Measuring Physical Fitness (Split: CF weighs releasing combat wounded soldiers)

[Pusser]

:stirpot:  How do we define fitness?  Right now the long-legged track star, who would crumple carrying any real weight up the side of the mountain is lauded and rewarded by the system, but the short-legged rugby player who's carrying the radio has to fight just to stay in.  How can we preach universality of service, if we can't define what that actually means?

 

[brihard]

:stirpot:  How do we define fitness?  Right now the long-legged track star, who would crumple carrying any real weight up the side of the mountain is lauded and rewarded by the system, but the short-legged rugby player who's carrying the radio has to fight just to stay in.  How can we preach universality of service, if we can't define what that actually means?

A tribunal.

A sergeant, warrant officer, and master warrant officer, selected randomly with one from each of the three infantry regiments. Candidates for the tribunal will have to be nominated by their peers, with particular regard for time in and general crustiness. The tribunal will convene in the Sgts&WOs mess, Friday at noon, and will be empower to impose arbitrary standards, and to adjudicate in cases where there is any matter of dispute.  Adjudication will consist of the tribunal taking all persons subject to such processes into the field for the duration of the weekend from Friday at noon to the first parade on Monday, and what happens in the field stays in the field. The tribunal will whatever means they deem fit to decide if the soldier(s) in question can hack it. If a majority of two out of the three NCOs grudgingly concedes that the member can do the job (even if he wouldn't have cut it 'back in the day') that member stays in. If not, the boot.

Crazy, but so crazy it just might work. ;D

 

[HItorMiss]

:stirpot:  How do we define fitness?  Right now the long-legged track star, who would crumple carrying any real weight up the side of the mountain is lauded and rewarded by the system, but the short-legged rugby player who's carrying the radio has to fight just to stay in.  How can we preach universality of service, if we can't define what that actually means?

Coopers test achieve minimum at all levels plus a BFT. No need to get Operator/Assaulter standards just pass the coopers and a BFT then you are good to go. Yes I am aware those without arms might be at a disadvantage but I am sure there is a way to set it up so that things like push ups and pull ups can be achieved.

 

[MJP]

Coopers test achieve minimum at all levels plus a BFT. No need to get Operator/Assaulter standards just pass the coopers and a BFT then you are good to go. Yes I am aware those without arms might be at a disadvantage but I am sure there is a way to set it up so that things like push ups and pull ups can be achieved.

Pull-ups and bench would put women at a distinct disadvantage as compared to males with their physiological makeup with the current standards in the Coopers Test.  I know quite a few very in shape women, that would put a great deal of men to shame with their fitness but would have real difficulty with the 7/8 strict pull-ups (IIRC it has been a few years since I've done it) that a entails a minimum score on the test.

 

[HItorMiss]

Min score is 6 and I hate to say it but having standard across the board would be a good step period. But I will concede that perhaps that is a bit much maybe lower the mins for woman?

 

[vonGarvin]

Pull-ups and bench would put women at a distinct disadvantage as compared to males with their physiological makeup with the current standards in the Coopers Test. 

And your point is?  The test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.

Min score is 6 and I hate to say it but having standard across the board would be a good step period. But I will concede that perhaps that is a bit much maybe lower the mins for woman?

Nope, I disagree.  One standard.  Period.

 

[MJP]

And your point is?  The test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.Nope, I disagree.  One standard.  Period.

Disagree all you want.  The fact is it is discriminatory as one group through no fault of their own would be at an disadvantage.  The CF still has to follow federal legislation when it comes to their selection process.  The minimuns in the CF Expres test were found to be the score needed for most candidate to be successful in the CF.  The same for cut-off scores for the CFAT.  They are both empirically tested BFORs (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) that the CF could use in court if they were challenged.  Throwing in test that is used for another purpose (selecting SOF personnel and making 3VP  happy) would open the CF to potential legal trouble.  I am all for a better test than the Expres, but for now I would settle for us just enforcing the standard (as in no more fat warrior platoon in ST Jean for one).  I am still amazed that in this time of almost frozen recruitment that we do not just release people that are unable to meet the standard when they show up.

 

[mariomike]

The test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.Nope, I disagree.  One standard.  Period.

I do not disagree with you. I too have a strong opinion on the subject when lives are at risk. But, there have been legal challenges.
Here is one case that is relevant to the CF and DND.
According to the attached link, from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, CF and DND firefighters were tested for physical fitness using a test derived from the "Cooper" test. Under that test there were different standards according to a firefighter's age and gender. In June 1991, the Canadian Forces Fire Marshal requested that a new "non-gender, non-biased and task-related" aka "one size fits all" fitness test be developed. A contract was awarded to the Queen's University Ergonomics Research Group (ERG) to develop the physical fitness standards for CF and DND firefighters.
More here on Bona Fide Occupational Requirements, if interested:
http://www.pssrb-crtfp.gc.ca/decisions/fulltext/2006-85_e.asp

 

[MJP]

I do not disagree with you. I too have a strong opinion on the subject when lives are at risk. But, there have been legal challenges.
Here is one case that is relevant to the CF and DND.
According to the attached article, from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, CF and DND firefighters were tested for physical fitness using a test derived from the "Cooper" test. Under that test there were different standards according to a firefighter's age and gender. In June 1991, the Canadian Forces Fire Marshal requested that a new "non-gender, non-biased and task-related" aka "one size fits all" fitness test be developed. A contract was awarded to the Queen's University Ergonomics Research Group (ERG) to develop the physical fitness standards for CF and DND firefighters.
More here on Bona Fide Occupational Requirements, if interested:

I dislike Human rights tribunals for a whole host of reasons, but the Meiorin case from BC is the gold standard when it comes to the onus being on the employer to show that those physical requirements being tested are needed.

 

[mariomike]

I dislike Human rights tribunals for a whole host of reasons, but the Meiorin case from BC is the gold standard when it comes to the onus being on the employer to show that those physical requirements being tested are needed.

FYI, I edited my post to change the link. I think this link is appropriate:
http://www.pssrb-crtfp.gc.ca/decisions/fulltext/2006-85_e.asp

 

[vonGarvin]

I dislike Human rights tribunals for a whole host of reasons, but the Meiorin case from BC is the gold standard when it comes to the onus being on the employer to show that those physical requirements being tested are needed.

Here is the only onus that the CF the Army ought to show why it needs tough physical standards.  Remember, these guys in the video are carrying xx lbs of stuff, probably have little sleep in the previous few days, and all of them are expected to perform in a part of the world many hours' time different from their home, with little time to adjust properly.  And no, it's not all shooting and jumping and stuff.  Just hump, hump and hump.

I mean, are we supposed to cater to a certain group in order to employ them?  Or are we supposed to provide a fighting force that can be the sharp end of Canada's foreign policy?

 

[MJP]

Here is the only onus that the CF the Army ought to show why it needs tough physical standards.  Remember, these guys in the video are carrying xx lbs of stuff, probably have little sleep in the previous few days, and all of them are expected to perform in a part of the world many hours' time different from their home, with little time to adjust properly.  And no, it's not all shooting and jumping and stuff.  Just hump, hump and hump.

I mean, are we supposed to cater to a certain group in order to employ them?  Or are we supposed to provide a fighting force that can be the sharp end of Canada's foreign policy?

Then the army needs to make its case, get whatever test they want validated and implement it.  If it can be legitimately shown that whatever level of fitness they deem is required is truly necessary then they will have no problems legally.  I would be the first to applaud them if that was the case.  Believe me I would love to see higher standards even if only for the combat arms.  Like I have said before here and here, but until senior people get on-board with the fact that generally fitter soldiers do better with the rigors of combat then we will continue to have issues.

 

[ballz]

I agree with your viewpoint TV, I think it's a hell of a lot more discriminatory to tell a 20 yr old male that can do 18 pushups that he's not fit fot duty while letting a 40 yr old woman that can do 7 do the same job. It's not his fault he has a y chromosone and more testosterone.

If the job only requires 7 pushups, then yes, it would be discriminatory against women to require 19 because the higher threshold would only serve the purpose of filtering out more women.

But that is not what's being advocated. All that I am asking is that they find the minimums they believe is necessary to do the job (which is probably higher than 7 pushups, but now that they've let it slip to 7 for somebody, that's probably what they would have to settle at) and apply it to everybody.

For the legal aspect, as was said, all that would need to be done is cross their t's and dot their i's to already have the evidence in place to say "this level of fitness is required because anything less is a safety hazard." I don't think it would be hard to prove that anybody that can only reach stage 3 on the beep test is a safety hazard, to themselves and to other people.

However, TV, I just did a course and a huge report on OHS and argued until I was blue in the face about all this stuff. Until a political party has the cajones to start taking on reverse-discrimination, it ain't happenin'. I don't think senior leadership getting on board would be enough. Thinking about how stupid it is will only give you a headache.

I think it would be easier to see certain trades have a higher standard set. It is a different job with different requirements so that part would be easy to support. But I'm not sure if there's a point... the demands of the courses required to get qualified for "x" position should already be hard enough to ensure the level of fitness we want... Nobody is going to pass DP1.1 with a level 6 on the beep test anyway...

 

[Franko]

We had a young fella from the PRes who was fit, under 30, in Bosnia (Op Palladium R13) have a heart attack.

Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Regards

 

[vonGarvin]

We had a young fella from the PRes who was fit, under 30, in Bosnia (Op Palladium R13) have a heart attack.

Healthy people don't have heart attacks, but I know what you mean.  "Fit" does not necessarily equal "healthy". 

 

[aesop081]

Nobody is going to pass DP1.1 with a level 6 on the beep test anyway...

...and we've all see the guy who can get to level 10+ who couldnt operate when on minimum sleep and minimum food.

The 20MSR is indicative of absolutely nothing useful. There is something fundamently flawed about how we establish our standards and it goes beyond the numbers we have set.

 

[Franko]

Healthy people don't have heart attacks, but I know what you mean.  "Fit" does not necessarily equal "healthy".

Exactly

 

[Tow Tripod]

Listen to all the wanna be Doctors on this thread. If it is your time then its your time. That could be here in Canada or on Operations 2008 we had a great combination of super fit troops and others that maybe were not that fit. In the end they all did a great job and we where very lucky overall. My 2 cents! Nothing more, Nothing less!

 

[ballz]

...and we've all see the guy who can get to level 10+ who couldnt operate when on minimum sleep and minimum food.

The 20MSR is indicative of absolutely nothing useful. There is something fundamently flawed about how we establish our standards and it goes beyond the numbers we have set.

Yes we have and I agree (although I do like the beep test as a component of the test...) but that's a whole other issue... :-\

 

[Scott]

Tow Tripod, lighten up, people are allowed an opinion.

And just to drive home the whole point about looking fit not necessarily meaning you are fit, I give you Jim Fixx.