Introduction or background: In February 2002, the Director General Military Human Resource Policy and Planning (DGMHRPP) cancelled the Canadian Forces (CF) enrolment minimum height standard. It was concluded that “the Canadian Forces can no longer justify or defend this specific limitation (of 1520 mm) on enrolment as a general standard,” although it had successfully defended it in the past. While the past arguments centered on the limited accommodation range of equipment and the liability that ill-fitting equipment had on the individual or a group (e.g., Nuclear Biological Chemical protection (NBC)), these were no longer as valid today as they were back then; newer equipment “has a wider range of sizes, adjustable seating in most vehicles, etc.” DGMHRPP advised that “should a minimum height requirement be required, it must be occupation specific and be reflected in the occupational specifications.” Going forward, the CF requires “well supported and a defensible argument(s) that establish restriction(s) as a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR).” The object of this work was to establish limits of accommodation for non-pilot aircrew, specifically Flight Engineers (FE), Load Masters (LM), Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators (AESOp), and Flight Attendants.
Results: The results of this study show that occupational-specific anthropometric requirements are indeed required - and would still be required if the minimum height standard of 1520 mm was still in place. While some of the limitations of the tasks assessed can be alleviated through the provision of simple aids, others cannot. Most of the limitations occur at the lower end of the range, where minimum statures apply to all trades.
Upper-end limits were found for some tasks, but these had less to do with BFOR than with optimal working conditions, health and safety. For instance, although not impinging on the ability to perform the job and therefore not a BFOR, a suggested maximum for stature in the CH-149 Cormorant was provided that could be used to assign the tallest FEs to the CP-140 Aurora aircraft rather than the CH-149 Cormorant – choice permitting.
Significance: It is hoped that the present study would provide the basis for “well supported and a defensible argument(s) that establish restriction(s) as a BFOR and that the application of these limits contributes to the efficiency of operations and the health and safety of those concerned.
Future plans: A review of the information presented herein by the appropriate technical authorities will be required to establish the Bona Fide nature of the tasks identified as limiting, and then to obtain consensus on the required screening limits and their implementation.
