New CF Fitness Policies Coming

[GO!!!]

I agree with Allan's assessment that there is no will at the leadership level to enforce the PT standard.

IMHE, the largest percentage of guys on category, accomadated and on restrictions are at the SNCO level, so this leaves trades like the infantry in a quandry - do we toss our DFS WO, Unit JM and Master Sniper? Where are their replacements? Twenty years in the infantry, especially in a para role, practically guarantees a busted up bod - what then?

 

[TCBF]

My cohort probably has the highest percentage of 'busted body' types.  What scares us is the young 20-30 year olds who join with half busted bodies.  Imagine what they will be like in ten years?  Heck, on a good day, we out-run and out-ruck them now.

In the Army, 50 year olds should NOT be passing 25 year olds.

Make a list and check it twice:  the guys and girls in the "Moo-Moos" are your DIP (Die In Place) CSW crews.  Give them enough ammo for a 30 minute delay, handcuff them to the tripods, then retrograde with the people you KNOW can hump a ruck.

;D

Just kidding in that last paragraph

Tom

 

[Armymedic]

no you weren't.

Besides for those of us who understand it...its not a bad plan.

 

[orange.paint]

Heres a question.How do firefighters manage to keep a high standard with the human rights act?Maybe we should be looking outside at other agencies.

TCBF, better bring zapstraps....some may not fit the handcuffs.Wouldn't want those guys to feel offended.

 

[Gunner]

How do firefighters manage to keep a high standard with the human rights act?

High standards have nothing to do with human rights.

 

[ZipperHead]

Maybe I'm thick, or maybe I am starting to see the forest for the trees, but: a large portion of this thread has been about how we need to enforce the ONE standard that we have (the CF standard). But, as pointed out, firefighters, JTF2, paratroopers, SAR Techs and many other trades, positions (is CSOF (or whatever it is this week) still going with it's own PT standard?) have their own standards. Somebody slammed rcac_011 for saying that it would be too hard to enforce different CO's own PT standards (if a CO chose to have his/her own). Well, how about allowing a Corps to adopt their own standard, modelled on an existing standard, such as JTF, SAR Tech, firefighter, whichever, as long as it isn't below the CF standard (in case some rogue CO would be so lame as to declare that they need a LOWER standard). What of that then??

Just because an infantry guy is fitter than the JTF2 standards, doesn't neccesarily mean that he wants to be in the JTF, for whatever reason (lifestyle, family, no interest, etc). I'm saying this because people will invariably say "If a person wants to be in that shape, join the JTF2 fer crissakes!!!". And perhaps a CO wants to have his unit at a higher level, but is thwarted at every turn due to the ever present cry of "But I meet the CF standard!!!!". I know that this would cause a see-saw effect whereby one CO would be a gung-ho mofo and choose the JTF standard, and the next the CF, and the next somewhere in between, but at least it would give them the latitude to make their own choice, as they are responsible for the training of their soldiers to go to war, not the Ombudsman, or the base social worker, or whomever deals with those that cry fowl when they are asked to give more than the lowest possible standard dictates.

I know that this is radical, and no doubt already discussed somewhere, sometime, but I am NOT going to enter a search that includes the following words: JTF, PT, and CF in this forum (I'm sure the number of relevant posts would be in the area of the US national debt in dollars.)

Al

 

[TCBF]

I think I touched on something like this on another thread.  If each trade has it's own min Med Cat (312225, etc), why not have each trade with its own Fit Cat?

Tom

 

[Haggis]

Maybe I'm thick, or maybe I am starting to see the forest for the trees, but: a large portion of this thread has been about how we need to enforce the ONE standard that we have (the CF standard). But, as pointed out, firefighters, JTF2, paratroopers, SAR Techs and many other trades, positions (is CSOF (or whatever it is this week) still going with it's own PT standard?) have their own standards.

Each one of those standards is higher than the CF standard, and for good reason.  Those jobs are more demanding.  The CF standard doesn't cut it.

Somebody slammed rcac_011 for saying that it would be too hard to enforce different CO's own PT standards (if a CO chose to have his/her own).

That was me (and it wasn'; an intentional "slam".  I just come across as a crusty old prick at times.)  I did it for the reasons stated above and to keep with the topic at hand.  This thread is entitled "new CF Fitness Policies Coming" and everytime a thread like this starts, there's a hue and cry that "we should adopt (insert name of another Army/Marine/SF)'s fitness standard.  My points are these:

1.  We already have a minimum standard, which will stand up to legal scrutiny and is defensible in a redress.  That needs to be enforced. 

2.  Not everyone needs to be fit enough to go to DHTC but they should try to be as fit as they can be.

3.  Not everyone can be fit enough to join CSOR but that shouldn't stop them from being as fit as they can be.

4.  Existing standards are not being enforced.  There is little to no consequence of failure or avoidance (prior to CANFORGEN 198/05)

5. Given our current resource state, arbitrarily implementing a new standard NOW would be wasteful.

Well, how about allowing a Corps to adopt their own standard, modelled on an existing standard, such as JTF, SAR Tech, firefighter, whichever, as long as it isn't below the CF standard (in case some rogue CO would be so lame as to declare that they need a LOWER standard). What of that then??
Just because an infantry guy is fitter than the JTF2 standards, doesn't neccesarily mean that he wants to be in the JTF, for whatever reason (lifestyle, family, no interest, etc). I'm saying this because people will invariably say "If a person wants to be in that shape, join the JTF2 fer crissakes!!!". And perhaps a CO wants to have his unit at a higher level, but is thwarted at every turn due to the ever present cry of "But I meet the CF standard!!!!". I know that this would cause a see-saw effect whereby one CO would be a gung-ho mofo and choose the JTF standard, and the next the CF, and the next somewhere in between, but at least it would give them the latitude to make their own choice, as they are responsible for the training of their soldiers to go to war, not the Ombudsman, or the base social worker, or whomever deals with those that cry fowl when they are asked to give more than the lowest possible standard dictates.

Which brings me to my last point. ;D

6.  There's nothing to stop a CO from implementing their own standards.  But they cannot take career action against soldiers who do not meet "The CO's Standard" as long as the soldier meets the minimum CF standard for age, gender and specialty (i.e. SAR Tech or JTF2).

As I said in an earlier post, I'm not advocating that the current CF standard is adequate.  What I'm saying is that, before we invest time, money and resources in a "new and improved" standard, let's see what the CDS's little project shows us. As the CDS states in CANFORGEN198/05:

LET ME BE CLEAR: WHILE THIS GUIDANCE WILL PROVIDE SENIOR LEADERSHIP WITH A SNAPSHOT IN TIME, THIS IS NOT ABOUT FITNESS TESTING, IT IS ABOUT HELPING TO SET THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS IN OPERATIONS.

Maybe this "snapshot" will show that we're ready for a higher challenge.  Maybe it won't.  At least then we'll have a point of reference and a start line to cross.

 

[orange.paint]

High standards have nothing to do with human rights.

Read back.It will illustrate a young land monster who fought the system and won.Being fat is a disability.DND is an employer.

Each one of those standards is higher than the CF standard, and for good reason.  Those jobs are more demanding.  The CF standard doesn't cut it.

And an infanteer/armoured crewman should be on par with a postal clerk?Are the combat arms not more demanding?

perhaps a CO wants to have his unit at a higher level, but is thwarted at every turn due to the ever present cry of "But I meet the CF standard!!!!".

Agreed.Our low standard is a crutch to the weak.

Haggis,you seem to somehow in one sentence say the standard we got is what we need to keep because it's easier to upkeep/cheaper/enforce.Then in the next breath say it is not sufficient.You seem to be depending on the lack standard and the canforgen this year to remove all the physical fitness problems.Problem being, and what most of the rest of us are trying to say, is that the current system fails 10 percent OF THE WORST. How many people do you know that PASS the minimum and are far from in a healthy, fit to fight shape.

One thing that made me tingle inside today was reading in the new maple leaf that they are FINALLY going to start testing "A" class reserves to the same standards.I brought this point up to Major Creighton (pardon spelling) a while back and was told it was a legal issue. .....who knows maybe I actually changed something (one can pretend  ;D).

This is the first change I've seen anyone else seen anything concrete...make my night and tell me about someone fat getting the axe.....

Off to the gym. (will produce a detailed map for those who need it)

cheers

 

[Haggis]

Haggis,you seem to somehow in one sentence say the standard we got is what we need to keep because it's easier to upkeep/cheaper/enforce.Then in the next breath say it is not sufficient.

Exactly. What you didn't read is the reason why I said what I said.

You seem to be depending on the lack standard and the canforgen this year to remove all the physical fitness problems.

No, read my post again. 

One thing that made me tingle inside today was reading in the new maple leaf that they are FINALLY going to start testing "A" class reserves to the same standards.

It's about time.  But it will only be meaningful if there are consequences for failure.

I brought this point up to Major Creighton (pardon spelling) a while back and was told it was a legal issue. .....who knows maybe I actually changed something (one can pretend  ;D).

There will doubtless be legal challenges to this.  That's why, through this CANFORGEN the soon-to-be released
results of the testing (snapshot in time) and the new DAOD, the CF has to have a slam-dunk case to fall back on when (not "if") some CADPAT balloon fails, doesn't get promoted and puts in a redress.

Off to the gym. (will produce a detailed map for those who need it)

You show me yours and I'l show you mine! ;D

 

[pbi]

High standards have nothing to do with human rights.

The example of firefighters (civilian, anyway...) has everything to do with human rights. I doubt that,following the BC Forestry firefighter case a few years ago, there are any fire depts left in Canada whose fitness policy has not been reviewed by municipal lawyers for compliance with human rights. Basically, as a result of that woman's challenge to the "generic" nature of the BC test that she failed, fire fighter fitness tests have to be directly linked to required tasks (climbing a ladder wearing turnout gear, carrying rolled hose length, carrying weighted dummy, etc). As well, the fitness test in many depts in Canada is administered only as a part of the entry process. Once in and part of the union, many firefighters are not too keen to see regular fitness re-testing, fearing that it would be used by "management" to get rid of people.

The fact is that we are under the laws of Canada, whether we like it or not. Arbitrary, locally-developed "standards" that can't be defended against a challenge are what got us into trouble in the first place. If we want our fitness standard to survive a court challenge, then we better be able to prove in a court of law (not in a mess argument or on Army.ca) that the standard required is needed.

The main reason, in my opinion, that you don't see challenges to the fitness standard in organizations like the Marines has little to do with the standard itself, and everything to do with the mentality, pride and "lifestyle". Change how people think of themselves, and you will go far towards solving this problem. So, like most of us have noted before, it's a leadership problem. But, I believe that the more we go on ops, especially dangerous ops, the more we will produce leaders and soldiers who believe in being fit.

This change of mentality cannot happen overnight. It took decades for the CF to slip into the pit of sluggery and "job-ism" that pervades too many people's mindsets today. It will take us years to reform (a lot of people will have to leave, thus removing their poisonous influence), but it can be done. As an aside,  I have very grave doubts that the recent decision to allow people the right to elect to serve until 60 will help this process. In a tiny force such as ours, with limited intake, this may be a recipe for trouble. I hope we donot live to regret it.

Cheers

 

[Patrolman]

Just noticed this thread has been inactive for a couple of months. I was just wondering has anyone seen any kind of implantation of these new policies at their units? I am still seeing some pretty hefty military types doing the combat stress test on their combats.

I am heading back to work on May 1st after a few months parental leave. I believe I am probably more fit now than I was when I was at work. The resposibility was on me to stay fit and I am glad to say I didn't fall into the fat trap while I was home. I plan to run  the Fredericton half marathon on May 14th.

 

[Haggis]

Funny that you should ask..

I was in contact with the CFSU (Ottawa) Fitness Co-rordinator this morning.  The new DAOD has not been signed yet.  No projected release date.

 

[orange.paint]

Nope still the same.For those who try their best to stay in shape, I suggest putting in a memo through your chain of command for doing your own PT.It has been very accepted at my unit and they require me at parade and that's it.I believe anyone who is putting a large amount of effort into themselves should be trusted to keep themselves in "uber"shape.


Patrolman that was my second choice of races this month,wish I had legs enough to do that and another the next week.

Now here I begin to rant...

this is directed at the sick lame and obese in our army.

what is it going to take these folks and make them fit to fight?

OBESE PEOPLE:

1.obviously has shown they cannot take care of themselves (note maybe this could go under hygiene) why trust them with subordinates/expensive equipment.

2.Cannot physically keep up,slowing the team and making the team less effective.

3.Work tires obese people quicker,hence the fat f+c% that falls asleep on sentry,or don't wake up to replace you. (Ive also seen this con courses where the obese were asleep early and failing due to lack of studying)

4.Have more illness in a reporting period,more likely to develop serious health problems.

5.Appears poorly in uniform,making the Canadian armed forces appear weak and un disciplined.

Unfortunately I didn't join a army I joined the "Canadian retire at 40 dream" plagued with pers who don't want to be soldiers just want money.

How do we fix it? We can't. They won't.

How would I?

How about pay incentives if you reach certain levels of fitness.

If you fail the minimum requirements you lose out on pay,even if you pass later that week.

Rehabilitation for obese.extra training etc.

make a brigade of over 50 bmi and they can be our guys to keep the homefires burning (so I can get out of here and overseas again!)

humiliation is my favorite.Poor leadership?maybe.Or maybe I grew up in a place where its my culture and then who are you to tell me I'm wrong  ;D

Destroy the 6074 pants (someone in supply can tell me the largest size for real) make combats on height and width,not round and girth

And I will even do my part.Anyone who is obese and wants to lose weight PM me and ill send you a training plan...then you can go bleed Crisco all over the running track.

or firing squad...call me sick but I would love that job.




haggis what DAOD is this?I seem to be a little lost here care to go in-depth with it?

 

[54/102 CEF]

Happy to say I`m a graduate of Rick Hilliers Get in the Gym program - almost got exempted for age of 51 - Shuttle Run is a far cry from the days of running in boots (I admit it - I`m imprinted from the Cold War).

After 8 weeks of coaching by an excellent PERI am still pleased on how fast you can bounce back from deskbound bum to getting serious jogging again. I am told by aquaintences that Australians do this 2 times a year - all regs and reserves. Seems an easy program for any unit not tied into a regular forces 5 day a week life. (Aka Reserves and non megabase units like NDHQ)

Has anyone got data on how many did not do the test by 1 April? I see lots of people avoiding it - or taking it much later than early this month.

Other eyes and ears?

See you next year as this is my new means of tpt - http://www.montagueco.com/productcx.html

All you gung ho snake eaters will like this model - http://www.montagueco.com/productpara.html

 

[Gunner]

Has anyone got data on how many did not do the test by 1 April?

It's going to be briefed to the CDS by mid-May.  Current indications are a low completion rate however this is thought to be due to data not being entered into HRMS.  A call has gone out to make sure the PT is entered ASAP.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Reserves don't have the option of a Reg force PERI, or the new civie equivalent to draw on. We don't have a free gymnasium packed full of TV's and treadmills, trackmasters and dumbells (human and inanimate). If I get hurt , or hit by a car, at 05:00 while humping my ruck, who pays, till I get back to work? Not DND, like you Reg guys. Or better yet, finds me a new job after getting fired because I wasn't at work. Soldier first, suck it up Buttercup, and if you like it, you'll sacrifice for it, are all bullshit answers. Most of us have civvie jobs and families. Reg force have the advantage of daily, organized, worry free, injury taken care of, no career implication PT. We don't. Provide us the means, even playing ground, benefits, legislation, etc and we'll do it. We already work two jobs to your one, don't dare say we're slack and lazy because we don't indulge in the same gratuitous perks that the Regs do. You get your 20-25 days leave with your family. Mine is spent at summer Ex. I have to beg my boss for course time. My wife is pissed because my Brigade can't get the simple fact, that Mother's Day is a stupid time to hold an EX (every year, just like clockwork). I'll do what I can to get and stay fit for the Army, but if your not going to afford me the same benefits, perks and consessions as the Regs, don't dare try and force the same standard. In the end we'll do what we're told, and I suppose this was just for all those sanctimonious greek gods out there. That's my rant, and I doubt I'm done. We'll see.

edit for caveat

 

[WogCpl]

You could always just component transfer.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Go read my profile sunshine.

 

[George Wallace]

;D

Aw!  Come on D________!.....You have a least 8 good years left.  ;D