up last week in another thread, and it would be great to get a recruiter on here to deny or confirm.  When I was at CFRC last week for my own PT test, the clerk confirmed that there is a new directive out effective 1 Oct 06 regarding the PT test for the applications.  I was to be sent a copy, but have still yet to receive it.
> 
> I'm not trying to start (continue?) rumours or "I was told's", but with that date fast approaching, there is going to be alot of questions and comments about this.  I will continue to ask for a copy of this directive, but if there is anyone else out there that can lay their hands on it too, it would be good to have it posted.



Ahh yes, the "October 1st 2006" phenomenum...  ;D.

"Watch and shoot...watch and shoot..."


----------



## Clarkey (25 Sep 2006)

Thanks for the well wishes Mud! I never looked at it from that point of view...nice analogy with the weakest link statement  . I can imagine like you say that if one lets themselves go that much between the entrance test and the expres that they would catch more then their share of flak in this '_Warrior_' platoon.

Just a thought though what happens if you only get one or two failures? They devote an instructor just for these one or two? I have no experience whatsoever and am the first to admit it, but if this is the case wouldn't it be more fiscally sound to send them home altogether instead of wasting resources? At least then if they really wanted to do it they could train on their own time, then reapply and recourse in the future.

Like I stated though I'm just a lowly recruit in waiting and not up on how cases like this would be treated. This topic however struck me as something different when the recruiter told us this past Thursday.

Oh by the way when I said lazy recruits, I never quite meant it like that. more of along the lines of recruits who will just try to make the minimum. With no worries of repercussions due to this fallback plan. I believe that if there is no real consequence maybe there won't be as much heart...:-\

Clarkey


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

Clarkey said:
			
		

> Thanks for the well wishes Mud! I never looked at it from that point of view...nice analogy with the weakest link statement  . I can imagine like you say that if one lets themselves go that much between the entrance test and the expres that they would catch more then their share of flak in this '_Warrior_' platoon.
> 
> Just a thought though what happens if you only get one or two failures? They devote an instructor just for these one or two? I have no experience whatsoever and am the first to admit it, but if this is the case wouldn't it be more fiscally sound to send them home altogether instead of wasting resources? At least then if they really wanted to do it they could train on their own time, then reapply and recourse in the future.
> 
> ...




Well, the flak they will get is what I remember being referred to as Remedial Training.  Student 1 requires more trng than Student 2 is Task A.  Do we let him go?  No, we give him remedial trng to get up to standard.  Doesn't have to be all huggy lovey in delivery though  ;D.  In my experience, we (instructors on staff) have done remedial trng with students in...well pretty much everything.  People have strengths and weaknesses, and where one troop might excel at drill and weapons, he might not be able to navigate in the Superstore and his AFV Recognitions skills aren't up to standard.  This is where the "TEAM" concept comes in, and you help each other out.

Well I am not sure on the one or two failures concept.  Remedial PT could be done by PSP (civilians) staff and, heck there is always a Cpl around that can lead a few troops.  If they have already gotten to this point and are going home, they have ALREADY wasted a ton of resources.  Someone had to recruit them, ship them up, kit them out, and now release them, and close their PERS file, ship it to Archives...etc etc.  I think unless they are performing like a can of smashed a$$holes, train them up.  Also, while NOT doing remedial PT, the CFLRS can certainly use them for "other things" commonly known as GDs (General Duties).  And it could be anything for A-Z that doesn't require a MOC qualification.  Taking out garbage, scrubbing pots, counting brooms, flipping over leaves in the soccer field, whatever.  

Hopefully, they are there to try to get into shape and not being part of the training on BMQ but SEEING it everyday will have them drooling...and not at the thought of the cake that was out for desert at supper the night before.

Now, this is only my opinion, but...I say train them if they are trainable.  Sending them home just creates another gap that CFRG has to start to fill all over again from scratch maybe.

A couple of weeks of pot-scrubbing might motivate them.  I would love to believe that being left behind and out of the BMQ loop would be the kind of motivation they need.  To want to get on with serving.  Instead of scrubbing.


----------



## kincanucks (25 Sep 2006)

I have confirmed through my old CFRC/D that there is no longer a requirement to pass a physical fitness test to be enrolled into the CF.  An enrolee will be tested in the first week of BMQ and if they don't pass, they will be moved to the "Warrior" platoon where they will have 90 days to pass the physcal fitness test and be returned to BMQ training.  During this 90 days they will be tested at the 30, 60 and 90 day mark and ca return to BMQ training if they pass the test at any of these marks.  If the person does not pass the test after 90 days then they are released.  Someone who makes a lot more money than I has probably done a risk assessment and has concluded that the CF can afford to pay people, for up to 90 days, who are physically unfit when they join.

Forgot to say thank you ladies and I miss you too.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

Well, so its the "3 strikes, you're out" approach.

If someone needs more than 90 days to pass the min. EXPRES test... :


----------



## paracowboy (25 Sep 2006)

quantity over quality baby! They said they wanted tens of thousands of new troops. They didn't say they wanted GOOD troops. So, we'll pack 'em in, cram 'em into uniforms, and let 'em sit out their Initial Engagements in "Warrior" platoons, and PAT platoons across the country while we try to scrape up enough NCOs to run them through Basic and Trades courses.  :


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> quantity over quality baby! They said they wanted tens of thousands of new troops. They didn't say they wanted *GOOD* troops. So, we'll pack 'em in, cram 'em into uniforms, and let 'em sit out their Initial Engagements in "Warrior" platoons, and PAT platoons across the country while we try to scrape up enough NCOs to run them through Basic and Trades courses.  :



sigh.  

I say that 'cause you are hittin' the bullseye.  

As long as it all looks good on paper... :


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2006)

We had what was called the "Fat Farm". If you were not up to standards they would get you up to standards, then be inserted into the next training platoon available. Everybody I talked to wanted out of the Fat Farm so bad they performed. There was little or no option to be released without a unsatisfactory discharge. In the civi world at that time, that was a death knell.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

Gap,

I (snicker) don't think the CF would (HA HA HA) be allowed to call it  :rofl: that unfortunately.

Instead of "fat" we are using "Warrior".  

 :rofl:


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2006)

myabe it's the "worry er" program... you get to worry about getting you passed over the 30 60 or 90 days


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> myabe it's the "worry er" program... you get to worry about getting you passed over the 30 60 or 90 days



HA HA HA HA

 :rofl:

I am having too much fun tonight.  Time to get serious.


----------



## Meridian (25 Sep 2006)

What does this mean for Ocdts?

There aren't IAP serials running more than 3-4 times a year, so is there a warrior platoon for them as well?


----------



## orange.paint (25 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> quantity over quality baby! They said they wanted tens of thousands of new troops. They didn't say they wanted GOOD troops. So, we'll pack 'em in, cram 'em into uniforms, and let 'em sit out their Initial Engagements in "Warrior" platoons, and PAT platoons across the country while we try to scrape up enough NCOs to run them through Basic and Trades courses.  :



First I laughed and and then I got angry at the whole situation.But dam para that's funny.

(true about the nco's also)

I would so volunteer to be section 2i/c of warrior platoon.
We had a troop in pet we called special needs troop.....I'm guessing it would look something like that.
notice:special needs troop was a name we placed on a large amount of gimps,lazy,and useless people that they piled all in one troop so the rest of us could do a certain competition.So no the RCD don't have a actual special needs troop.....but we sure could.


----------



## kincanucks (25 Sep 2006)

Meridian said:
			
		

> What does this mean for Ocdts?
> 
> There aren't IAP serials running more than 3-4 times a year, so is there a warrior platoon for them as well?



I wasn't told this new procedure was just for NCMs so I will assume that it includes officer applicants too. Besides they will need leadership in 'Warrior" platoon too.


----------



## orange.paint (25 Sep 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Meridian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.This tread is the best ever.


----------



## Klc (25 Sep 2006)

I hate to admit this, but it's a huge relief for anyone like me.

When I was young, I *used* to be a FAT ass. (Now, I don't mean like, chubby, I mean like pastry-chef/European millionare fat)

I am now in the peak condition of my life, and I can finally do things like run for more then 200m. Or more then one pushup. Or a chin up at all.
Now, I train as much as possible, and can meet all the standards, and I KNOW I can get much better then I am now.

But my weakness is still running. I train as much as I can, but I still have a fear that I won't be able to preform when I need to.

This is not to say that I will be doing less training, I am still (and will be) doing more running a month then I did over the first 16 years of my life.
This just means I don't fear the first run at BMQ. I can focus on improving my fitness, not because I'm scared shitless, but because I'm proud to. And besides, (If all goes well) It's my new job.

Although fear can be a great motivator, personally I just never want to be less fit then I am now. (Again)

[edit: I will proofread my posts for errors, I will proofread my posts for errors, I will proofread....]


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

Klc,

Ya thats the stuff!   

MRM


----------



## orange.paint (25 Sep 2006)

I see this as the army shooting itself in the foot.These people don't have the dedicationto make themselves fit for the army to begin with.Now keeping that in mind look at pictures of yourself in battleschool 5-10-25 yrs ago.Nothing but skin bone and lean muscle mass.Wanting to do the job and fearing falling out and becoming the guy who cannot keep up with his peers.

I'm really surprised that Mr Hillier is standing for this.He came in with such vigor to revamp the Canadian army into a fighting force.No promotions if you obese,

Anyone remember "fit to fight"???

Basically this program is to bring people who couldn't meet the very minimal physical standards  Up to the very very minimum standards.That's not acceptable in my opinion.
We have discussed the lack of PT in the army.Disgust in the lack of effort by trained soldiers to maintain their fitness.These were soldiers that had at one time or another actually met the minimal.So what does a warrior platoon CPL look like in 4 years?

Honestly this army is getting worse and worse.First Canadian status not needed and now people who meet minimal standards are welcome.

Sounds a whole lot like WELFARE to me.How about every fat person join up for warrior platoon get 90 days pay lose 20 pounds and get out?Hell lets start a "biggest loser warrior platoon edition." 

What happens when they finally do graduate and get to the regiment?
"you cant kick me out cause im fat,its against my human rights!"And I don't care if someone says it files under job performance because I have seen it with my own two eyes.So where does that leave us?Paying 600-700 fat trooper/privates/craftsman/sapper a yearly salary(or A/B class time) letting them do PT at night with PSP while boys are bagged in the field.While your doing RAPZ ops somewhere he just got home from "sweating to the oldies" and swung by KFC (but got the diet coke).And yes I've seen tubby get out of field to do this.

Or do we place them in Gucci positions.Like QM or someother more senior position?Because now at the regiment they don't have huggy feely french PSP at st jean to help them make choices in food and exercise,and their back to square one.

Now I know some will proably benefit from education/training and go on to be excellent fit capable troops.Great.

Now how do you fell about your civilian friends knowing about stuff like this?Me down right embarrassed!What if you were a chef in a restaurant who met the requirements to get the job then they lowered the standard for sous chef to anyone who has flipped burgers at McDonald's?

I am down right discusted.I HOPE news papers pick this up and RUN WITH IT.Its discusting and tax payers shouldn't stand for it.Its their money they are paying for their protection.These troops may be the snr NCO's that lead the troops to protect us when we are old grey and unable.

This isn't just another fitness rant guys I am just truly discusted.
(As I know I have ranted over it before.)


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

RCAC_011,

Breathe buddy BREATHE.  ;D

If they don't make the EXPRES or "standard" in 90 days, they go back home to enjoy Employee Meals at whatever shop they work at in Junkfood Alley.

 ;D


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 

Really?  Aren't you just a special person.  I wonder what Army you really joined.  Seems to me that this is nothing new; in fact it is an improvement.  Now they are being put into a 'Remedial Program' where before they just moved upward in the system.  Just look at yourself as one such example.  What physical fitness level were you at when you joined and what level have you managed to attain and maintain since joining.

As for your rant - whatever!  We have seen you make those noises before, and I guess we still haven't heard the last of them.


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 & klc....I applaud the fact you were fit enough to be accepted....the CF is one the few who do require pre-application fitness, and while I don't know for sure, it was probably instituted at a time when they had the luxury of picking and choosing their candidates. 

I was, without realizing it, fit when I joined the Marines, and never really had difficulties with the physical side of it, but there were many in my boot platoon who were not fit and they worked like hell to get there. Like I said before, out of 60-65 guys, we generally only lost 2 or 3 to the Fat Farm, the rest toned up.

This does not diminish the CF, it just inserts a minor step. A lot of good people who would not have been accepted otherwise are going to come out of this move.

my 1 cent, I need the other


----------



## Leo791989 (25 Sep 2006)

My 2 cents worth:

Apart from failing my ACS in Trenton for Pilot I also failed my PT test because of push ups. I did 16 push ups instead of 19. Now lets say I did pass the ACS and everything else was good, CF would've refused me few months back because I failed the PT test even though i can run a 10 k in 28min 12secs and can do 75 sit ups in one minute. But if the situation was now it would've been easier for me to do that. And now you're telling me that just cos I can't do 3 more push ups I am not goin to be a good pilot..gotta be kidding me. I think it's great that CF is taking this step. This will help good qualified candidates to meet the standards even if it's via warrior platoon or whatever.


----------



## Meridian (25 Sep 2006)

Leo - assuming you have the dedication and training knowhow to run well (yes, a big assumption), you should be able to take the 2-3 months that the forces would give youin uniform to get fit out of it.

That said, if its a numbers game (ie not losing good candidates who need one more month of fitness training but who would miss a recruitment cycle/etc) maybe its a good thing.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Sep 2006)

Aside from everything else folks...

This IS the new policy ( Kincanucks word is good enough for me).

So lets focus on the steak, and forget about the peas.

NCOs and officers are expected to

1.  Follow orders.
2.  Make the best out of whatever they are given.
3.  Know when to b$$tch and moan, when to stop and get on with it.

I don't know, but I doubt there is going to be a vote on this, whether we want there to be or not.

This is like everything else we deal with.  There are good parts to it.  There are bad parts to it.  As NCOs and Officers, we are expected to exploit the good parts, and miminize the impact of the bad parts.  

 ;D


----------



## Journeyman (25 Sep 2006)

Leo791989 said:
			
		

> *even though i can run a 10 k in 28min 12secs*


Really? Then I'd suggest you're wasting your time in the CF anyway. After all, the 2004 Olympic Gold Medal 10K time was 27:05.101 Perhaps a bit more training and you'd have an athletic career instead.

-----------------------------
1. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics. I'm sure _they're_ not bullshitting.


----------



## orange.paint (25 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> rcac_011
> 
> Really?  Aren't you just a special person.  I wonder what Army you really joined.  Seems to me that this is nothing new; in fact it is an improvement.  Now they are being put into a 'Remedial Program' where before they just moved upward in the system.  Just look at yourself as one such example.  What physical fitness level were you at when you joined and what level have you managed to attain and maintain since joining.
> 
> As for your rant - whatever!  We have seen you make those noises before, and I guess we still haven't heard the last of them.



 No not special at all George.I think of myself as an AVERAGE troop.We all have our strength's and weaknesses no doubt.Some people are poor at map and compass or have drug problems etc.What army did I join?The Canadian army with a minimum standard in which I had to meet to join, and thanks to the army and other NCM's and NCO's I have improved my fitness.Am I the most fit guy in the world?Hell no!Theres always someone who will beat you.

I think its a waste of our money to "try" to train someone up.We lose enough in the training system from quiting/med etc who have met the current standard.I hate to see the army pay these guys to get in shape then they decide half way through basic"this isn't for me" theres 90 days minimum pay.

The standards are quite low.I know most of our parents in their 60-70's could do the base minimum.

As for the rant,im just discussing in an open forum my thought on this particular subject.Everyone is entitled to their views.And this one is mine.I don't find it malicious I just don't understand why we would waste money like this.If they can't do it on their own it shows lack of drive and determination to enter the army.Sure some people fail once,but the ones who really want in will go back and strive to be better.Some will quit the first time.This isn't an army of lets go for a 2.5 km run anymore,Or "death before dismount".

And I'm not saying large people are not in shape either!I've seen some really big lads kick ass running and especially at rucking up.One guy looked like a sack of poo but yet he had no off switch.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I was, without realizing it, fit when I joined the Marines, and never really had difficulties with the physical side of it, but there were many in my boot platoon who were not fit and they worked like hell to get there. Like I said before, out of 60-65 guys, we generally only lost 2 or 3 to the Fat Farm, the rest toned up.
> 
> This does not diminish the CF, it just inserts a minor step. A lot of good people who would not have been accepted otherwise are going to come out of this move.
> 
> my 1 cent, I need the other



As most of us are GAP.At least in the combat arms trades.Not that we can really compare a battle school in meaford to marine boot camp,but yes most of us were fit enough coming off the street.
I hope your right about it not diminishing the CF.Although I hate it when civilians were talking about "only doing 10 push-ups" (remember that whole "drop and give me ...ahhh....10?"that was in the papers not too long ago.That's a black eye for the army in my opinion.Not everyone has to me marathon runners or body builders.Meet the minimum standards and your in.

If you cant get in shape to join the army,you proably really don't want it real bad.We had a guy on my basic who was huge.Over 300 pounds,had CF shirts made for him (I think it was a 25 neck or something).Anyway he met the standards and now he continued to develop himself into a guy you wouldn't even recognise.Why?Dedication.He worked hard to get to the minimum (without help)and continued once he got in.That's what the minimum is designed for why get rid of it.

Sorry if I offended anyone but that's just my opinion.

Gapon't the US military run free PT sessions at the recruitment centers for candidates who need a little work prior to the army spending money on them?


----------



## Garett (25 Sep 2006)

I just found this out a few weeks ago, I think its a good idea because prior to this new policy recruits were automatically released if they failed the shuttle run but they were retained if they failed any of the other three tests.  For most it would be their first time taking this test.  Also I don't consider it a fair test because women are held to a much lower standard (even though this test has nothing to do with strength).  I'd have a hard time telling a man who failed by .5 when he needed a 6 that he was going to be kicked out when the women standing next to him only got a 4 but she is being retained.  The guy could of just have had a bad day and he would be getting kicked out after a few days in the CF, after many hours of work by the recruiting staff and hundreds of dollars of travel expenses.

Maybe my attitude will change in the next couple months due to my next tasking.


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Gapon't the US military run free PT sessions at the recruitment centers for candidates who need a little work prior to the army spending money on them?



I think they started that when it went over to an all volunteer force. Whether the fitness step is before, or after, they have been successful in getting their people fit and to that I give full credit to the Sr. NCO's who were our drill instructors...awesome, dedicate personnel, only we were sweating too much at the time to apprecite it.

Don't ever think the CF fitness regime is any less than the Marines...the CF has nothing to apologize for in quality


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2006)

I too think this is a good idea - people sit around in PAT Platoon for 2-4 months waiting for a release anyways, so you may as well have them doing something productive.  If in the end we get 70-100 trainable, basic trained soldiers (for the cost of 3 months in "warrior platoon") who otherwise would have been sent back to civvie street, then so be it.

I believe the US does this well - my buddy told me he didn't do his PT test until he hit Benning; if he failed he would have been put through a similar program.  Any US military pers can correct me, but this is what I recall.


----------



## orange.paint (25 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Don't ever think the CF fitness regime is any less than the Marines...the CF has nothing to apologize for in quality



More towards the marines at that time.Sort of like how our older guys tell us how easy we had it in comparison to them.Human rights and all that stuff.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Sep 2006)

Leo791989 said:
			
		

> My 2 cents worth:
> 
> . And now you're telling me that just cos I can't do 3 more push ups I am not goin to be a good pilot..gotta be kidding me.



 :crybaby:


----------



## orange.paint (25 Sep 2006)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/20/struggling_for_recruits_army_relaxes_its_rules/?page=1


http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17878
Story on similar thing is US army.

NOTE: "I'm going to hit the gym even harder," Kimball said. "Whatever it takes, I'll do it."

  -------


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> More towards the marines at that time.Sort of like how our older guys tell us how easy we had it in comparison to them.Human rights and all that stuff.



At the start of basic you were not human...therefore human rights did not exist for you. If you made the error of directing your speech to the DI and using the noun of "you", well there was a heavy price. Many's a Marine who has been questioned as to whether he considered the DI a female sheep (read ewe) and that the good for nothing, dirty little private wanted to do nasty, freaky things to the said DI. (Note: this is said in a very, very loud, spittle inflected voice occurring about two inches from private's face while being lifted by his throat a meager 4 inches off the ground)

Human rights....didn't know they existed until the liberals got in power. go figure


----------



## derael (25 Sep 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> :crybaby:



+1


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (26 Sep 2006)

> And now you're telling me that just cos I can't do 3 more push ups I am not goin to be a good pilot..gotta be kidding me.


Good grief. Push ups, in my humble opinion, have GOT to be the easiest thing you will be tested on during your long journey towards earning your wings. I think it says a lot personally...


----------



## Clarkey (26 Sep 2006)

Alot of different points of view on this, and to be honest my view has swung towards mud's point of view. I never realised that recruits being sent home were posted in a PAT platoon for around 3 months before shipped off. If that's the case, PT the buggers for 3 months not much point of them sitting around on their hands. When they are fit then give them the choice you still want to go home then fine stamp their papers, if not then in you go. I expect most would ruck up, especially with the boost in confidence after the training and fitness level increase. Plus this may be a deterrent to the recruits in BMQ just trying to slip by, knowing that if they quit or fail they have to spend the next 3 months training hardcore just to go home, not an easy out like what I understand a PAT platoon to be....hmmm....maybe that would make the new recruits try extra harder in BMQ.

Clarkey


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> it could also be argued that, since every recruit is given a package that details the standards that will be expected of you, if you fail to achieve the extremely low standard, you lack the initiative and discipline to make it through Basic at all, and that hanging onto a recruit at that point is just throwing money away that could be better used elsewhere.
> none of which is required. Push-ups, sit-ups, chin-ups, and running. No gym or instructor required.



Good points.  I am sure that both rcac_011 and I can agree on those.


----------



## Pea (26 Sep 2006)

The way I look at it is, if I didn't have the desired education/skills when I applied for my current employment I wouldn't have even been given an interview. They wouldn't give me a job I don't meet the minimum standards for in hopes I could later meet them. So why should the CF do this?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Sep 2006)

Interesting thread.  People sure get worked up easily.  What started as a discussion concerning a change in 'enrolment procedure/basic training' seems to have evolved into gripes from some that they should be able to join and serve without meeting an existing standard.  If I may, I would like to add comments that (IMO) have more to do with the original intent of this thread.

To add some perspective, pre-enrolment fitness testing was a 'relatively' new idea.  Well, it's 'relatively new' to me.  When I joined the CF, thirty years ago, you were not fitness tested before going to Cornwallis (ou St-Jean pour les gens qui parle francais).  I believe that practise may have started somewhere in the mid to late 80's (or even the early 90's).  Like many of these initiatives, the goal was to reduce costs.  If you could ensure that prospective members already met a minimum fitness standard then there would (probably) be less requirement for remedial training, less incidence of injuries during training and fewer releases. 

The focus has now changed.  Now Canada needs more soldiers and is prepared to accept additional training costs to get them. 

Thirty years ago, (and probably thirty years before that) recruits were fitness tested early in their course and at regular intervals during recruit school.  The testing, of course, was different in those days.  Those who did not meet a minimum standard were slated for remedial training, usually evenings and weekends which was in addition to the regular PT.  IIRC, few on my course in Cornwallis (of approximately 100 pers) actually had to do remedial PT.  There were many more who had to go to remedial swimming, mostly the Newfies (I think about six out of the ten/twelve).  If someone didn't pass the final PT test (a rare case), then depending on a lot of factors they were either re-coursed or punted.  When I went to BOTC later, the PT testing was much the same, but I don't remember any formal remedial PT; the candidates were expected to help their less capable course mates improve.  You were expected to show, well, leadership.  Are people (particularly those who will gravitate towards military service) that much more out of shape these days?  If they are, then it becomes even more important that we get them young and *train* them right (as an aside, I have an ex-wife who held the same viewpoint with regards to another physical activity).  Fitness training didn't (and should not) stop after basic, though it may not be the same for everyone.

As for the changed policy (or should it read 'changed back to what it was for a hundred or so years), there probably won't be a stampede of morbidly obese, unmotivated individuals squeezing themselves through the doors of CFRCs across the country because they are drooling at the prospect of going to basic training for 90 days with visions of sitting on their wide posteriors and eating cake in the mess hall.  Hopefully, the revised policy will make the enrolment process quicker. The result will be that the same sort of individual who has joined the Canadian Army, Navy and Air Force for over a hundred years gets in quicker.  It will not result in a sudden and widespread relaxing of fitness standards in the CF.


----------



## Teflon (26 Sep 2006)

> I still don't think a holding platoon to get in shape is a bad idea.



Many trg schools already have them,... they are called PAT PLs (Pers Awaiting Trg) and they consist of pers how having completed enrollment (including the minimum PT standard) and have either failed some aspect of training or are injured during training.  having these Pls you speak of where? Every recruiting center? We are already short pers in many units so why not steal several hundred more to run these Pls of people that might not ever achieve the minimum standard?


----------



## orange.paint (26 Sep 2006)

Teflon said:
			
		

> We are already short pers in many units so why not steal several hundred more to run these Pls of people that might not ever achieve the minimum standard?



My point I brought up earlier.I think another thing that bothers me is the army has came up with the creative name of "warrior platoon".Why not call it what it is FMS (failed to meet standard) sort of like PAT.

It sort of like calling being kicked out for drugs "the freebird program" instead of release.

Im curious as to what the training plan looks like for them.PSP will obviously be organising it.Whats next?Buses driving around with signs get in free uniforms and trip to Afganistan?I think we are a little desperate for numbers now,but will be kicking ourselfs in a few years down the road.


----------



## orange.paint (26 Sep 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Boy oh boy......
> 1)   The fact that someone has to do the step test instead of the shuttle run would be that he has a problem with the knees or one with the ole ticker.....
> 2)   Durint the step test, the PSP type will take your blood pressure on an ongoing basis.... if you go over 141... they stop the test (note that on the shuttle run your BP can go to the moon and back as long as you're still standing)
> AND (here's the kicker)
> ...



1) not nesecarrly.I did the step test in St.Johns newfoundland instead of the beep test.I was skinny and 17 in good shape.
3)Are you sure on that one?I've never heard of them using the "BMI" as anything more than a tool now.Before I was in I was told they used the BMI,but its a flawed system that they banished.They do however use it as a tool on their webpage.

cheers


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (26 Sep 2006)

From a strictly _military_ aspect, by current serving memebers, maybe this looks stupid.

To the people who count beans and bullets and study and critique our "risk assessments", "business cases" and "business plans", this probably looks very feasible and fiscally responsible.

For most of us, our duty is to "do the business".

For other, even some of our brothers and sisters in uniform, their job is "to run the business".

Someone, somewhere "business cased" this, and probably came back with the idea to recruit like this.  Why?  Because, in theory, the CF will keep more of the people that go into the 30/60/90 day program if they DON'T pass the EXRPES test than they will loose.  I can't fathom what statistics and charts and reports would tell them this, nor do I need to really.  I should be focused on MY part in this big machine, much like they are focused on this "risk assessment" and "business casing" that they are, or should be, the SMEs in.  I don't understand why they do it the way they do it, but I refer to my comment earlier about flyin' and comments to pilots.

Maybe just a case of not understanding the reason for this, but accepting it, continueing to ***** and moan about it, but ready to step off with the plan on behalf of our Superiors when we get the word of command "QUICK......MARCH!".  Ready to step off.  

So lets ***** and moan, BUT...anticipate the word of command folks.

Cause I don't see Uncle Rick on here bitching with us, so someone smarter 'n us convinced him this would work.

I try to have faith in my leadership.  That they will make the right decisions...even if they don't seem like the BEST decisions.

So, in closing, I would like to thank you all for your time and your warm welcome here tonight.  There will be a reception in the "Loyalty Room" shortly following tonights events.  Thank you.


----------



## geo (26 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> 1) not nesecarrly.I did the step test in St.Johns newfoundland instead of the beep test.I was skinny and 17 in good shape.
> 3)Are you sure on that one?I've never heard of them using the "BMI" as anything more than a tool now.Before I was in I was told they used the BMI,but its a flawed system that they banished.They do however use it as a tool on their webpage.
> cheers


who said anything about BMI..... I said VO2


----------



## Crimson (26 Sep 2006)

I am in the application process currently. I was told that I would not be given a PT test until I am already at BMQ. I'm not suggesting that I am going to fail but as devil's advocate here, I wasn't given the option of finding out if the training I've declared on my application is actually going to be good enough to count during my test. 

I *believe* that I'm up to the minimum standards for entering the CF. Belief is not the same as being tested and knowing. 

If I had been given the option and found out that my form was off or that while I could run the 2.4 in the time allotted except that my VO2 max was still not in the acceptable range, then I could have re-tested at a later date PRIOR to my enrollment. 

Without the option of testing before enrollment I think it's fair to say that if someone is close enough to passing with some remedial PT then train them up. If they are way off then send them home and let them train on their own dime. 

Beyond that, I don't know of anyone (personally) who ever said that they only intend to maintain the minimum entry level of fitness. entry level is just that. Personally, I'm shooting for athlete level regardless of what my trained and active soldier expectations are or what MOC I train into. 

I was just sharing a few thoughts...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (26 Sep 2006)

Crimson,

Its not a bad thing to see the perspective, put the way you have here, from the young soldiers that will be part of this new...plan.  

Good luck with your application!  Give em H E double hockey sticks!

MRM


----------



## orange.paint (26 Sep 2006)

Sorry Geo
BFT
Duty NCO
21km run
2nd day back to work after 10 weeks
those are my excuses!

Understood.


Crimson:
Don't worry too much about the test.As we have alluded to many times here so far its quite simple.Anyone who is remotely fit will pass.I never done a Push up in my life I don't think,or ran more than the police was willing to chase me prior to joining the army.(I wasn't a bad kid,we just liked drinking....rural NFLD not much else to do!)And I found PT easy.It ain't hard,don't stress just prepare yourself accordingly.I basically went and tried the run and everything once I got my recruitment package pamphlet explaining what was required of me.If you can run the 2.4 your vo2 max will be fine IMHO.


Close enough to pass?I always love the analogy of the 50%pilot.Would you feel safe after a perfect takeoff and the pilot has always messed up landings?The minimum pass is not on.It endangers life's,in this case life's of our troops.


----------



## geo (26 Sep 2006)

like I said before, they don't calculate your VO2 when you do the Shuttle run
they do calculate VO2 when you do the stairs..... go figure

Your BP cannot exceed 141 at any time while doing the stairs.
Your BP can exceed 200 (if you can survive) while doing shuttle run.


----------



## CF_Smith (26 Sep 2006)

I just Passed my Aptitude test and now i have to take a medical and and a physcial test. Im not worried about my medical but im not In shape for my Physcial. its not like im fat, But im kinda skinny, Im 6'3 and 161 pounds. I can  only do like13 or 14 Good Military pushups but the sheet i  got said i you have to do

27 Push ups
41 Crunches In 1 minuite
10 Chin ups.

Im not worried about the Crunches the Chin ups and the push ups concern me, I recently started working out so i could meet the Requirments. My question is do you think that the Recruiter will give me time to Try and get in shape?


----------



## marlene (26 Sep 2006)

On reading all the posts regarding the new PT test requirements, I can't help but think of the total lack of any kind of PT requirements for CIC's.  It's a real sore point with me. In this day and age of increasing obesity in kids and their non-participation in any kind of physical activity, I think it's vital that an example be set for the kids by those teaching them and/or in leadership positions and it's not happening.  

I suspect I'm pulling a no no here and this should be a thread in the cadets section but it seemed like an appropriate place to begin anyway.

Marlene


----------



## orange.paint (26 Sep 2006)

My other question is how concrete is this?Basically I haven't heard or seen anything official on it except on this site.I know kincannucks has inside info,anything official to dispurse to the masses?


----------



## geo (27 Sep 2006)

marlene said:
			
		

> On reading all the posts regarding the new PT test requirements, I can't help but think of the total lack of any kind of PT requirements for CIC's.  It's a real sore point with me. In this day and age of increasing obesity in kids and their non-participation in any kind of physical activity, I think it's vital that an example be set for the kids by those teaching them and/or in leadership positions and it's not happening.
> I suspect I'm pulling a no no here and this should be a thread in the cadets section but it seemed like an appropriate place to begin anyway.
> Marlene


Marlene,
There are neither PT standards nor are there any Medical standards for CIC & CI types.
I have a couple of Cadet CIC officers who have gotten the CF to pay them throughout the year as they nurse "blown" knee caps from the summer training.
Aug thru Jan = medical compensation
Feb thru May = EI
Jun thru Aug = Cadet summer camps
Aug thru Jan = medical compensation
etc
etc
etc

because there is no medical standard...... there is no way to stop it .... ever


----------



## keaner (27 Sep 2006)

....my two cents...

 I'm ex Reg and looking to get back in to the Reserves. I called the Recruiting station today to ask about what physical testing I would have to do and was told push-ups, sit-ups and Xpress test...that's it. Once you get to basic you do the 2.4km run. I asked if that was because of my previous service and was told no...it's across the board.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 Sep 2006)

Cfn.Bloggins said:
			
		

> ....my two cents...
> 
> I'm ex Reg and looking to get back in to the Reserves. I called the Recruiting station today to ask about what physical testing I would have to do and was told *push-ups, sit-ups and Xpress test*...that's it. Once you get to basic you do the 2.4km run. I asked if that was because of my previous service and was told no...it's across the board.



Situps and pushups are part of the EXRPES test.  Not seperate from...


----------



## moclyke (27 Sep 2006)

I was told yesterday the physical would be done in BMQ, i dont know why I was relieved I knew I was ready but the Physical was the only test that worried me. To not realize your dream because you fell short on testing day is a scary factor. I think the army realized that in order to recruit more people they need to lessen the standards. However I will not use the "warrior" platoon as any kind of crutch. I don't want my friends and family to know I joined the army when they were letting "anybody" in. My recruiter has told me that no one wants to stay in Saint-Jean longer than they have to. To be put into a platoon when the rest of your comrades came prepared is embarassing and makes you look less dedicated. So when the testing comes through I WILL BE READY!!!!!!!


----------



## luciano (27 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> My other question is how concrete is this?Basically I haven't heard or seen anything official on it except on this site.I know kincannucks has inside info,anything official to dispurse to the masses?



I was wondering this myself. I did a little searching on the new CF website about the recruitment process and it is missing a fitness aspect in the joining steps.

Summary of the steps to join the Canadian Forces:

   1. Make sure that you meet the basic eligibility requirements
   2. Apply online, in person or by mail
   3. If pre-selected, you will be submitted to the electronic Canadian Forces Aptitude Test
   4. You will be submitted to a thorough medical examination
   5. An Enhanced Reliability Check will be conducted
   6. You will be interviewed by a career counsellor
   7. If a selection offer is made and accepted, there will be an enrolment ceremony to welcome you in the military family.

    Note: The Canadian Forces Applicant Physical Fitness Test is eliminated from the selection process for the Regular Force effective October 1, 2006. The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrolees to each an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training. Until further notice, the test will remain in the selection process for Reserve applicants. The Guide to physical fitness remains available for applicants wishing to self-evaluate and increase their physical fitness level. 

http://forces.ca/v3/engraph/resources/howtojoin_en.aspx

So does that mean BMQ courses starting after Oct. 1st follow this new process even if they had a fitness test during enrollment, or is this starting for new recruits just starting the process after Oct. 1?


----------



## govenor_mac (27 Sep 2006)

Well, heres mama ranting once again. When my son didn't pass the running test fourth day into basic (back in April) it was almost the end of the world to him.He was so disgusted,disappointed,angry, etc.with himself for not taking the PT serious enough. He has since then applied to VR,changed his mind and took the five weeks Remedial Training.He is 6'3. He went from a 46 waist to a 38 in five months.He is built like a brick wall. He has been physical fit since and eating healthier.His self esteem has soared not only on accomplishing his weight loss and becomming fit but fullfilling his dream of becoming a CF member in good form.He is now into his fourth week of Basic and just loving it. I just want new recruits entering the CF to be sure they are fit and not go through the hell emotionally he went through.He spent six months in Pat Platoon waiting for Basic to begin and it is all in what you make of it yes,but to him hell would be a better place.


----------



## LeonTheNeon (27 Sep 2006)

I had my interview today.  It makes absolutely no difference when you started your application. The new policy for the PT test applies to everybody whose basic training starts after 1 Oct 2006.  If you've already passed a pre-enrollment PT test, you will still have to do the PT test in basic training.

I was told at the end of the interview that absolutely 100% regardless of when you applied the pre-enrollment PT test is no longer being done.  You will, regardless of when you applied, have to pass the CF Express test in the first few days of basic training.  If you do not you will be put in a Warrior platoon for PT training.  You will be tested at the 30 day mark, if you fail you may be given an additional 30 days, if you fail again you may be given an additional 30 days.  If you fail again, you are likely to be released.


----------



## commanderstan (27 Sep 2006)

My mother heard from a friend with Military connections a few weeks ago that the CFs were fast tracking recruits. Is that what the elimination of the Physical Test in the Application does: gets you into Basic training faster?


----------



## LeonTheNeon (27 Sep 2006)

This is just my opinion, based on my observations of the recruiting process and based on what I've read of the slowness in the recruiting process.

I don't see it making things much faster and I don't think it is the reason for eliminating it.  I don't think the PT test was a major cause of a slowdown for most applicants, unless they failed the test, in which case there still will be no real savings in "time to them being a contributing member" since they'll be on the Warrior platoon for 30 to 90 days.  

My wild-a**ed guess is that the thinking is along the lines of since prior to 1 Oct 2006 you did the CF Express in basic anyway (week 2 or 3?), they probably figured why not just do the CF Express earlier in basic and eliminate the redundancy of doing it pre-enrollment and absorb the cost of getting the failure physically fit.

Also in the realm of speculation, I'm thinking that the powers that be believe that they can get the majority of recruits in shape to pass basic since they'll be a captive audience for up to 90 days.  They also likely believe that the cost of doing this is acceptable in order to assist in reaching the recruiting goals.  On the flip side, they may have the perspective that in old method those that failed the pre-enrollment PT test may have dropped their application completely and hence were lost to the CF as members.


----------



## orange.paint (27 Sep 2006)

LeonTheNeon said:
			
		

> On the flip side, they may have the perspective that in old method those that failed the pre-enrollment PT test may have dropped their application completely and hence were lost to the CF as members.



Good.Do you really want people in the army that cannot meet the requirements right off the start?Do you really want people who fail?People who fail then decide to not put in the effort to pass?

2421=30 days Private 1 pay

1328=30 day officer cadet pay


Lieutenant A 4147 =30days
Warrant Officer 6B  Basic 5208 =30days
Sergeant 6A  Basic 4675 =30 days
Sergeant 6A  Basic 4675 =30 days
MasterCorporal  5B  Basic 4239 =30 days
MasterCorporal  5B  Basic 4239 =30 days
Corporal  5A  Basic 4069 (admin NCO)=30 days
Corporal  5A  Basic 4069 (ration NCO)=30 days

If 15 troops are on this "warrior"platoon.IE too lazy/fat to be in the army their pay per month totaled with a small  cadre would cost.


98,313  $$ per 30 days NOT INCLUDING RATIONS.NOT INCLUDING PSP STAFF,NOT INCLUDING ACCOMIDATIONS.

If the fat and lazy platoon retains 15 students year round it would cost in excess of:
1,179,756$.

Where as if the person works out and meets the pathetic low standard it cost the army

0$

Also something to discuss would be where they are such a risk to themselves being weak they run a higher risk of injury.If a cf member hurt themselves they cannot be release till they are fixed.So how many pers will be putting in for pentions from banged up knees because "the army made me run when I was too fat to do it."

I'm far from a bean counter/risk analysis guy but how does this make sense.

Like one of my peers said today "we need numbers and we will kick ourselves in the ass in 10 years time."Its too hard to kick out fat and lazy,now its too easy for them to get in.


----------



## LeonTheNeon (27 Sep 2006)

> Good.Do you really want people in the army that cannot meet the requirements right off the start?Do you really want people who fail?People who fail then decide to not put in the effort to pass?



You will note, nowhere in my post did I say "I have this perspective".  I am only conjecturing on what the thinking likely is, and only suppose that whoever is the head bean counter has determined that it is an acceptable cost.  Whether they are right or not, is beyond the reach of my vision since I don't have nearly enough data to make that detailed of an analysis.

If you want my own personal opinion, based on limited data, I don't like it.  I think there should be a price of admission to being in the Canadian Forces, and you shouldn't be coddled and taken by the hand on the path to being a soldier.  If somebody cannot find it in themselves to be able to meet the bare minimum before basic training, I just really question if they have the strength of character to be an effective soldier.  To those that say, "but I can do everything else I just find pushups/situps/running hard"... sorry about your luck.  I highly doubt barring some physical handicap, which I should note would bar you from entering the CF anyway on medical grounds, that there is ANYBODY who cannot meet the bare minimum.  My buddies who are not in prime condition, and are not applying to be in the CF but are working out with me for morale support have managed to reach the minimum in 9 weeks!  It really isn't that hard, and is not an unreasonable expectation pre-enrollment.


----------



## moclyke (27 Sep 2006)

I do not believe it is fair to call it the "fat and lazy platoon". The armed forces is not devaluing their enlisted personnel, they are simply broadening the amount of people to get in. If the best person for the job happens to be a slow runner, shouldn't the money be used to benefit the military instead of getting someone who doesn't know what they are doing but happens to be able to do 20 push-ups?


----------



## govenor_mac (27 Sep 2006)

Boy......for a "fat and lazy" platoon...they sure beat the odds and got awarded 'Best drill in Canada'.... eh?


----------



## aesop081 (27 Sep 2006)

govenor_mac said:
			
		

> Boy......for a "fat and lazy" platoon...they sure beat the odds and got awarded 'Best drill in Canada'.... eh?



Oh give it a rest....so they can do drill....big f'ing deal. Even a 300 lbs, out of shape individual can do drill when his paycheck depends on it.  meanwhile the rest of the  military has a war going on.

Somebody way higher than me has determined that this was the way to go, i dont agree but i'll work with it.  The standards were rediculously low to begin with, how young canadians cannot meet them is sad.  Now we are going to have more sick, lame and lazy on our hands.  Good thing that we can get rid of them after 90 days !!  That is IF we are allowed to get rid of them.  My past experience with PAT says its not going to be so easy.


----------



## orange.paint (27 Sep 2006)

moclyke said:
			
		

> I do not believe it is fair to call it the "fat and lazy platoon". The armed forces is not devaluing their enlisted personnel, they are simply broadening the amount of people to get in. If the best person for the job happens to be a slow runner, shouldn't the money be used to benefit the military instead of getting someone who doesn't know what they are doing but happens to be able to do 20 push-ups?



What do you suggest we call them?Something like warrior to cover up the fact that they cannot do the job?When your working cement work and some laborer cannot lift a wheelbarrow what do you do as a foreman?Keep them on salary and slowly work them into the job?NO! You fire their asses and get another person who can do the job.As for the "shouldn't the money be used to benefit the military instead of getting someone who doesn't know what they are doing but happens to be able to do 20 push-ups?" Here's a freaking idea, soldiers can meet the requirements and know their job.Amazing isn't it!Your profile lacks any info so I'm guessing your a warrior platoon hopeful or have fat family trying to get in.My son is learning how to crawl right now and I swear he can do more than 20 push ups at 6 months old.(he keeps flopping in on his belly,not too steady but cute).



			
				govenor_mac said:
			
		

> Boy......for a "fat and lazy" platoon...they sure beat the odds and got awarded 'Best drill in Canada'.... eh?



No they didn't beat any odds.They are the losers in the game called life.While others were doing trades training and deploying to war these people where sitting in Borden without a job BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FIT FOR SERVICE!I know your a mother of one of the failures,and proud of your son that's fine.But don't try to use smoke and mirrors to cover up the basic fact that he failed.We know the system and some of us work in it everyday.

2421 dollars every thirty days....hey here's an idea lets use the money to improve another fitness topic here,the reserve units!Imagine how much equipment you could buy with that!Or class A days that could pay for.But no they rather waste it on sacko's who cant do their jobs.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> No they didn't beat any odds.They are the losers in the game called life.While others were doing trades training and deploying to war these people where sitting in Borden without a job BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FIT FOR SERVICE!I know your a mother of one of the failures,and proud of your son that's fine.But don't try to use smoke and mirrors to cover up the basic fact that he failed.We know the system and some of us work in it everyday.



In all fairness, not everyone on PAT is there because they are useless....some are just there because their trades course has yet to start or some have legitimate injuries and cant wait to get back to training.


----------



## moclyke (27 Sep 2006)

I'm sorry, I was too vague in my last comment. I'm sorry these "fat and lazy" people want to serve their country. Let's kick them all out. But wait, the Armed Forces needs like 3,000 more recruits and the "thin and energetic" people aren't applying. 

 When I was in the recruiting office I was explained the "points system". Every occupation in the army has a number of points depending on how competitive they are. A mechanical technician for example is 4. If i applied for this position I would not be considered competitive considering I have no experience with mechanics. I would rank as a 1 or 2. However if a mechanic who has worked in the field for 10 years applied for this position he  would rank as a 4 or 5. What I was suggesting earlier was that if the Army was in dire need of mechanics, and the certain people who applied didnt happen to meet the Physical standard, maybe in the long run it would benefit the Armed Forces to hire that person and help him meet the fitness requirements.

Since I haven't filled out my profile I will inform you on my status. I just finished the application process and although I am READY to take the PT test, I have been told it will be on the second day of BMQ. I don't disagree with the "warrior platoon" although I wouldn't want to be in it. I am in pretty good shape already and I know BMQ training will put me in even better condition so in the end, what's the difference? I can see how people would be offended, the Armed Forces are supposed to be an elite form of people. The best of the best. But if we need more personnel and the "best of the best" aren't applying, where are we going to draw them from? 

That's just my thought, I don't like people jumping to any assumptions. By the way, I do NOT come from a fat family!!!


----------



## dardt (27 Sep 2006)

Regarding the new PT Test Requirements - Does anyone know what will happen if you are granted a recruit school bypass on enrollment ? Will you be tested on your QL3 ?


----------



## orange.paint (27 Sep 2006)

Your express test is valid for a year if your coming in from the reserve.So Bring a copy with you if you don't care to do it again.

This sort of stuff is part of the reason we are losing people.They are getting sick and tired of the retardation this army does sometimes.

Anyway back to serious discussion.I'm wondering the full out plan for this "FALP"(fat and lazy platoon)I'm guessing they would still keep PAT platoon for the fit guys who just had a bit of bad luck and broke a leg etc.I wonder what kind of training they would be doing during the day and what restrictions if any are placed on them in the mess hall.Personally if I seen pte warrior eating fries and a cheese burger I would have to say something.


Maybe truth duty valour should cover it.I'm kidding.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Sep 2006)

I personally think that lack of PT test will just open the door to  winners that can't run 1.5 km without puking, but want to be commando's anyway. I was in pretty crappy shape 6 months ago, but I worked at it because it's what I wanted. Don't apply until you can do the minimum, and hopefully more. Not everyone is an athlete, but almost everyone should past that test. 

The PT test was at one point the only thing holding back several of these out of shape types I know. I sure hope that those awaiting trades training will not be lumped into the same platoons as those doing remedial PT testing, that won't be very good for morale...


----------



## keaner (27 Sep 2006)

> Situps and pushups are part of the EXRPES test.  Not seperate from...




 I stand corrected...situps, pushups and step test...that's all that's required to get in.

 Personally, I'd be too f'n embarrassed to try to join the military and not be fit enough to pass a basic fitness test. 

 I can only think that the ones who are truly worried about the how/when/why of the new admission standards are the ones who should be...i.e. they are too out of shape to pass the test.

 Look at it this way...if you are really worried then get running, in no time it will cease to be an issue.


----------



## moclyke (27 Sep 2006)

BillBarilko said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd be too f'n embarrassed to try to join the military and not be fit enough to pass a basic fitness test.



I agree. Basic will weed out whoever doesn't belong there anyway. Anyone who graduates BMQ training I think deserves to be there.


----------



## Munner (27 Sep 2006)

I hardly think passing BMQ reflects whether or not a soldier should be in the CF.


----------



## moclyke (27 Sep 2006)

Munner said:
			
		

> I hardly think passing BMQ reflects whether or not a soldier should be in the CF.



i think if you have the opputunitry to quit for some twelve weeks, it determines those who really want it versus people who decide not to hack it. What else should decide it? Why are we all so picky on who should defend our country? To keep peace in other countries? Why are we so picky?


----------



## kincanucks (27 Sep 2006)

Munner said:
			
		

> I hardly think passing BMQ reflects whether or not a soldier should be in the CF.



Maybe not on your BMQ.  BMQ is the indoctrination of suitable persons into the CF and if one passes a BMQ they certainly do belong in the CF and deserve to be given the opportunity to further develop their skills through further training.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 Sep 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> In all fairness, not everyone on PAT is there because they are useless....some are just there because their trades course has yet to start or some have legitimate injuries and cant wait to get back to training.



Good point.  RCAC_011, I know you have some strong opinions on this point, BUT not all the troops in PRETC are there because they are Sick Lame and Lazy.

I have a bang on MCpl that is CTing and has to head there next month...

Sorry, had to slide that little point along to support CdnAviator...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 Sep 2006)

moclyke said:
			
		

> i think if you have the opputunitry to quit for some twelve weeks, it determines those who really want it versus people who decide not to hack it. What else should decide it? Why are we all so picky on who should defend our country? To keep peace in other countries? Why are we so picky?



The same reason we are picky on who we let be firefighters.

If, when you think of that, you can't see what I am getting at, let me now.  I will be more detailed.


----------



## moclyke (28 Sep 2006)

I can see what you are getting at, but please be aware of the fact that training to become a firefighter is also intense. I think if one decides to _AND_ completes said training they are qualified in becoming a firefighter. No one is born a firefighter, they can be trained. I'm not giving excuses to people who think they don't have to work to be a firefighter OR be in the Canadian Armed Forces, I'm only saying everyone should get that chance. It's not like the Army is handing out a list saying everyone on it can be in the military. There IS training and there IS hard work and I'm saying everyone who makes it out the other end has the right to be in because they've earned it.

I will never understand how people can judge other people and think they are immediately not good enough to enlist based solely on the fact they cannot meet the PT standard. I know most personnel in this forum think that they are not working as hard as you did to get in. We're not "gods among men". We're dogs. And dogs did not learn to sit on their own.


----------



## LeonTheNeon (28 Sep 2006)

I think the flip side of that moclyke is that the CF is not asking for a super human or even a high athletic standard.   If I recall correctly, the VO2 max score needed to pass the step test is on the cusp of poor and fair by age group and gender.  As I indicated in my previous post, my buddies who have done little physical exercise in years, some of whom are in their late 30s or early 40s managed to achieve the minimum standard in 9 weeks from light/moderate exercise (their routine was essentially 1 set of pushups, situps per day, 5 days a week, + 3 runs a week).  The CF isn't asking for much.

Being a soldier in any field carries thepotential, if not the necessity for some trades, to be physically demanding on a moments notice.  While waiting for my interview yesterday I was talking to a reservist who had been in A'stan.  He was telling me about being woken up in the middle of the night to rocket fire and having to run to a bunker.  He wasn't in a combat arms field, but he still needed to be able to run.  He still had to carry around his flak armor and tac vest from time to time.  He was called upon to do some heavy lifting to help out.  None of which was relevent to his trade, but that's life in the army.

The judgement stems from two things, in my opinion:

1) Since the CF isn't asking for much, what does it really say about somebody who isn't willing to invest 6-10 weeks of their own time to be prepared for service?  There's no cost involved to the applicant, other than thier time, perhaps 4-6 hours a week.  If this person isn't willing to invest 40-60 hours getting ready to do something easy, then what sort of soldier will they be when they're being asked to do something hard or something that's really miserable?   I think the men and women in uniform know that answer because they see some of them everyday.  The MIR commandos, the whiners, the lay-abouts, the "do the bare minimum" types.

2) A lot of times the people who complain about the PT standard make excuses, e.g. "I don't have enough time to practice pushups" and/or whine about it, e.g "I'm not going combat arms so why should I have to do this?".  Again this speaks to character.  Does the CF need the whiners who can only see within the context of their trade?   Does the CF need people whose default position, the core of their personality is one which breed excuse making?

I don't think ultimately the judgemental nature of what you see is about being able to lift sandbags all day, it is about the type of person who is willing to bleed and sweat a little to be in the CF, and the lack of character of those who don't.


----------



## Centurian1985 (28 Sep 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> ... not all the troops in PRETC are there because they are Sick Lame and Lazy...



I always did hate that term.  Some people treat it as the joke it is, an old tradition that Sgt-Majors carried on.  It was funny at first, but once you see friends with legitimate injuries like broken legs or arms or even leukemia grouped under that category, it stops being funny.  Too many times those with injuries gained from the line of duty are grouped with those who are known to be shirkers and malingerers.


----------



## patrick666 (28 Sep 2006)

> I will never understand how people can judge other people and think they are immediately not good enough to enlist based solely on the fact they cannot meet the PT standard. I know most personnel in this forum think that they are not working as hard as you did to get in. We're not "gods among men". We're dogs. And dogs did not learn to sit on their own.



Dogs have the inate ability to sit when desired, the thing about dogs is to sit on command. 

The physical standard is simply that - a standard. If you do not meet the standard then either train up to that point and reapply or pass go and collect your $200 (I think the loan is 200 too, if I remember correctly). You can gripe about the CF losing out on prospects but the other side of that coin is that those people, because of their failure to meet or exceed the standard, are missing out on the CF.


----------



## govenor_mac (28 Sep 2006)

This is to rcac-011
My son is far from being a failure and in no way a loser or he wouldn't be where he is today, honey.You have a really poor attitude dear...have you considered seeking councel? By the way your dog didn't die...he escaped.


----------



## orange.paint (28 Sep 2006)

govenor_mac said:
			
		

> This is to rcac-011
> My son is far from being a failure and in no way a loser or he wouldn't be where he is today, honey.You have a really poor attitude dear...have you considered seeking council? By the way your dog didn't die...he escaped.



Yes by definition your son is a training failure.He failed to pass the physical aspect of the BMQ course.I don't consider my attitude poor,infact all my PER state the opposite.I just have a amazing low tolerance for people who sugar coat things.As for seeking council I don't understand why I would.Last time I spoke to councillor's was returning from overseas and they said I was good to go.But thanks for your concern.As for my dog I had to get rid of it due to a biting problem.She was fine until she reached the age of two,then began becoming aggressive towards strangers.Having a small child I decided to get rid of the animal to protect him.He did not escape as I placed him in a nice grave behind my house in rural Newfoundland.i hope that clears up your misunderstanding about that.Being a wife of two army guys,with children old enough to be in basic I would hazard a guess your plus 40 years old.Start acting your age instead of arguing with a forum of people who obviously know a bit more than yourself.My wife grew up in a army family was in the army herself for a while,yet when I say RAPZ ops she don't know what I'm talking about.Why?because her scope of army knowledge doesn't extend there.As per this subject and yourself.

I myself have a strong stance on this subject.People like this make other young troopers do more work.They corrupt the team setting as they cannot do what the others can,therefore someone else picks up their slack.

I personally don't like the idea but alas I'm a mere junior NCO who has no say in the matter.But Governor_mac,don't think your son will not run into people as on this board.You have people from all walks of life here discussing this topic from reserve sgt's,senior reg officers to people who were seriously wounded overseas.Although some agree with getting guys in shape I think we can all agree that the standards are way to low,and if you cant meet it you shouldn't get a brown paper envelope every 15 days.



			
				govenor_mac said:
			
		

> This is to rcac-011
> My son is far from being a failure and in no way a loser or he wouldn't be where he is today, honey.You have a really poor attitude dear...have you considered seeking council? By the way your dog didn't die...he escaped.



That above is an example of a feeble mind personally attacking because it is desperate to respond.Ask your son what he was told when he was re coursed.He is a "training failure" he may be a stand up guy,but that's the basic fact.Hopefully the staff can motivate him to actually meet a sub human standard to progress to better things.I work a mosaic of people I have not seen ANY ever fail an express test from warrants and cpls with 30 yrs in who lived on a diet of pizza beer and cigarettes for the past 25 yrs down to chubby troopers.NEVER.(A few on 13km but never express)

I hope the poor buggers who get hurt etc are not put into a platoon with these guys.That would be horrible for their morale.

Anyone here from CFLRS ST.Jean who can shed some light from the inside on how many cadre will be tasked to do this?restrictions on the "warriors"/messhall/drinking mess privileges?That's what we need is someone who's there to comment.


----------



## govenor_mac (28 Sep 2006)

My son has went on to prove he is not a failure. He has stuck with it no matter what the cost and went through 6 months of hell in PAT platoon. He did not quit. (almost did but didn't).You do not know my son as a person. He will succeed and will be an asset to the CF. You can quote me on that. When you fall off a horse you get right back up and ride again...get my drift? And by the way there were 14 who didn't pass the test that day. He was one of the very few who stuck it out and is now 4th week into Basic. We are DAMN proud of who he is... what he has accomplished...what he WILL accomplish..... I am 47 and no matter what age a mother is you will not get away with calling ones son a failure.Especially when you don't know them as a person or know the circumstances why they failed in the first place.So you grow up and be a little more understanding as a person.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Sep 2006)

governor mac & rcac-011,

Both of you stop right now. Next one that continues this line will go into the warning system, and without looking, I know there aren't many, if any, steps left. Get back on track....now.


----------



## Garett (28 Sep 2006)

You guys are really going to love the fact that starting in a few days potential recruits won't be doing a PT test before enrollment.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2006)

Garett said:
			
		

> You guys are really going to love the fact that starting in a few days potential recruits won't be doing a PT test before enrollment.



Yeah we know.......was your post suposed to be news ?


----------



## Spring_bok (28 Sep 2006)

There was no PT test in 1989 but you were tested 3 times in Cornwallis and if you failed you went back 2 weeks and did it again.


----------



## Meridian (28 Sep 2006)

To be honest, I do see it doing more good than harm. 

Anyone who shows up who isn't fit enough, and who can't get fit enough (after three months on a platoon designed for it) either has a pre-existing medical condition precluding it (another discussion), or will not be able to garner the discipline needed to live a life in the military.
Ive heard and read a lot about fitness boot camps being very good, and that if you can keep the routine up for at least 3 weeks (I believe that is the breaker point most FitPros give for routines), you stand a much better chance of holding that routine down.

Many people in our society (me included) have insanely busy civilian lives where our jobs, school etc, have very little interest in providing time or support for fitness.  Its a shoddy excuse, but its there, and does have an impact, whether you want it or not.   If we can help people who have a genuine interest in bringing other talents to represent our country in uniform get fit at the same time, all the better.  They can get the discipline needed to maintain the program from some of the world's best disciplinarians (the military) , and hopefully they will get over the hurdle and see how great keeping a fitness regimen is that they wont want to let go of it.

Part concern for me here is whether the program will be run too heavily by PSP rather than by uniformed pers, and as a result, how much kicking in the butt will really happen.

If anything, I think ALL recruits should be going through a much more rigorous fitness phase in BMQ.  My friend on IAP was just mentioning with this other recruits last weekend that they feel LESS fit,  and that if it wasn't for drill, they'd feel that they had regressed terribly in their fitness.  My buddy has basically worked out daily for the past two years, so to go from that to organized PT runs twice a week and a few hours with PSP a week..... it hits home.


A final thought:  Does this mean they will be course overloading to offset for the guaranteed attrition right after CFXPRESS? Or holding off on assigning recruits to platoons until CF Express is done?   Right now, with VRs and medicals in the first few weeks alone WITH the PT test many serials apparently lose many members...


----------



## orange.paint (28 Sep 2006)

Something I just thought about at the gym is the safety aspect.Where they are not tested a civilian who never ever did a day of PT in his life can walk in and start his PT test.What happens if he plain drops dead?I think testing still should be done prior to make sure the BASE fitness is there.If not for the other reasons mentioned,for the safety of the candidate.Even risk of injury from going from zero pt to the test would be quite high.


----------



## Centurian1985 (29 Sep 2006)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> There was no PT test in 1989 but you were tested 3 times in Cornwallis and if you failed you went back 2 weeks and did it again.



Come to think of it I dont recall doing any PT test in 1985 before hitting Cornwallis either... cant say for sure how many times I did them while there, its all kind of a blurr.  I do recall doing a lot of running.  Although Im not sure if my inability to recall details is due to weariness during the course, current old age, or brain cells killed off by evil living...


----------



## CallOfDuty (30 Sep 2006)

Hey there 099...Gotta say I totally agree with you.  I saw first hand the dangers of not having the " base" fitness level.  It is VERY dangerous.   I started basic back in february, and on our very first PT run on the track, our platoon was just finishing up the last lap or so, when one of our guys ( overweight and out of shape), ended up on the floor with his eyes rolled to the back of his head and blood coming from his nose, one girl suffered a very mild heart attack and the worst one was a fella who, out of shape and overweight, ended up on the floor as well.......barely breathing and having some sort of seizure.  He passed away some weeks later after being on life support.
   So, yeah...I think people should be at their best, and ready to go when they start BMQ.


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Sep 2006)

Centurian, I remember a medical but no actual PT test when I joined , all those years ago! I remember the PT in Cornwallis as being the best part of the day, and possibly the easiest.

Folks, it's not that we have too low or too high  a standard, it is that society today (and by that I mean the average young people) is at a deplorable fitness standard. My wife read some report that now there is more obese people in Canada then fit people. With that being the norm we definitely need to PT test incoming recruits, and enforce the testing of serving members as well!

At my age I have never "failed" a PT test or a BFT, and in fact usually beat most of the troops half my age! But here in Kingston I have witnessed some of our "slimmer" troops falling out of ruck marches in the first 100m, falling out of express tests at level .5 (not a typo). If we are to demand a standard of recruits entering the system, the very least those of us who are already in should do is hold ourselves accountable to the same standard!

Governor-Mac, your son WAS a training failure, but it's good to hear that he pulled himself up and kept driving towards his goal!


----------



## spud (11 Oct 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> An enrolee will be tested in the first week of BMQ and if they don't pass, they will be moved to the "Warrior" platoon where they will have 90 days to pass the physcal fitness test and be returned to BMQ training.  During this 90 days they will be tested at the 30, 60 and 90 day mark and ca return to BMQ training if they pass the test at any of these marks.



O my, during this time on "warrior platoon" are you engaged in anything other then remedial PT?? 

potato


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (11 Oct 2006)

Probably GDs...how do you like to scrub pots in the messhall?   ;D


----------



## geo (11 Oct 2006)

MRM... that's called motivational enhancement


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (11 Oct 2006)

Hah, that warrior platoon thing actually sounds pretty decent.  I'm not in the greatest shape in the world, but I can cover 2.5 ks in under ten minutes, and can hit 19 pushups and situps in the required time, but still I wouldn't mind being able to do more.  Warrior platoons sound like a good way to get in some additional fitness training, while at the same time getting paid for it while in basic.  Win win!


----------



## orange.paint (11 Oct 2006)

Found out something new on this today.If you fail your express you are given an option of leaving or going to st.jean to "fat camp".So even if your doing your BMQ in Gagetown/Borden etc you will have to go to st.jean for this training.Also it is no longer called warrior platoon (thank god cause that bugged me)it has a army name IE ( CSOR TCCCS for example) one that has slipped my mind at this time.



FYI


			
				Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Hah, that warrior platoon thing actually sounds pretty decent.  I'm not in the greatest shape in the world, but I can cover 2.5 ks in under ten minutes, and can hit 19 pushups and situps in the required time, but still I wouldn't mind being able to do more.  Warrior platoons sound like a good way to get in some additional fitness training, while at the same time getting paid for it while in basic.  Win win!



Did you join the army to work out?Or did you join to go overseas and serve your country?If you wanna have a job and get paid to work out go join PSP.It's a burden on our recruitment system.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (11 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> Did you join the army to work out?Or did you join to go overseas and serve your country?If you wanna have a job and get paid to work out go join PSP.It's a burden on our recruitment system.



I joined to do all of the above actually.  Get in shape...earn money...And serve my country while I'm doing it.

Obviously there are more reasons beyond that, but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, what other reasons are there to join the army than the above three?

furthermore-

I'm already working a security job, and it blows hard.  All civilians jobs blow hard.


----------



## gnome123 (11 Oct 2006)

Yeah this is really going to help me. Personally all upper body stuff is a breeze i could do it without breaking a sweat easy. My problem is running simply can't stand it but ive been forcing myself to do all the cardio i can do before Basic. I think with the proper motivation and running with peers i will meet the standard and if not ill force myself to get out of the "fat camp" (haha) as fast as possible.

btw... im hardly fat i just suck at running, prefer upper body training
5'10 160pds "all steel and sex appeal"


----------



## orange.paint (11 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Hah, that warrior platoon thing actually sounds pretty decent.  I'm not in the greatest shape in the world, but I can cover 2.5 ks in under ten minutes, and can hit 19 pushups and situps in the required time, but still I wouldn't mind being able to do more.  Warrior platoons sound like a good way to get in some additional fitness training, while at the same time getting paid for it while in basic.  Win win!



Then your signature block says/:

Don't hate me because I'm a keener...hate me because I make this crap look easy.

"Go warrior"I mean keener :


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (11 Oct 2006)

Sword fights with each other will probably get the thread locked by the Mod's guys...

I think RecceGuy calls them "dick measuring contests?"

 ;D


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2006)

.


----------



## orange.paint (11 Oct 2006)

Your right.
Ill try to get back on topic here.Good for you guys who are going to warrior platoon.I hope it helps you all become soldiers.But as a civilian standing outside DO NOT think the fat camp is going to be a fun good way to get in shape.When I was doing basic we were counting hours to leave.It's not meant to be fun,don't strive to remain there for 90 extra days.

Believe me once you get to your unit you can focus on your fitness to a higher level.But do basic become a soldier and get trained a quick as the system allows you.St.Jean ain't fun.


----------



## derael (11 Oct 2006)

Yep, 90 days of extra time seems like a huge waste of everyone's time including the recruit's. Best to get in shape before you go to basic and save everyone the trouble of getting your "shit" together.


----------



## beach_bum (11 Oct 2006)

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding some people on here who seem to think that "fat camp" is a good idea and a great way to get into shape etc.  I think it's more of a punishment really, not meant as a reward.  Maybe the whole remedial training idea has changed over the years, but it used to be a punishment, not a reward.  This is the military.  Knowing that a lot of the job is physical, why on earth would you even think of showing up out of shape.  I worked out like a fiend for many months before I went.  There was NO WAY I was going to show up for basic training and fall out of runs or anything else.  Basic training is not designed to get you into "reasonable" shape.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (11 Oct 2006)

derael said:
			
		

> Yep, 90 days of extra time seems like a huge waste of everyone's time including the recruit's. Best to get in shape before you go to basic and save everyone the trouble of getting your "crap" together.



And lets hope they do.

I think I said before..someone must have convinced Uncle Rick that this was a good thing...

The bean-counters must have "business planned" this one to death before it was allowed...they love that shite   ;D.

So we give them 90 days.  If it works out, they give Canada their service.  Stronger.  Better.  More motivated.

Not perfect but achieves the "end state" we want.

IIRC, I didn't do a PT test in '89 either.  

Let's hope the "pizza club types" are IDd during the medical phase.

The newbies aren't gettin a freebie folks, they are just havin' to do EXPRES after arriving...instead of the "musical ride" step test and stuff before.

Let's put the BIG worry to rest here, k?

Not one, not one, of the potential "PT challenged" folsk will deploy to the real deal without meeting the SAME standard our Battle Schools are demanding now.

We are just giving the ones that are "close" some time to get their crap together.  Not saying they will get thru at a lower standard.

Thats the steak on this one IMHO.  So we pay them up to 90 days.

And we train them.  And let them scrub pots in the mess.

And train them.

Yup. Some will not make it.

Some do not now.

Let's soldier on with the ones that DO go in to "Do-nut Platoon" that come out with a good PT report and train them.

Turf the ones that can't drop the butter in 90 days.  

Hey. Remember before this?  They would have ended up in PAT as sick/lame/lazy getting paid anyways.

Just a different pile. Same stink.

*_Milnet.ca staff edit for site policy_*


----------



## orange.paint (11 Oct 2006)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding some people on here who seem to think that "fat camp" is a good idea and a great way to get into shape etc.  I think it's more of a punishment really, not meant as a reward.  Maybe the whole remedial training idea has changed over the years, but it used to be a punishment, not a reward.  This is the military.  Knowing that a lot of the job is physical, why on earth would you even think of showing up out of shape.  I worked out like a fiend for many months before I went.  There was NO WAY I was going to show up for basic training and fall out of runs or anything else.  Basic training is not designed to get you into "reasonable" shape.



Your absolutely right.A lot of these troops have not enrolled yet and have a different what army life is going to be like.More so thinking its going to be like "the biggest loser".Basically it puts you behind your peers.And when there out doing cool army stuff and getting to drive a tank for the first time,your stuck in st jean getting the butt ran off you.Doing crappy jobs (working the games sign out desk on saturdays in the Bistro).And having little to no freedom as your friends are out partying at bunnies or other local booby joints.

Sure its a good idea in therory,but I wouldnt recommend anyone not train prior and get put on this.Who knows the way things are going your buddies could be e mailing you picks of them in Afganistan and your marching around the mega like a loser.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (12 Oct 2006)

Sarcasm must be a lost art around here or something.  Frankly, I don't see getting some extra physical training to be punishment, just an opportunity.  But hell, maybe I'm wrong...maybe the army should be full of fat sacks of crap (and we've all seen them in uniform.  They're there).  Given the opportunity to get someone in good shape, not just the minimum shape required to get into basic would I think be in the army's best interest.  But again, maybe I'm wrong, I dunno, you guys are the experts, I'm just the dumb ass keener.


----------



## spud (12 Oct 2006)

Munner said:
			
		

> I hardly think passing BMQ reflects whether or not a soldier should be in the CF.



File this under dumb quote of the day, that's exactly what BMQ is; it decides whether you get to join the party or get sent home. Sheesh. 

potato


----------



## orange.paint (12 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Sarcasm must be a lost art around here or something.  Frankly, I don't see getting some extra physical training to be punishment, just an opportunity.  But hell, maybe I'm wrong...maybe the army should be full of fat sacks of crap (and we've all seen them in uniform.  They're there).  Given the opportunity to get someone in good shape, not just the minimum shape required to get into basic would I think be in the army's best interest.  But again, maybe I'm wrong, I dunno, you guys are the experts, I'm just the dumb *** keener.



You obviously never read my post above your own.As I stated the physical part of BMQ would not be the punishment it would be sitting in St.Jean. I'm sure if you realise you can't jump aboard your car and go to timmiTimmie's7h00,go watch a movie afterwards and head back for a little army training during the day.

"maybe the army should be full of sacks of crap"?Doing basic without having to go to fat camp makes you a tad better than the guy stuck in this training platoon son.The fat the lazy will go to this. NOT the soldiers who go directly into the army.They apparently pass the standard,unlike the other folks.

I think your view on what BMQ is may vary from what actually happens.Marching everywhere,getting yelled at by EVERYONE (sometimes it french sometimes English days and doing rotation of duties plus learning military life/history/law and combat.Why you would almost state to want to go on this platoon blows my mind.I attribute it to lack of knowledge of what your going into.Trust me you do not want to remain in St Jean.

Personally if you want to go and fail and get put on this platoon,good luck.Your dumb,but good luck.Maybe being three months behind your peers would be awesome.I personally wouldn't to,but obviously the keener who seems to know all about BMQ.Why listen to anyone on this board.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (12 Oct 2006)

The point I was trying to make was that the basic entry level fitness requirements doesn't necessarily prepare individuals for the realities of basic, and THERE ARE a lot of people who are not in great shape who can nevertheless get into basic, yet struggle once they're in, and more often than not wash out as a result.  I'm just saying, it would be beneficial to all if the army set aside a little more time for the express purpose of getting people into GOOD shape.  And you can't say that everyone who gets into the army is in good shape...just good enough shape.  And I'm not ignorant to the fact that once you're out of basic, you're in better shape, but at the same time, there are people who wash out because they weren't in good enough shape to begin with. So again, the only point I'm trying to make here is that either the army should increase the basic fitness requirements, or should dedicate more time to getting people into good shape, thus to ensure less people wash out for reasons of inability to do certain physically demanding tasks.

ps.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything, and I am reading your posts, I'm just voicing an opinion on how a little extra physical training would be beneficial.


----------



## orange.paint (12 Oct 2006)

Lol
your preaching to the choir here about higher standards...take a search of my post. 
The topic at hand is holding hands of people who are unable to get themselves in shape.
And that there is no lower standards right now,there are none.You get to stay and play if your fat and lazy for
up to 90 days.

As for once you get out of basic and get to your regiment,you will find PT much more challenging.And if your well above that level place a memo in to do your own PT during the morning peroid.If you prove yourself you will be surprised in the support you will get from your chain of command.

Feel free to drop by the many rant topics if you feel standards are too low.There are people who play the system and get fat etc.

But alas thats for another topic.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (12 Oct 2006)

Yeah, that's pretty much my biggest gripe with the military when it comes to fitness standards, is that there are way too many people that work the system in their favor to not have to do PT, and it's embarassing.  I lived on the PMQ patch near LFCA for many years, and you would be shaking your head in disgust at the fat sacks of crap that worked in there, and lived in that neighborhood.  And these people are supposedly the leadership!?  I suppose then it's probably not so much the newbies that need the extra PT as it is the older folk who have been in for some time, and are slacking off.


----------



## IrishCanuck (12 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's pretty much my biggest gripe with the military when it comes to fitness standards, is that there are way too many people that work the system in their favor to not have to do PT, and it's embarassing.  I lived on the PMQ patch near LFCA for many years, and you would be shaking your head in disgust at the fat sacks of crap that worked in there, and lived in that neighborhood.  And these people are supposedly the leadership!?  I suppose then it's probably not so much the newbies that need the extra PT as it is the older folk who have been in for some time, and are slacking off.



I can understand your disdain, but don't talk about leadership and by extension professionalism, and then call people who are overweight, "fat sacks of crap."


----------



## knoxville (12 Oct 2006)

Im kind of dissapointed in what some of are saying here. I am one of im sure many, who had gone to their PT test and failed. I returned home and have been working my *** off trying to lose some extra weight and get my pushups up to standard. When i received my call with the offer, i was quite suprised by this new system they are introducing. 

I will admit anyday of the week that im not in the best pysical shape, but there is nothing id rather have more than the opportunity to be in the canadian forces. If i do end up being put into the "fat camp" on oct30, than so be it. If doing that is what it takes for me to get me going on my way to becoming a soldier, than sign me up. Since my fail, i have been working hard. I had honestly expected more from some of you, especially the vets... i just dont agree that people who are not in great physical shape, should not get the same opportunity as someone who is. Obviously to an extent though.. i think with this new system, if will motivate and have people making the standard much faster, than them doing it on their own.. just my opinion though

 099*.. you make it sound like people who fail their pt are fat and lazy. I can tell you look at this warrior platoon and see 40-50 270lbs kids eating twinkies and watching tv. when infact they're people slightly not ready for bmq requirements. I DO think though, that 90 days is kind of overdoing it. if you need 90 days to get in shape, than im sure you had no chance in hell of passing the pt test


----------



## Meridian (12 Oct 2006)

Actually, I think 90 days is fair. 
Keep in mind that pushing a cold engine from 0 to 60mph right out of the gate is asking for trouble.

Injuries happen very easily when someone who has not been very fit suddenly starts pounding the pavement so to speak; the added weight is added weight on the joints, and those joints are ones that have not been kept in good working order.

Give these people some time to focus on getting their fitness in order, with qualified fitness professionals and military discipline, and Im sure it will work out for many.   And for those that do make great progress in such a program, I think you'll find them doubly committed to the forces; since being in shape feels great, and that feeling will be in large part thanks to the Forces' efforts.

Will there be some slobs who wont make it?  Sure. Just like there are skinny kids with high metabolisms who eat crap all day, have terrible self-discipline to boot and who will drop out of the military after passing their CF EXPRES because they don't want to do four hospital corners every morning.


----------



## orange.paint (12 Oct 2006)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Will there be some slobs who wont make it?   Sure. Just like there are skinny kids with high metabolisms who eat crap all day, have terrible self-discipline to boot and who will drop out of the military after passing their CF EXPRES because they don't want to do four hospital corners every morning.



If your on the PT platoon you have already failed to make it.Standards are sub human,hopefully the pt program will bring them up to being in sub human physical condition.However passing the minimum standard barely is a lot like failing it,I would like to see stats in reference to injuries/pass fail rate of former fat platoon pers.


----------



## newaecgirl (12 Oct 2006)

I notice that most of the references here are to BMQ.  I was wondering if anyone knows the procedure for IAP bypasses joining BOTP?  I don't anticipate a problem since I have recently passed the EXPRES, but I am just curious what the procedure is.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2006)

The procedure is the same.  If you fail it, then you will have to do the EXPRESS Test.


----------



## krystal (12 Oct 2006)

Really, the whole thing of testing pre enrollment was a new thing, i would say probably about.. 10 years ago and before there was no P.T requirement to get in, you signed up, they shipped you off to Basic and they worked you until you did the running and the push ups or you were out, this is the way it was for my father, and my older brother, both of which saw people unable to do the P.T when they got there, but could pass it fine by graduation. My dad thought it was crap when they changed it, so you had to do the pre enrollment P.T especially since the requirement to get in, was what you had to be able to do to pass basic. Because of this new program i can finally get in. I can run, i can do everything except the pushups the exact way they want it. I can do fairly crappy ones, but i've worked my butt off for almost 4 years trying to get in on one pt test i was one push up away when i snapped my wrist. So i think there are alot of people out there that aren't Fat or lazy that truly want to get in. If they need that little bit of help, then fine, whats to say they won't make a good canidate? I personally am happy about the changes and i think recruitment is only going to prosper from the change. Just my .2 cents though, from someone who is benefitting from the program.


----------



## spud (12 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> I lived on the PMQ patch near LFCA for many years, and you would be shaking your head in disgust at the fat sacks of crap that worked in there, and lived in that neighborhood.



I am not aware of your status and whether you wear the uniform or not; from your tone you don't, but I may be wrong.  However, these "fat sacks of crap" as you so call them chose to serve and by extension wear/wore that uniform with the red maple leaf on it somewhere. 

Having served before and getting my call just yesterday to go back; having a wife, son, and daughter-in-law also wearing the uniform, if you were to make that type of comment within earshot of me you'd be getting b!tch slapped upside the head.

Show some respect.

potato


----------



## Meridian (12 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The procedure is the same.  If you fail it, then you will have to do the EXPRESS Test.



George, Im a bit confused by your last statement.. Perhaps you meant to say,if you fail EXPRESS On your initial course (IAP, BOTP, BMQ) you are moved over to Warrior platoon....


[quote author=099*]If your on the PT platoon you have already failed to make it[/quote]

099*,  I mean if you dont make it past the 90 day cutoff in warrior platoon.


----------



## beach_bum (12 Oct 2006)

knoxville said:
			
		

> I had honestly expected more from some of you, especially the vets... i just dont agree that people who are not in great physical shape, should not get the same opportunity as someone who is.



The point here, is that you don't have to be in GREAT physical shape to meet the bare minimum to pass this test.  In fact, it's a very low standard to meet.  This is a physical job.  When you apply for a job, you come prepared.  If you apply for a job as a school teacher, would you not go to university to get your teachers degree prior to getting hired?  Would you expect them to hire you and then bring you up to speed?  No.  Therefore, when joining the military, being in reasonable shape prior to getting hired is really not too much to expect.


----------



## newaecgirl (12 Oct 2006)

I also would like a bit more clarification....I know that if you are a recruit school bypass your current EXPRES test is valid and you go on to do trades training.  Are you saying that an IAP bypass is the same (current pt test, finish training on to trades courses), or would they go to a warrior pl instead of doing the BOTP?  I know on the old system and IAP bypass who failed the express would continue with training, be retested in a later week, and if still failed denied the course credit and graduation until the EXPRES is passed (this is information on the CFLRS DIN site).


----------



## Journeyman (12 Oct 2006)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> Would you expect them to hire you and then bring you up to speed?  No.  Therefore, when joining the military, being in reasonable shape prior to getting hired is really not too much to expect.



Don't you just _hate_ it when she uses that logical, common-sense stuff on you?


----------



## orange.paint (12 Oct 2006)

Meridian said:
			
		

> George, I'm a bit confused by your last statement.. Perhaps you meant to say,if you fail EXPRESS On your initial course (IAP, BOTP, BMQ) you are moved over to Warrior platoon....
> 
> 
> 099*,  I mean if you ddon'tmake it past the 90 day cutoff in warrior platoon.



If after 30 days you can sign on for another thirty.(Pure speculation every 30 days would be like a PRB if you fail) for a maximum of 90 days on the fitness platoon.If after 90 days you cannot meet the cf minimum requirements you are released.

The express test is valid for up to 12 months...however.Sometimes they will make you do it 3 times a year.Believe me I just did it 3 times this year even though I was except each time and topped out the CSOR standard for push ups sit ups and the run.It's a joke to get exempt for two years also.I believe its 9 on the run,anyone with any form of cardio will become exempt
It's the army sometimes they just do stuff,but why bother whining and saying you already did it this year....it's push ups,sit-ups and a beep test!Who cares!

I see guys who are in way more "uber" shape than myself.However people should start looking at PT as a perk to their day.As a regular force guy I come into work at 6:15 and do pt until 7:15 at our gym on my own.I then go to parade at 7:30 and do pt from then until 8:45!What other job allows a person to do that?Not many.Also the "coffee break"I spend up in the weight room.Half an hour in the afternoon,spent working to better myself for the army and overall my well being.

How does someone get posted to this PT platoon?Or are they just using cadre as marching nco's and psp handles the rest?I hope it has classes on proper diet,what a pound of fat is (i.e 3500 extra calories) stuff like that.Education will hopefully keep these students from slipping back to the deplorable state they were when they went on fitness platoon,when they get to their regiments and back to normal life.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (12 Oct 2006)

newaecgirl said:
			
		

> I also would like a bit more clarification....I know that if you are a recruit school bypass your current EXPRES test is valid and you go on to do trades training.  Are you saying that an IAP bypass is the same (current pt test, finish training on to trades courses), or would they go to a warrior pl instead of doing the BOTP?  I know on the old system and IAP bypass who failed the express would continue with training, be retested in a later week, and if still failed denied the course credit and graduation until the EXPRES is passed (this is information on the CFLRS DIN site).



I don't know the "process" that will be taken for failures...I do know that the entire BOTP course does the EXPRES test the afternoon of Day 1, Week 1.

I also know...the IAP course did the EXPRES test Week 1 of and Week 6 of IAP...

I can't comment on what happens in your case if you don't pass.

People who got exempt on the Week 1 EXPRES test...still did the Week 6 one, and will still do the BOTP Week 1 EXPRES as well...


----------



## orange.paint (12 Oct 2006)

I was talking to a member of an instructor cadre last week.They told me as I said earlier.you get one chance to pass.If you don't pass you have tow options:

go home
go to st.jean for remedial training 30 days

if you fail again you can stay another 30 days

if you fail again you can stay another FINAL 30 afterwards you are released.
I have no formal written stuff on this,but seeming he/she was a higher ranking pers in the cadre he/she was quite aware of what was happening in my opinion.

I hope that clears it up for you.


----------



## newaecgirl (13 Oct 2006)

thank you.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

spud said:
			
		

> I am not aware of your status and whether you wear the uniform or not; from your tone you don't, but I may be wrong.  However, these "fat sacks of crap" as you so call them chose to serve and by extension wear/wore that uniform with the red maple leaf on it somewhere.
> 
> Having served before and getting my call just yesterday to go back; having a wife, son, and daughter-in-law also wearing the uniform, if you were to make that type of comment within earshot of me you'd be getting b!tch slapped upside the head.
> 
> ...



Well, sorry, but I can't and refuse to respect those with no self respect.  If I as an NCM, lowly grunt must achieve a certain physical standard and maintain that standard, than so should the senior men and women.  Those who do not, do not because they work the system in their favor, and that's just wrong.  You expect me to respect that?  Not gonna happen.  Not in the military...not in the civilian world.  You get respect where it's earned, not just because you happen to think you deserve it because you wear the uniform.

(And lets be clear here, the fat sacks of crap I refer to are the ones that cheat the system in order to avoid PT, and allow their physical condition to deteriorate because of complacency.  I mean, if you weight 300 pounds and have a huge gut but can still rock an 8-k full ruck march on any given day, then I got nothing but respect.  To those who don't and choose not to, and come up with ways to avoid such things...well,  I think my opinion of those people is clear.


----------



## spud (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Well, sorry, but I can't and refuse to respect those with no self respect.  If I as an NCM, lowly grunt



Which brings me to my question; you are what rank and what component of the armed forces? You wore/wear the uniform.....your opinion counts. If you spend your day in jeans....sorry, your uninformed, ill-thought out opinion is of little value. 

potato


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

Irregardless of my current rank/position, that's an opinion that's generally shared universally.  You show me one fighting man who respects the lazy and the complacent just because he's in uniform, and I'll reneg on my originally comment.  The fact that I'm a tax payer who basically pays for your paycheck entitles to me to an opinion over the forces in which I help fund.


----------



## scoutfinch (13 Oct 2006)

Irregardless is not a word.


----------



## 2 Cdo (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Irregardless of my current rank/position, that's an opinion that's generally shared universally.  You show me one fighting man who respects the lazy and the complacent just because he's in uniform, and I'll reneg on my originally comment.  The fact that I'm a tax payer who basically pays for your paycheck entitles to me to an opinion over the forces in which I help fund.



I'll tell you what, if you are unhappy with your tax dollars and the way they are employed within the CF, I will reimburse you your .50 cents.  :
You most definitely don't pay for my paycheque. Arrogance and insults are the tools of the uneducated, you seem to have plenty of that. In case you aren't listening we in the military also pay taxes to fund education, roads, health care(in which I can't get a health card) amongst the hundreds of things taxes cover. You are an uninformed loser!


----------



## 2 Cdo (13 Oct 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Irregardless is not a word.



A real pet peeve of mine. Learn the english language before you post!


----------



## scoutfinch (13 Oct 2006)

2Cdo:

he forgets that we wear uniforms AND pay taxes.  

So,I just think of it this way: on matters of the military arts, we get two votes for every one of his!  

In effect, his opinion will be valued for what it worth -- nothing.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Oct 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Irregardless is not a word.


 :rofl:
I was going to say "I think he means "regardless" or "irrespective"


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

Well, I'm not going to educate you guys on non-standard English, and the common usage of such words as 'irregardless' to evoke emphasis, but...

What I find the most astonishing is that you all seem pretty bent on defending the inadequacies of the armed forces- the lack of physical fitness in some of its members in this case.  That seriously makes me wonder about some of you, and I just hope to hell none of you will be in the regiment I am eventually assigned to.  But then I doubt many if any of you are infantry, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2006)

Gosh, how could we have stumbled along in our out of shape conditions without your athletic superiority....sheesh....silly us.


----------



## scoutfinch (13 Oct 2006)

Well, I am going to educte you on the use of PROPER English.  Irregardless is not a word.  Regardless is a word.  Irrespective is a word.  Irregardless is not a word and is internally redundent given that it contains two negative elements (irr and less).

You can wonder all you want about my physical fitness.  I will continue to wonder about your intellectual capacity.    

Remember fitness can be achieved.  Stupid rarely changes.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Oct 2006)

Gap pass the popcorn will ya bud my ancient out of shape body can't reach that far and this one is gettign as interesting as the "book club" debate. 8)


----------



## George Wallace (13 Oct 2006)

Sure is a deep trench he is digging.  Wonder if it is going to be a "Y" or "L" Trench with 18" of overhead cover?


----------



## scoutfinch (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not going to educate you guys on non-standard English, and the common usage of such words as 'irregardless' to evoke emphasis, but...
> 
> What I find the most astonishing is that you all seem pretty bent on defending the inadequacies of the armed forces- the lack of physical fitness in some of its members in this case.  That seriously makes me wonder about some of you, and I just hope to hell none of you will be in the regiment I am eventually assigned to.  But then I doubt many if any of you are infantry, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.




Note to Puckpail (how apt):

You can't evoke emphasis.  You can emphasize.  Arguably, you can invoke emphasis.  You definitely can't evoke emphasis.  

If I had to hazard a guess, you have likely been advised to *stay in your lane* more than once on this site.  That includes providing lessons on English grammar.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

I find it pretty sad that your only means of defending yourself from my accusation is by attacking my improper grammar.  How about sticking with the topic here?  Look, my intent wasn't to start a flame war here, just to spark some debate regarding the issue.  The fact is, there ARE out of shape, lazy and complacent people in the service.  Okay, so I'm not officially a soldier yet, no denying that, but I know where my future is and when I'm sworn in in a few weeks, it'll be all offical, but my opinion won't change. And given that none of you have actually DENIED my accusation just serves to legitimize my point.  Do you seriously have nothing relivant to say on this issue?  If not, then fine, I'll go find another topic to usurp.  To say I'm uninformed though- look, I've SEEN it with my own eyes- people on ruck marches, so out of shape that they're grabbing onto the people in front of them to remain in step.  People that look like they haven't done PT in years.  That doesn't bother any of you?


----------



## derael (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> That seriously makes me wonder about some of you, and I just hope to hell none of you will be in the regiment I am eventually assigned to.  But then I doubt many if any of you are infantry, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.


And I hope I don't find myself in yours either... then again maybe the wonders of the universe will grace us all with your eventual VR.


----------



## scoutfinch (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> I find it pretty sad that your only means of defending yourself from my accusation is by attacking my improper grammar.  How about sticking with the topic here?  Look, my intent wasn't to start a flame war here, just to spark some debate regarding the issue.  The fact is, there ARE out of shape, lazy and complacent people in the service.  Okay, so I'm not officially a soldier yet, no denying that, but I know where my future is and when I'm sworn in in a few weeks, it'll be all offical, but my opinion won't change. And given that none of you have actually DENIED my accusation just serves to legitimize my point.  Do you seriously have nothing relivant to say on this issue?  If not, then fine, I'll go find another topic to usurp.  To say I'm uninformed though- look, I've SEEN it with my own eyes- people on ruck marches, so out of shape that they're grabbing onto the people in front of them to remain in step.  People that look like they haven't done PT in years.  That doesn't bother any of you?



Relevant is not spelled with an i.

You are uninformed.  You are not a serving member.  You are a family member.  You do not even have a D9er designation.  Your opinion matters not to most of us here.  

I will listen to your opinion on ruckmarches after you have completed a few.  Let me know when you been successful on your first BFT.  Until then, stay in your lane.  

I see no need to refute an illformed opinion from someone whose opinions have no merit.  

I commend you on your proper use of the word usurp, which means to 'take over or occupy without right'.  Why don't you go find another Board to *usurp*.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Pukepall, 

Don't judge books by their covers.  that's what you are doing and what people are peeved about.  You are not in the military or even the infantry.  You pretty much figure that no one in this thread is an Infantryman based on what they are saying.

Those fat crap-sacks you saw?  Did you actually talk to them? Find out what they've done, where they've been?  My guess is more than you, more places than you. 

I know lots of "fat" soldiers and some of them would run you into the ground.  I know a woman that doesen't look like much but would probably drop from exhaustion before giving up.  I've seen buff, cut, lean in shape individuals that gave up simply because the pressure was too much.  

Being in good physical shape is certainly important for CF members.  But being a soldier is much more than that.  So far you haven't inspired many of us here that you will achieve that.  Good on you for being in great shape.  Now you just need to work on your attitude and other qualities we are looking for.

Your physical fitness alone, although important, is not going to make you into the soldier you think you will be.

Crantor out


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

Well, I'm glad there's at least someone on these forums whose not out to measure the size of his penis.


That actually has given me something to think about Crantor.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Well, I'm glad there's at least someone on these forums whose not out to measure the size of his penis.
> 
> 
> That actually has given me something to think about Crantor.  And I do apologize if I've put people off with my attitude.  Sorry.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

Meant to edit that last one.  Sorry for the double post.


----------



## spud (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Okay, so I'm not officially a soldier yet, no denying that.



Walk in the shoes for a while and then your opinion will count. Until then....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

potato


----------



## Scott (13 Oct 2006)

Oh since I am not involved in the debate....

Pukepail, please wind your neck in a bit. Methinks you're suffering from a case of See-red-and-mash-reply-button-itis, a common affliction with some here. It's something we are all guilty of from time to time but, usually, we get over it, especially after being given a Verbal for our previous efforts. Read the Tom Clancy or whatever thread again for emphasis on this point.

You've been given something to think about from Crantor and I suggest you take it to heart. Because those "fat sacks of crap" you so eloquently speak of may be the ones eventually teaching you what you need to know in order to have a long and prosperous career. 

Note: Spare the lecture on See-red-mash-reply-button-itis not being an actual disease, it's in the Mod handbook.


----------



## Pvt. Pukepail (13 Oct 2006)

For sure, and like I said I do apologize for getting way out of hand.  I want nothing more than to be among you guys, be a soldier, and it's stupid of me to make enemies (even as an anonymous entity on these forums) so close to indoctrination.  I got carried away, I admit it, and it won't happen again.


----------



## Scott (13 Oct 2006)

Good on you for coming clean, try not to let temper get the best of you.

Let's let it die it's death and get back to the discussion at hand.


----------



## scoutfinch (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Well, I'm glad there's at least someone on these forums whose not out to measure the size of his penis.
> 
> 
> That actually has given me something to think about Crantor.



Hmmmm.  Measuring the size of my penis???? Chances are not.

Once again you make fallacious assumptions...

Sincerely, 

Ms. SamIAm.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Oct 2006)

SamIAm said:
			
		

> Hmmmm.  Measuring the size of my penis???? Chances are not.
> 
> Once again you make *fallacious * assumptions...
> 
> ...


I think it wasn't a fallacious assumption, but rather a phallus assumption?  


OK, I know, I know, back to my corner....


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not going to educate you guys on non-standard English, and the common usage of such words as 'irregardless' to evoke emphasis, but...
> 
> What I find the most astonishing is that you all seem pretty bent on defending the inadequacies of the armed forces- the lack of physical fitness in some of its members in this case.  That seriously makes me wonder about some of you, and *I just hope to hell none of you will be in the regiment I am eventually assigned to.*  But then I doubt many if any of you are infantry, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.




You mean my Regiment?  (check my profile...)

Before anyone gets on me, this is meant as a joke to make people chuckle, put the swords away and get back on track.

ALthough, we ARE recruiting in my unit.  Mukluks repaired anyone?   ;D


----------



## Loachman (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Well, sorry, but I can't and refuse to respect those with no self respect.  If I as an NCM, lowly grunt must achieve a certain physical standard and maintain that standard, than so should the senior men and women.



Not everybody is expected or required to maintain certain standards like BFT. That's irrelevant to a lot of jobs.

Mine, for one.

I am, however, expected to maintain a higher level of certain areas of fitness than most others. Some of that, however, is not within my control.



> You get respect where it's earned



Yup.

And you're not doing so hot there.



> I mean, if you weight 300 pounds and have a huge gut but can still rock an 8-k full ruck march on any given day, then I got nothing but respect.  To those who don't and choose not to, and come up with ways to avoid such things...well,  I think my opinion of those people is clear.



Your opinion may change when you're sitting in the back of a Griffon (if you make it that far) whipping along at tree-top height in pitch blackness. I don't think that my ability or lack thereof to hump a rucksack (and, yes, I have done that in my Infantry past) is going to be uppermost in your mind. Other abilities - or lack thereof - may, though.

My "way(s) to avoid such things" was to go through pilot training. And I care not one whit what your opinion is of me.


----------



## Sig_Des (13 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> But then I doubt many if any of you are infantry, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.



What in the hell is that supposed to mean? First off, we have a large number of infanteers here, second, just so you're aware, an Infantry unit does not hold only infanteers. Oh yes, you have clerks, V techs, Sig Ops, MSE ops, etc. Hell, some of us even do the PT  as well 

And I sincerely hope you're not insinuating that infanteers hold a monopoly on physical fitness.



> look, I've SEEN it with my own eyes- people on ruck marches, so out of shape that they're grabbing onto the people in front of them to remain in step.  People that look like they haven't done PT in years.



How long where those people marching for?

Listen, like others have said, don't judge. I laughed when my Basic Platoons OC first ran PT with us. Man had a HUGE gut. Little did I know that buddy used to run marathons, and ran us INTO THE GROUND. And I run a lot.

People have different body types, and have different jobs. I've been on ranges with officers who hadn't handled a rifle in YEARS. But could be unmatched when it comes to, project management, procurement, engineering, etc.

It's all a matter of perspective. I'd love to see everyone in the forces running 5 k a day, pumping push-ups instead of drinking coffee, looking fit and cut. But that's not realistic. If you can do your job, fine. If you meet standards, fine. But Don't judge.


----------



## Pearson (13 Oct 2006)

A little out of my lane, but to echo Scott, can we stop the dog pile?

Re..New PT Test Requirements...Thoughts?


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2006)

Frankie said:
			
		

> A little out of my lane, but to echo Scott, can we stop the dog pile?
> 
> Re..New PT Test Requirements...Thoughts?



Agreed.  Pukepail came forward, apologised for his attitude and wants to soldier on.  Let's leave it at that.


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Oct 2006)

Pte. Pukepail said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not going to educate you guys on *non-standard English*, and the common usage of such words as 'irregardless' to evoke emphasis, but...
> 
> What I find the most astonishing is that you all seem pretty bent on defending the inadequacies of the armed forces- the lack of physical fitness in some of its members in this case.  That seriously makes me wonder about some of you, and I just hope to hell none of you will be in the regiment I am eventually assigned to.  But then I doubt many if any of you are infantry, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.



You obviously know nothing about the history of infantry regiments in Canada or you would recognize my on-line name and hatbadge!

Also not defending inadequacies of the Forces, just trying to educate uninformed people like yourself.

The bold is my addition, non-standard English is merely a catchword used by those who try to use big words to make themselves sound smarter and only end up looking stupid. Enough said, you apologized but I felt it necessary to clear up these few things.


----------



## Cliffy433 (17 Oct 2006)

Now that we're back on topic...

Scarey Thought for the Day:

1. No more PT test at CFRCs.  For anyone.
2. Remedial Training for Reg F
3. No such back-up plan for PRes

Look, we know that PT cannot be maintained on one evening per week, and one weekend a month - and it's up to the personal motivation and pride of individual PRes members to maintain a semblance of fitness.  I'm a proud PRes member, I've busted my ass for every opportunity I've had to work with the Regs, and while there, I had to bust my ass to prove I was worthy of being there.  I'm REALLY tired of the Big R, little r fight - this is not going to help.

On the plus side, a current fitness evaluation is required for promotion - but I'm sure there's another thread on this board somewhere lambasting the EXPRES test...

tlm.


----------



## goodform (17 Oct 2006)

The new requirements leave someone like me in an interesting situation. I was (still am?) a CIC officer who began transferring to the regiment in the same building I paraded in. The last thing I had to do to complete the transfer was my PT test. While getting ready for it I received an e-mail from the local CFRC. It stated a policy change had come down the line, and I was as good as done as soon as I handed in the attached paperwork. That being only a fill in the blank reference letter, I'm now inches from being in the PRes. While excited, I'm also nervous. I had a job toss up at the beginning of summer, and lost a lot of ground in my own fitness while scrambling to make ends meet. Now I'm going to be a commissioned officer in a unit, and not be at where I want to be physically. I wouldn't have minded taking the time to build up to being more able to take on the task. I may also have my basic written off as I've an equivalent with the number of CIC courses I've taken (all days counted are more than BMQ) and have had 3 class B summer contracts.
The thing I'm uncomfortable with is being brought into this situation in transfer so abruptly. I feel I will now have to work that much harder to prove myself, and plan on working hard to make my fitness something they tell officers it should be. But I feel I should have to prove myself somewhat able BEFORE entering.
Also, if I had no problems staying on to be 'recycled' on a course, does anyone know if I can send it up the chain to be treated as such? Now that All PRes and Reg officers are doing the same CAP, as far as I understand.


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2006)

wait for the equivalencies to be explained to you.....
if you feel you need to take a certain course over again, tell the CO at your intro interview....


----------



## WogCpl (17 Oct 2006)

Well the last 12 pages was a somewhat interesting read. As far as this new policy goes, and to echo a little of 2Cdo's statements, it's about freaken time they did something like this. Being in my mid thirties and having joined in 1990 I have had an intresting vantage point. I seem to have watched a slow steady decline in fitness in the CF for the first 7 years followed by a sharp drop for the last 9 or so. If some one would have suggested the idea of a " fat camp" 6 or 7 years ago I would have thumbed my nose at those that didn't have enough "self respect" to keep them selves in shape. But today I honestly think it's a smashing idea. One only needs to take a look at society to see the rise in obesity in the last few years in Canada and even more so in the US. I remember going through Cornwallis (as I am sure some others do too) and sitting through hygiene lectures to teach you how to wash etc. Most if not all of us already knew this info but to others i am sure it was foreign. Today fitness is no longer part of peoples daily lives, my kids would rather sit on the computer or watch satellite TV than go ride bikes with their friends, as a result maybe we need to teach new recruits how to be fit, eat smart, and most importantly WHY it is so important to stay fit in our chosen profession regardless of your rank, position or trade. It's also a units responsibility to ensure soldier are given time to stay fit and our responsibility as the old dogs to steer them in the right direction if things start coming off the rails. Things change, societies change at least the CF is trying to change too. If someone wants lead the life of a soldier and is willing to put in the effort to meet the standard, lets encourage it. Do we really want an Army full of fit people who joined for "a job"?
You can still be fit and be lazy at the same time. How many guys do you know on a "hockey scholarship". Basic training is just that Basic. If new recruits need a life lesson in basic fitness and a fit lifestyle, lets give it too them, after all they have one thing going for them at least, desire to serve.
And for Gods sakes get the burgers and fries out of the mess hall!


----------



## blacktriangle (17 Oct 2006)

I'm a little worried about this. I'm starting a reserve BMQ/SQ next semester, and it is being run as a coop course through school. I worked hard to get where I am now- I dropped my 2.4 time by almost 3 minutes, and can now do double the pushups I used to do. I made it, but know several that failed the physical test. 

Considering that we only have the duration of one semester to get through BMQ/SQ, what will happen to those that were admitted but can't handle the PT? Some of these kids couldn't even finish the 2.4km during self assessment! Are they just going to be dragged along, or is there a plan for PRes courses? It will probably take the duration of the coop for some of them just to get to 20 pushups and a 2.4 km run.


I've offered to help a few kids run, but they cite that they aren't really into running on their own time. I can just see us all running slower so we don't make them fall out of a run  :-X


----------



## kincanucks (17 Oct 2006)

I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that the physical testing has been dropped from the processing for reserves because it hasn't.

_Note: The Canadian Forces Applicant Physical Fitness Test is eliminated from the selection process for the Regular Force effective October 1, 2006. The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrolees to each an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training. *Until further notice, the test will remain in the selection process for Reserve applicants.* The Guide to physical fitness remains available for applicants wishing to self-evaluate and increase their physical fitness level. _ 

It would be impossible for the reserves to run a 'Warrior Platoon' program as done for the Reg F.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Oct 2006)

Sir,

My friend had a PT test scheduled for yesterday, and was called several days ago and told he would not do the PT test, as it was no longer needed. He is applying for res. infantry in Ontario, and this was passed to him by way of CFRC. I will tell him ASAP to call back and figure this out, as the CFRC staff must have made a mistake.

Thank you for your information!


----------



## geo (18 Oct 2006)

we are only as strong as the weakest link

given the nature of our society (the me, myself & I generation) it is certain that there has been a drastic drop in the number of physically fit characters walking into the CFRC & recruiting drives.  Most young 'uns are more inclined to sit & PM/chat than play/do sports so you can either doom your recruiting drives OR enroll the smart ones & bring em up to an acceptable standard ocer time.


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that the physical testing has been dropped from the processing for reserves because it hasn't.
> 
> _Note: The Canadian Forces Applicant Physical Fitness Test is eliminated from the selection process for the Regular Force effective October 1, 2006. The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrolees to each an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training. *Until further notice, the test will remain in the selection process for Reserve applicants.* The Guide to physical fitness remains available for applicants wishing to self-evaluate and increase their physical fitness level. _
> 
> It would be impossible for the reserves to run a 'Warrior Platoon' program as done for the Reg F.



You know how things change Kincanucks, and then change back.  The policy is no more PT test even for the reserves.  This is very recent.  

Reserve units are now responsible to have testing done on an annual basis for their troops.  Either an express test or a BFT for the army.  This will have an effect on promotions, courses etc.  Now whether units will be dilligent in this I do not know.  I know some units in my area have already done a BFT.


----------



## Cliffy433 (18 Oct 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that the physical testing has been dropped from the processing for reserves because it hasn't.
> 
> It would be impossible for the reserves to run a 'Warrior Platoon' program as done for the Reg F.



From an email from my local CFRC Det Comd dated 101553 Oct 06:


> A number of years ago, physical fitness testing was introduced as part of the processing for applicants.  I have received direction this date that we will no longer be conducting the Canadian Forces Applicant Physical Fitness Testing as part of the processing cycle.  Please remain assured that we will continue to stress the importance of physical training to all applicants.



And yes - it would be impossible for the Reserves to have a remedial training platoon like the Regs.  

tlm.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Oct 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> You know how things change Kincanucks, and then change back.  The policy is no more PT test even for the reserves.  This is very recent.
> 
> Reserve units are now responsible to have testing done on an annual basis for their troops.  Either an express test or a BFT for the army.  *This will have an effect on promotions, courses etc. *  Now whether units will be dilligent in this I do not know.  I know some units in my area have already done a BFT.



Crantor,

I think we all agree that is a good thing (the bolded part of my quote).  It applies to Reg and Res and its nice to see the current CDS enforcing/demanding the standard is met or the people that don't meet it are "held back" until such time as they do.

MRM


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2006)

Absolutely. I think this is an excellent direction to be taking.  Even though PRES units won't have remedial platoons, the possibility to go on course or get promoted, heck even summer employment will be a good motivator to stay in shape.  You didn't pass test, sorry see you next summer.


----------



## kincanucks (18 Oct 2006)

Then I stand corrected and thanks to those that did it gently.


----------



## ready to go (24 Oct 2006)

> Note: The Canadian Forces Applicant Physical Fitness Test is eliminated from the selection process for the Regular Force effective October 1, 2006. The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrolees to each an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training. Until further notice, the test will remain in the selection process for Reserve applicants. The Guide to physical fitness remains available for applicants wishing to self-evaluate and increase their physical fitness level.



Personally I think it's a good idea for 2 reasons: 

a) It will not deter potential applicants based on previous fitness levels. I like the fact that CFLRS will be responsible for getting those who want to join up to par. A LOT of people need that kick in the butt.

b) Largely because of a), it speeds up the recruiting process. Every little bit helps in that respect.


----------



## Asher (24 Oct 2006)

Heres a thought...
I've seen some over weight, out of shape people in the military but to take out the Expres test to get in just blows my mind!!


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Oct 2006)

I signed in 79, and didn't need a PT test to join.  This has been hammered to death.


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Oct 2006)

13 pages of people's thoughts here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50877.0.html

A little slow on the gun there, Asher


----------



## Jed (24 Oct 2006)

I just got an email where they need folks from the 50 to 60 crowd to gather in Petawawa to research fitness capabilty / standards for the older military folk. Apparently they have to go Army wide,( CF wide ?) to get a big enough database established. I imagine we will need this info as our CF expands to take on people from 55 to 60, especially in the Cbt Arms roles.


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2006)

Jed,
got the same email................


> Good day,
> 
> At the request of Armed Forces Council, the CMP directed the CFPSA (DHPHP) to conduct a research study, the MPFS 50 Years and Older Research Study, for the purpose of developing and validating the Minimum Physical Fitness Standards (MPFS) for CF members 50 years and older.  This study requires participation from CF members from a variety of fitness backgrounds and MOCs.
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2006)

PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT FOR MPFS
50 TO 60 YEARS OF AGE RESEARCH STUDY

1.	At the request of Armed Forces Council, the CMP directed the CFPSA (DHPHP) to conduct a research study, the MPFS 50 Years and Older Research Study, for the purpose of developing and validating the Minimum Physical Fitness Standards (MPFS) for CF members 50 years and older.  This study will be conducted in English and will include CF members from 50 to 60 Years of age.  Your name has been provided to the CFPSA because you meet the age requirements for inclusion in the study.  

2.	The MPFS 50 to 60 Years of Age Research Study will seek to determine the MPFS for the CF EXPRES test that correspond to a CF member’s ability to complete the CF’s Five Common Tasks.  This study will be a replication of research done in 1988 to develop the MPFS for the CF EXPRES test.  The Five Common Tasks are Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFOR) are defined as the Land Evacuation, Sea Evacuation, Low High Crawl, Entrenchment Dig, and Sandbag Carry.

3.	Participation in this study is completely voluntary.  Should you choose to participate you may terminate your participation at any time and / or remove yourself at any time from the entire study.   All participants in this study will be on duty status and will be provided with rations, quarters, temporary duty allowance (TD), mileage and/or shuttle (as per Treasury Board guidelines), and Subject Compensation as per QR & O 205.48 in the amount of $15.00 per half day of testing (total $90.00 for 3 days).  

4.	There are no minimum physical fitness requirements for participation in the study.  All available and willing personnel may be considered for inclusion.  In fact, it is imperative that participants in the study display a range of fitness levels.  Therefore, the Project Coordinator will strive to ensure that equal representation from every quartile of physical fitness capabilities are represented in the study (i.e. 0-25 percentile, 26-50 percentile, 51-75 percentile, and 76 to 100 percentile.)  There will not be any career implications based upon results in the study as all testing results will remain completely anonymous. 

5.	Experimental sessions will be conducted in English and thus all volunteers in the study must be fluent in English comprehension.  Each testing day will consist of no more than one testing session in the morning or afternoon periods.  Each session will consist of one component of research testing (i.e. CF EXPRES test, a Land Evacuation, a Sea Evacuation, a Low High Crawl, an Entrenchment Dig, and Sandbag Carry).

6.	The MPFS 50 to 60 Year Old Study Project Coordinator, Ms. Sarah Flanagan, will contact all potential participants to determine willingness to participate, participation availability, provide further information, and answer any questions in regards to the study. 

7.	Your consideration for participation in this project is valued and appreciated.  As a participant in the MPFS 50 to 60 Year Old Study you will be playing an important role in the development of physical fitness programs and testing methods for the optimization of safety of CF members while on deployable missions both at home in Canada and Abroad.  Please feel free to contact the Project Coordinator at (613) 992-1879, flanagan.sa@forces.gc.ca should your require any further information


----------



## orange.paint (26 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> 4.	There are no minimum physical fitness requirements for participation in the study.  All available and willing personnel  may be considered for inclusion.  In fact, it is imperative that participants in the study display a range of fitness levels.  Therefore, the Project Coordinator will strive to ensure that equal representation from every quartile of physical fitness capabilities are represented in the study (i.e. 0-25 percentile, 26-50 percentile, 51-75 percentile, and 76 to 100 percentile.)  There will not be any career implications based upon results in the study as all testing results will remain completely anonymous.
> 
> 5.	Experimental sessions will be conducted in English  and thus all volunteers in the study must be fluent in English comprehension.  Each testing day will consist of no more than one testing session in the morning or afternoon periods.  Each session will consist of one component of research testing (i.e. CF EXPRES test, a Land Evacuation, a Sea Evacuation, a Low High Crawl, an Entrenchment Dig, and Sandbag Carry).



Reference para 4:
Wouldn't this exclude those members who may be in the better half of physical fitness for this group?As in people deploying as SSM,TQ etc?Im my opinion this would make the trial totally inacurate and perhaps lowering the standard overall.Not saying the majority of people over 50 are out of shape,as I've seen a grey haired guy in spandex pass me a few times on the trails. :crybaby:

Reference para 5:
Is this testing also being done for just franco's? Or will they take a general english score and apply it across the board? 

To me the testing doesnt seem scientific or offer a real true picture of the physical assesment of the 50-60 yr group.I'm willing to say there are not a great number of people serving at 50-60 in comparrasion to the rest of the army.How hard would it be to take a year to complete the study,testing all individuals french and english?Using this method would not produce a well balanced plan for :



			
				geo said:
			
		

> 7.	Your consideration for participation in this project is valued and appreciated.  As a participant in the MPFS 50 to 60 Year Old Study you will be playing an important role in the development of physical fitness programs and testing methods for the optimization of safety of CF members while on deployable missions both at home in Canada and Abroad.  Please feel free to contact the Project Coordinator at (613) 992-1879, flanagan.sa@forces.gc.ca should your require any further information



A poor PT plan/method of testing will injure people as we have all seen before.Maybe if they are putting money into this study they could get all 50-60 yr olds to attend the testing over a year at their closest base.And PSP could travel to reserve bases which lack the PSP support.

The reason I have taken an intrest in this is not actually for me personally.I read this a while back and realised that the DP1 students we have right now will mostly ALL retire in this age category.This due to joining in their late 20's and falling under the new 25 year plan.With this in mind they should really take this study seriously.If not for now for the per's who will HAVE to complete 25.Unlike us on the 20 year plan who can retire anytime after 20 if our knees finally explode.

my.00002

(Note: something is going weird with either my computer or the spellcheck ,please forgive any spelling mistakes)
(grammer is totally my fault.)


----------



## maniac779 (27 Oct 2006)

Related to increase in enrollement due to elimination of CF Express Test as part of the recruiting process...

It just came down today that all language school students at the Mega will be relocated to Campus St. Jean as the Recruit School now requires the rooms and bed space we are occupying. Today is Friday. The move will be complete in full by Thursday.

The elimination of the express test combined with the rest of the recruiting directives MUST be generating recruits. I have watched the Mega go from half full, to crammed, in less than 6 months.


----------



## geo (27 Oct 2006)

maniac............ the mega goes thru cycles.  They don't start a BQ unless there is somewhere to send the graduates once the course ends.  Keeping partly trained soldiers in PAT platoons in not viable so that is why the Mega appears half empty at times AND jammed full at others.

The Rangers were moved out of the mega 12-24 months ago.
The ILQ was moved to Ft St-Jean last spring (earlier if you were "staff")
and the language types were due to move ........... it was only a matter of time - regardless of when you heard about it.


----------



## Meridian (28 Oct 2006)

Well, given that canadian taxpayers still own Ft St Jean anyway, we might as well use it.  Though I like how we lease out the land for nothing to a not-for-profit corp and then lease back our own space at obviously much higher rates.... *sigh*.

God I love the government.


----------



## knoxville (28 Oct 2006)

dont know if this was adressed, but what will recruits do after their daily workout routine. considering they are pulled from the course, i assume they will not be doing the school work etc.


----------



## kincanucks (28 Oct 2006)

knoxville said:
			
		

> dont know if this was adressed, but what will recruits do after their daily workout routine. considering they are pulled from the course, i assume they will not be doing the school work etc.



They will be learning how to properly write a sentence. Did you want to join them?


----------



## Meridian (29 Oct 2006)

Oh boy.

Assuming they already have their kit (and are doing ruck marches, and other similar PT) or are issued it along the way, additional polishing time is never a bad thing 
That is an assumption though that has very little basis, especially if they are doing the CFEXPRES test in the first week or so.


----------



## newaecgirl (15 Dec 2006)

HI all.  

    I see there is still some speculation about RFT (recruit fitness training).  Let me fill you in on some of the details....I have first hand knowledge of the program.

    Everyone who arrives at the MEGA and fails the VO2 Max is loaded onto RFT.  I just want to clarify that this is not necessarily because they are unfit....We have several people who are there because of screw ups--untied shoelaces, tripped by the 30 other people running across the floor, sicknesses, and some who are just not quite at the level they need to be.  The majority of people who stay for RFT (and a lot of people just VR) are people who are only 1/2 a level away from the standard, like myself.  

    RFT consists of week 1 BMQ training (since the recruits are shifted over after completing the new week 0), spread over 4 weeks, and does include a CB period for the entire 4 weeks.  A typical day consists of an inspection, a BMQ class (including drill and forced marches), weight lifting, another BMQ class, lunch (and there are dietary limitations), cardio training, core training and finally a nutrition class, or class of Physical training.  The nights consist of laundry (you use almost all of your issued pt kit every day), and preparing for inspections, homework, etc. ).  On the weekends we rest, but go for a walk on Sat and mandatory pool time on Sunday.  
    This program has been very successful so far, with only 4 people out of 50 failing the first express test and going on to a phase 2.  Once you pass your express test you remain with RFT until you can be loaded on a platoon (which for recruits is usually the following monday...for officers much longer), so your fitness doesn't dwindle by sitting on PAT.  There is not a huge amount of people waiting for RFT (currently there are 8 for 25 psns), and a new phase starts every 2 weeks to get everyone through.

     My final comment on RFT is that it is a great program--both the PSP staff and military staff are amazing, and the improvement you can make are phenomenal (I saw someone go from a 5.5 to a 9 on the shuttle run).  BUT if you are not willing to put in 110% 24 hrs a day, and take full advantage of the second chance you are given....do us a favour and VR.  We don't carry anyone through RFT.


----------



## Trilogy1977 (23 Dec 2006)

the Express Test is different then the test they used to do at the recruiting office. It basically consists of the shuttle run, push-up's, sit-up's and the grip test, only thing different about is the shuttle run instead of the step test they used to do in the recruiting center...

when i got to bmq i believe we did it on the 2nd day there, and yes, those who do not pass get put on a platoon whose focus is to get you in shape to pass the test, if you do pass you get put onto a regular platoon...

hope this helps


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Dec 2006)

Day late, and a dollar short, but thanks   ;D


----------



## govenor_mac (23 Dec 2006)

You better believe it. My son was one of those who didn't pass the shuttle run and had to take remedial training. He lost 10 inches. Graduated in the top five of his platoon. He is in some shape and he owes it all to the help and guidance of his instructors and of course his sheer determination to succeed.


----------



## Trilogy1977 (24 Dec 2006)

the instructors are hard on you but that's their job, don't take it personally... if you put forth 110% effort and don't give up at anything, they will help you succeed ; )


----------



## newaecgirl (25 Dec 2006)

The instructors on RFTare great and so are the PSP staff....but don't be fooled...they will not waste time on someone determined to be a stick in the mud, and neither should they!


----------

