Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )
- Thread starter Cat
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Hmmmmm.... All these years struggling with the search 'function', I am suppose to know that I should use Google to search this site, go figure! I guess it is built with the army in mind. I could see the DS berating someone for not knowing this, but you?Occam said:
Sorry to hijack this thread, but (Mike) why not use a Google link for a search function, instead of whatever archaic 'function' that is used presently? Or this link Google Search
ME
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Spooling back to the PSP for a moment; yes, they seem very concerned about the new test and the way it is designed for units to self administer.
I had to do a "fitness evaluation" using the EXPRES test about a week ago, and whenever we tried to bring up the FORCE test standard (i.e. details about application, how to train for that etc.) the PSP went to very great lengths to avoid, deflect or otherwise ignore the questions. To add to the pointlessness of the evaluation exercise, we were all given exercise programs based on our EXPRES results. Since the results were based on EXPRES they in no way prepare us for 01 April, and are entirely useless except as general interest.
So I fully support the idea of getting automatic BP devices and otherwise cutting the PSP umbilical cord; they are not willing to move with the times so why keep supporting that little empire?
I had to do a "fitness evaluation" using the EXPRES test about a week ago, and whenever we tried to bring up the FORCE test standard (i.e. details about application, how to train for that etc.) the PSP went to very great lengths to avoid, deflect or otherwise ignore the questions. To add to the pointlessness of the evaluation exercise, we were all given exercise programs based on our EXPRES results. Since the results were based on EXPRES they in no way prepare us for 01 April, and are entirely useless except as general interest.
So I fully support the idea of getting automatic BP devices and otherwise cutting the PSP umbilical cord; they are not willing to move with the times so why keep supporting that little empire?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thucydides said:
No need for automatic BP devices - it is dirt simple to learn how to read someone's BP. When I did my BFTA back in '03, it was one of the performance checks we had to pass, and if this guy can do it, I think anyone can ;D
Mind you, auto BP machines would remove some of the QC issues between pers taking the readings manually.... :2c:
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,648
- Points
- 1,160
I like the idea of one standard regardless of age or gender for U of S.
Not only does it remove a stigma from female soldiers (OMG they only had to do 9 pushups how can they pull me out of a burning tank!) but a 45 year old is going to have a hard time keeping up with a 19 year old. That said they shouldn't be held to a lesser standard because they're older.
Combat arms can come up with their own tier of fitness because they require to be more fit and have more time at work to work on their fitness.
In the long term I would say that while someone passes the U of S requirement for fitness, if they are in the combat arms trade but cannot pass whatever fitness requirement is further set forth then the member can try to re muster to a trade that's only requirement is the U of S test or release.
[I know clerks "need to be fit in case their convoy comes under attack", and I agree, but there are a whole bunch of other issues surrounding "coming under attack" that including poor pre-deployment training and being sent outside the wire without zeroed weapons, or half ass zeroed weapons.]
On the note about PSP, while I do not like working along side them very much I disagree with the sentiment that they should be able to "practice what they preach". That's not how civilians work and PSP staff aren't preparing to fight in a war. They don't need to carry 55lbs in order to give me a pass or fail if I'm carrying 55lbs for 13KMs.
I DO think we should move away from PSP, make PSP a volunteer thing. If a soldier sucks at fitness then send them on remedial PT with PSP. Have PSP for voluntary PT classes on members own time.
Not only does it remove a stigma from female soldiers (OMG they only had to do 9 pushups how can they pull me out of a burning tank!) but a 45 year old is going to have a hard time keeping up with a 19 year old. That said they shouldn't be held to a lesser standard because they're older.
Combat arms can come up with their own tier of fitness because they require to be more fit and have more time at work to work on their fitness.
In the long term I would say that while someone passes the U of S requirement for fitness, if they are in the combat arms trade but cannot pass whatever fitness requirement is further set forth then the member can try to re muster to a trade that's only requirement is the U of S test or release.
[I know clerks "need to be fit in case their convoy comes under attack", and I agree, but there are a whole bunch of other issues surrounding "coming under attack" that including poor pre-deployment training and being sent outside the wire without zeroed weapons, or half ass zeroed weapons.]
On the note about PSP, while I do not like working along side them very much I disagree with the sentiment that they should be able to "practice what they preach". That's not how civilians work and PSP staff aren't preparing to fight in a war. They don't need to carry 55lbs in order to give me a pass or fail if I'm carrying 55lbs for 13KMs.
I DO think we should move away from PSP, make PSP a volunteer thing. If a soldier sucks at fitness then send them on remedial PT with PSP. Have PSP for voluntary PT classes on members own time.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Capt. Happy said:
Unfortunately, they have taken the BP part of the BFTA (and AFTA) out since then. I took the BFTA in '10 and the AFTA in '12 and yeah, never learned how to do BP. Not that it's difficult but they clawed that one back to make sure they have a function.
In my opinion, BFTA's/AFTA's should be able to sign off on PT tests. Especially AFTA since you have to at least be a MCpl.
I agree, cutting the PSP umbilical cord would be a good thing. I enjoyed PERI's (sp?)
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,642
- Points
- 1,140
ObedientiaZelum said:
FTFY, OZ.
And now, they're not.ObedientiaZelum said:
ObedientiaZelum said:
Remember that the CF Fitness Strategy, DAOD 5023-2 and the CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers all make the chain of command accountable for providing time for fitness training during working hours.
ObedientiaZelum said:
There are some (several?) folks now in the Army who can "survive" the roughly 3 hours of moderate effort required of LFCPFS but fold up like a cheap lawn chair on a week long (or weekend) exercise. What does that say for the current "standard"? The FORCE, LFCPFS, EXpres are all minimum standards in their respective domains. It's incumbent upon the chain of command to design and execute training that takes members beyond that minimum standard, thereby encouraging (forcing??) them to adapt, physically , mentally and motivationally to the demands of our profession.
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 821
- Points
- 1,010
Thucydides said:
A reason for their reticence may be found in government and military policy. The official CANFORGEN had not yet come out, therefore they were not authorized to speak about it. In fact they would be foolish to speak about. The final details of the test are still being hammered out, that is why it is not fully coming into effect until next year. For example, this week they are running tests to see if the order the exercises are done in has an effect on pass rates. If there is an effect a decision will have to be made on how to standardize it.
As is often stated on this board, they were staying in their lane and would be smart to do so until their lane included complete and accurate information.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Sigs Pig said:
Wow, you'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to take what I said as berating someone. The Google site search method has been demonstrated here on the site repeatedly over the years. I not only showed how it's done, but that it works.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I know I'm coming at it from the outside, but having checked into the EXPRES test extensively, it seems like shifting to a task-based standard makes more sense. The reasoning is probably that any arbitrary number of pushups, situps, grip, step, etc. is necessarily an abstraction. The number of push-ups that any given member can do is necessarily an abstract, and therefore impercise measurement of their overall upperbody strength. Therefore, the EXPRES test is only a predictive tool.
A task based test, the FORCE test, removes a lot, if not all of the abstraction, and would theoretically be much more predictive of whether or not a member will be able to accomplish a task likely to be assigned.
For example. Picture that short skinny guy who weighs 100 pounds soaking wet. Such a member can probably run like a gazel and can crank out push-up after push-up. But, because his relative muscle mass is going to be a lot less than the guy who weighs 200 pounds and is solid muscle the former member will probably have a very hard time dragging a fully-loaded infantier with a sucking chest-wound. He can do a staggering number of push-ups, but his muscle mass isn't necessarily going to be enough to drag a wounded soldier. He moves comparitively low body-mass in a push-up. When a task calls for much larger muscles, he might not be able to accomplish it.
Compare with a 200 lbs mass of muscle. He probably can't crank out as many push-ups as a lighter bodied individual. But can he drag the casulaty? You betcha!
So as far as a predictive test is concerned, any test which measures only an abstract level of fitness probably isn't going to be the most effective measurement. Moving to a task-based test seems to make sense. This probably isn't going to be "fit enough" for the combat arms, but as a minimal standard of fitness, it will probably be more useful than an abstract measure of fitness based on relatively arbitrary numbers.
Nobody's ever said, "There's a flood in St-Jean! Quick, do push-ups!" People have most definitely said, "There's a flood in St-Jean! STACK SAND BAGS!"
A task based test, the FORCE test, removes a lot, if not all of the abstraction, and would theoretically be much more predictive of whether or not a member will be able to accomplish a task likely to be assigned.
For example. Picture that short skinny guy who weighs 100 pounds soaking wet. Such a member can probably run like a gazel and can crank out push-up after push-up. But, because his relative muscle mass is going to be a lot less than the guy who weighs 200 pounds and is solid muscle the former member will probably have a very hard time dragging a fully-loaded infantier with a sucking chest-wound. He can do a staggering number of push-ups, but his muscle mass isn't necessarily going to be enough to drag a wounded soldier. He moves comparitively low body-mass in a push-up. When a task calls for much larger muscles, he might not be able to accomplish it.
Compare with a 200 lbs mass of muscle. He probably can't crank out as many push-ups as a lighter bodied individual. But can he drag the casulaty? You betcha!
So as far as a predictive test is concerned, any test which measures only an abstract level of fitness probably isn't going to be the most effective measurement. Moving to a task-based test seems to make sense. This probably isn't going to be "fit enough" for the combat arms, but as a minimal standard of fitness, it will probably be more useful than an abstract measure of fitness based on relatively arbitrary numbers.
Nobody's ever said, "There's a flood in St-Jean! Quick, do push-ups!" People have most definitely said, "There's a flood in St-Jean! STACK SAND BAGS!"
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
MCG said:
We'd then have to outfit the entire of the RCN in some non-steel toed footwear just to do a test once a year. Operations and real-life work environment dictate they wear steel-toed. Perhaps they should therefore do the testing in steel toed boots then? Add Sup techs, and numerous trades to the list of steel-toed doers too. I suspect that would cause more foot injury issues than those currently experienced.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,567
- Points
- 1,260
ArmyVern said:
Why not have them do it in their NCDs and sea boots ? Were supposed to train how we fight right ? Perhaps this might shed some light on how sh!tty the CF sea boots are.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,567
- Points
- 1,260
Haggis said:
Quite right Haggis, that is one of the most logical statments in this thread.
Similar threads
