• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,197
Points
1,160
airmich said:
FORCE is the minimum.  Elements, units etc can still have their pers do more.

Unfortunately, FORCE is such a ridiculously low fitness standard for the combat arms, especially the infantry, that thi spolicy will likely result in hazing; or other arbitrarily applied fitenss tests.

Canada: going for Bronze once again.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,397
Points
1,040
It is not an Army test though.  If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immeadeatly do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,547
Points
990
daftandbarmy said:
Unfortunately, FORCE is such a ridiculously low fitness standard for the combat arms, especially the infantry, that thi spolicy will likely result in hazing; or other arbitrarily applied fitenss tests.

Canada: going for Bronze once again.

It is not a fitness standard for the combat arms.  It is a standard for the CF.  Don't ascribe to it what it isn't.
 

AmmoTech90

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
160
Points
680
MCG said:
It is not an Army test though.

No, the BFT is much easier to pass than FORCE.

Or were you talking about another test the Army had chosen to assess its pers?

Face it, BFT is easy, EXPpres is easy, and FORCE is easy.  So long as you are in shape.  If you are out of shape reaching for the next donut is hard.  They are all tests to check for a minimum level.  There are alternate methods of dealing with someone who does not put sufficient effort into PT and in doing has poor job performance.

Why not try instituting admin action on someone whose fitness level causes them to do badly at their job.  I've seen admin action be taken on people with poor attention to detail.  They passed the minimum standard (a trades course of some sort), but that did not mean they were exempt from corrective action.  If someone does not complete a task assigned to them because of poor fitness, regardless if they have passed a PT test, treat it like any other shortcoming.

If their fitness level does not affect their job performance, in all aspects of the their job, including deployment, why is anyone's knickers in a twist?

The problem I see most of the people who complain about the ease of the test having, is actually with the standard, not the test.  Don't attack the test, attack the standard that allows for a easy test. 
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,397
Points
1,040
AmmoTech90 said:
Why not try instituting admin action on someone whose fitness level causes them to do badly at their job?
This can and does happen.  If some chains of command are allowing pers to get away with failing in their job due to fitness, then that is a local leadership failing.

AmmoTech90 said:
If their fitness level does not affect their job performance, in all aspects of the their job, including deployment, why is anyone's knickers in a knot?
Pers can sit fat and happy for years in a lethargic desk job without risk of demonstrating their inability to perform essential operational tasks. We do need some way of measuring minimum physical ability before lives and mission success are in the balance.  A minimum fitness test does this.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,011
Points
1,060
The FORCE test seems more strenuous overall than doing 19 pushups/situps (especially the ridiculous standards for women), and is probably in the same realm as the BFT, maybe..

I haven't did it but it kinda seems like a decent acceptance/yearly test for the Canadian Forces, as far as the shape we're currently in.

It would be nice to see the combat arms with a stricter fitness test. Maybe a coopers test type thing with a weight load march.
 

buzgo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nothing stopping unit COs from talking to their local PSP staff and coming up with some fitness challenge or test for their troops.  It comes back to the 'fitness is a leadership issue' argument.

Have everyone do the FORCE test then implement a unit level fitness policy with quarterly events.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,527
Points
1,140
Because FORCE is an absolute test with no incentive levels or age standards, maybe we can break the pervasive habit of those who do just what's needed to pass the EXPRES test year after year with no attempt to improve.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
MCG said:
It is not an Army test though.  If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immeadeatly do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.
signalsguy said:
Nothing stopping unit COs from talking to their local PSP staff and coming up with some fitness challenge or test for their troops.  It comes back to the 'fitness is a leadership issue' argument.

Have everyone do the FORCE test then implement a unit level fitness policy with quarterly events.
Haggis said:
Because FORCE is an absolute test with no incentive levels or age standards, maybe we can break the pervasive habit of those who do just what's needed to pass the EXPRES test year after year with no attempt to improve.

Enough with the second guessing every time someone decides to change the test.

If you think the person you're supervising isn't fulfilling the standards of the job he\ she's alloted because they are physically 'inept', start writing it up.

Every one who doesn't seem to agree is usually a PER writer that can't seem to put pen to paper and say the subject is an overweight slob, THAT CAN"T PERFORM TO THE FORCES STANDARD.

They use the PT portion of the PER as a crutch without expanding on it. THey don't use the PDR and Warning System to take corrective action.

If you're not in a position to write it, get promoted to where you are and fucking well do somethng about it.

All you people bellyaching because you don't find the test hard enough are not in the position to speak for all those in the WHOLE military who have to determine what is equal and fair all around.

If you want to beast yourself everyday after work, go for it. That doesn't mean that everyone else in the military needs to meet YOUR expectation of personal fitness.

Quit coming here whining about something that is already within your power to do something about.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,527
Points
1,140
recceguy said:
All you people bellyaching because you don't find the test hard enough are not in the position to speak for all those in the WHOLE military who have to determine what is equal and fair all around.

There were just under 700 participants in Phase III, from all across the CAF, Regs and Reservists (Class A, B and C), males and females, fit and fat , SOF to Sup Tech, old and young.  Interestingly, everyone in the CF had the opportunity to do something to influence the development of the standard.  They could volunteer, as some of us on this forum did, to help set the new standard. 

So, to expand upon Recceguy's comment, if you couldn't be bothered to participate in the development of the test when the PSP came to your base, station or unit looking for test subjects, just give it a rest.  IMO it's like voting - if you didn't bother to cast a vote, don't bitch about who won the election.
 

bgc_fan

New Member
Reaction score
2
Points
130
So, what does everyone think of the new fitness evaluation protocol? It'll be a one year trial period, but I think it is a nice change from the CF EXPRES test.

Here is a link to the videos for more info: http://vimeo.com/cfpfss/videos

Sigh, didn't notice the thread in the Training section.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,397
Points
1,040
recceguy said:
Every one who doesn't seem to agree is usually a PER writer that can't seem to put pen to paper and  ...
Way to stifle debate with that poisoning the well, slap a derogatory label on anyone who suggests there might be room for improvement.  As one of the guys you quoted before handing out that ad hominem slight, I assure that notonly can I lift a pen to paper - I have done it a number of times where pers who passed PT tests lacked the fitness to do their jobs.  The problem is that the CAF is full of out of shape office dwellers whose fitness inability remains hidden and unchallenged until they arrive on operations (international or domestic), putting themselves, others and/or the mission at risk.

If you think that FORCE is perfect and unassailable, you should argue that instead of shotgun insulting anyone who suggests the possibility of otherwise.  For myself, I standby what you quoted from me:
MCG said:
If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immediately do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.



 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
MCG said:
Way to stifle debate with that poisoning the well, slap a derogatory label on anyone who suggests there might be room for improvement.  As one of the guys you quoted before handing out that ad hominem slight, I assure that notonly can I lift a pen to paper - I have done it a number of times where pers who passed PT tests lacked the fitness to do their jobs.  The problem is that the CAF is full of out of shape office dwellers whose fitness inability remains hidden and unchallenged until they arrive on operations (international or domestic), putting themselves, others and/or the mission at risk.

If you think that FORCE is perfect and unassailable, you should argue that instead of shotgun insulting anyone who suggests the possibility of otherwise.  For myself, I standby what you quoted from me:

Sorry if you feel slighted. I'm tired of the sanctimonious people trying to drive policy.

If you found my comments insulting, you need a thicker skin and have to quit taking things so personal.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,760
Points
1,260
MCG said:
The problem is that the CAF is full of out of shape office dwellers whose fitness inability remains hidden and unchallenged until they arrive on operations (international or domestic), putting themselves, others and/or the mission at risk.

Is this really that systemic of a problem ?  I have done 2 deployments with the Army and a few exercises and 1 deployment with the Navy and many exercises and I have yet to see someone fail at their task because of fitness.  I am a Sup Tech and I realize I am not on  the pointy end, but back here at the hilt I haven't noticed a large or any amount of people who fail at their jobs because of fitness.

I sometimes wonder if there really are allot of people who actually fail at their jobs because of fitness, or do some members of the CF have issues with "large" people in uniform regardless of what they can accomplish.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,397
Points
1,040
Halifax Tar said:
Is this really that systemic of a problem ?  I have done 2 deployments with the Army and a few exercises and 1 deployment with the Navy and many exercises and I have yet to see someone fail at their task because of fitness.  I am a Sup Tech and I realize I am not on  the pointy end, but back here at the hilt I haven't noticed a large or any amount of people who fail at their jobs because of fitness.

I sometimes wonder if there really are allot of people who actually fail at their jobs because of fitness, or do some members of the CF have issues with "large" people in uniform regardless of what they can accomplish.
Well, there was one well publicised incident of a sr officer who disappeared into a Connaught ditch during a march because of fitness.  Fighting BC fires with sub-units of hard Army and hard Navy occupations, I saw pers unable to move themselves and their equipment about the mountain.  One of our Afghanistan operational deaths was a result of fitness.  Within KAF (a joint place), there were a number who could not move their own kit from pick-up to the truck or the truck to their quarters.  I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.  Through good fortune, I have never been in the position of having to evacuate quickly with casualties from a stricken ship or aircraft - the pers described above will be unable to do their job of extracting the casualties (and that is every CAF mbr's job).  Instead, they will struggle, waist time, and risk lives.  And this is not just about those who are fat (sorry, "large" is not an accurate description).  Those who keep themselves small through diet alone and have no muscles worth mention are as much a problem.

For the vast majority of the CAF, I expect the FORCE will be adequate for separating the cans from the cannots to that minimum standard.  What I do not know that FORCE will adequately assess is Army specific.  That is why I say:
MCG said:
If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immediately do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.
 

Dirt Digger

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
bgc_fan said:
Here is a link to the videos for more info: http://vimeo.com/cfpfss/videos

Thanks for the video link.  Am I correct in assuming that a lot of the extra tests were trialed but didn't make the final cut?  The "picking" video looks like an accident waiting to happen - you can see from the gouges in the tape that a few have almost missed the striking surface.

I'm looking forward to trying out the new test, so I'll reserve judgement until I've physically gone through the motions.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,760
Points
1,260
MCG said:
Well, there was one well publicised incident of a sr officer who disappeared into a Connaught ditch during a march because of fitness.  Fighting BC fires with sub-units of hard Army and hard Navy occupations, I saw pers unable to move themselves and their equipment about the mountain.  One of our Afghanistan operational deaths was a result of fitness.  Within KAF (a joint place), there were a number who could not move their own kit from pick-up to the truck or the truck to their quarters.  I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.  Through good fortune, I have never been in the position of having to evacuate quickly with casualties from a stricken ship or aircraft - the pers described above will be unable to do their job of extracting the casualties (and that is every CAF mbr's job).  Instead, they will struggle, waist time, and risk lives.  And this is not just about those who are fat (sorry, "large" is not an accurate description).  Those who keep themselves small through diet alone and have no muscles worth mention are as much a problem.

For the vast majority of the CAF, I expect the FORCE will be adequate for separating the cans from the cannots to that minimum standard.  What I do not know that FORCE will adequately assess is Army specific.  That is why I say:

Fair enough I have never herd of those cases but I will take your word for it.  Perhaps it is a bigger issue.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
721
Points
940
MCG said:
Well, there was one well publicised incident of a sr officer who disappeared into a Connaught ditch during a march because of fitness.  Fighting BC fires with sub-units of hard Army and hard Navy occupations, I saw pers unable to move themselves and their equipment about the mountain.  One of our Afghanistan operational deaths was a result of fitness.  Within KAF (a joint place), there were a number who could not move their own kit from pick-up to the truck or the truck to their quarters.  I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.

I can't reply to most of these examples, but I will say that I personally knew the person in the Connaught incident.  The incident was the result of several factors, unfitness was not one of them.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,524
Points
940
MCG said:
I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.  Through good fortune, I have never been in the position of having to evacuate quickly with casualties from a stricken ship or aircraft - the pers described above will be unable to do their job of extracting the casualties (and that is every CAF mbr's job).  Instead, they will struggle, waist time, and risk lives.  And this is not just about those who are fat (sorry, "large" is not an accurate description).  Those who keep themselves small through diet alone and have no muscles worth mention are as much a problem.

A most perfectly placed slip!!  ;D
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,397
Points
1,040
If I posted "Bazzinga" would you believe it was deliberate?
:D
 
Top