Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )

[ht90]

From talking to PSP staff, I learned that there is going to be different levels depending on your timings (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) when the test is going to take effect next year.
They said the reason the test (or evaluation for the moment) is easy right now is because they haven't implemented any kind of real time limits. It should be quite an interesting PT test when it comes out.

 

[caocao]

Makes sense and sounds great.  Can't wait to try the real thing next spring!

 

[daftandbarmy]

From talking to PSP staff, I learned that there is going to be different levels depending on your timings (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) when the test is going to take effect next year.
They said the reason the test (or evaluation for the moment) is easy right now is because they haven't implemented any kind of real time limits. It should be quite an interesting PT test when it comes out.

Do we get a set of crossed clubs, in the appropriate colour, to wear on our DEU as well?  ;D

 

[Transporter]

I think the whole levels idea is silly and juvenile.

 

[caocao]

So you rather have all our people do the minimum required to just get by?  To me that is just encouraging a culture of laziness already present in todays youth; the xbox generation if you will.

 

[George Wallace]

So you rather have all our people do the minimum required to just get by?  To me that is just encouraging a culture of laziness already present in todays youth; the xbox generation if you will.

This reminds me of the brilliant idea to bring out the Warrior Badge.  What a farce that was.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So you rather have all our people do the minimum required to just get by?  To me that is just encouraging a culture of laziness already present in todays youth; the xbox generation if you will.

I  find it ironic that we will focus so much energy on making sure that everyone knows how in shape we are while as an instructor I'm not allowed to give a student a letter grade on a course.

So basically- it's more important to know if a soldier can do an up down in 40 seconds vice 50 seconds than it is to show that he or she can, you know, actually do there job and where that person stands in relation to their peers? Makes sense.

 

[George Wallace]

........ Makes sense.

Opps!  You used the "Makes Sense Clause".  You know darn well that if it makes sense, it is not likely to happen.    ;D

 

[x_para76]

I don't see anything wrong with creating levels to create competition or give people something to strive for. IMHO, I think regardless of your performance you should still have to complete a fitness assessment every year without exception.

 

[26point2]

I'm one of those people looking for something a bit more.  I don't have any JTF-2 aspirations, but the pre-selection training is pretty useful.  Once in a while, I compare my performance on several of the fitness items found on page 34 to what level I'm at.  Here's the link for those who are interested.

http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Greenwood/SiteCollectionDocuments/JTF%20Pre-Fitness%20Manual%20ENG.pdf

 

[Halifax Tar]

I  find it ironic that we will focus so much energy on making sure that everyone knows how in shape we are while as an instructor I'm not allowed to give a student a letter grade on a course.

So basically- it's more important to know if a soldier can do an up down in 40 seconds vice 50 seconds than it is to show that he or she can, you know, actually do there job and where that person stands in relation to their peers? Makes sense.

I agree with you in all aspects but I think I have come up with a solution!  Yearly trade specific testing.  Each year you get tested on your trade knowledge and depending on your score you get a different colored badge.  I think think this would look some swanky next to the PT badge!  :facepalm:

 

[caocao]

I agree with you in all aspects but I think I have come up with a solution!  Yearly trade specific testing.  Each year you get tested on your trade knowledge and depending on your score you get a different colored badge.  I think think this would look some swanky next to the PT badge!  :facepalm:

Why not, we give out other useless pieces of hardware: sea insignia, accident free driving badge or whatever that's called, etc...

 

[Halifax Tar]

At least it would display someones ability in their primary role

 

[OldSolduer]

Opps!  You used the "Makes Sense Clause".  You darn well that if it makes sense, it is not likely to happen.    ;D

I thought you said "Santa Claus"

 

[PMedMoe]

I  find it ironic that we will focus so much energy on making sure that everyone knows how in shape we are while as an instructor I'm not allowed to give a student a letter grade on a course.

So basically- it's more important to know if a soldier can do an up down in 40 seconds vice 50 seconds than it is to show that he or she can, you know, actually do there job and where that person stands in relation to their peers? Makes sense.

I agree.  One of my former course mates said that 50% of our PER points should be based on physical fitness.  I said that as the casualty, I'd rather the medic arrived with ability as opposed to speed.

 

[x_para76]

I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be asking is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be ask is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.

Not at all.  It should be a valuable part ones career in the CF.  Having said that I don't agree with exemptions and levels.  Simple pass fail.

 

[Shamrock]

I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be ask is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.

I think they're already blended.

MPFS represents the minimum physical fitness standard to achieve universality of service.  This to me amounts to no big deal.

In a physically-based job, performance manifests physically.  If a troop's physical conditioning prevents him from performing at his assigned tasks, then that should be addressed through a remedial measure.  Likewise, if his outstanding physical condition allow him to master various aspects of his job, that should be addressed.

 

[armyvern]

I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be asking is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.

I figure that leadership should be making into the top of your list somewhere too.  I know many a competent sup techs who are shitty leaders.  I know many very fit individuals who are also incompetent leaders.  There's a happy medium in there somewhere and fitness and trade-skill are but two of the factors that come into play when looking at leadership capabilities and the ability to accomplish Task X on time, in place, and in a professional manner.

Should we all have to be as fit as infantry (because there are some that think so)?  We are talking about "the minimum" for fitness in the CAF in this thread.  Not the ideal.  Minimum fitness for employment.  So really, the answer is, if they've passed their FORCE test then they've met the minimum for employment in the CAF.  Meeting the minimum does not mean they are unfit, it just means they are not as fit as the infantry guy who spends many more hours a week in the gym while we spend more hours at our desks becoming competent in our primary role). 

Why, for some, do they automatically equate minimum with "unfit"??  That's untrue.  I can't run worth hell but that doesn't make me unfit ... jump in the pool with me for a go.

 

[x_para76]

I figure that leadership should be making into the top of your list somewhere too.  I know many a competent sup techs who are shitty leaders.  I know many very fit individuals who are also incompetent leaders.  There's a happy medium in there somewhere and fitness and trade-skill are but two of the factors that come into play when looking at leadership capabilities and the ability to accomplish Task X on time, in place, and in a professional manner.

Should we all have to be as fit as infantry (because there are some that think so)?  We are talking about "the minimum" for fitness in the CAF in this thread.  Not the ideal.  Minimum fitness for employment.  So really, the answer is, if they've passed their FORCE test then they've met the minimum for employment in the CAF.  Meeting the minimum does not mean they are unfit, it just means they are not as fit as the infantry guy who spends many more hours a week in the gym while we spend more hours at our desks becoming competent in our primary role). 

Why, for some, do they automatically equate minimum with "unfit"??  That's untrue.  I can't run worth hell but that doesn't make me unfit ... jump in the pool with me for a go.

I agree with you that fitness should be graded on a curve ie. a 40 year old W.O shouldn't be expected to turn in the same time on a run as a 20 year old private. However if the fitness standard is based on a run or a ruck march and an individual is unable to pass it unfortunately hey can't turn around and say "but my lap time in the pool is this" as that isn't what has been used to set the standard.

EDIT: Fixed quote box