Research into different fitness standards for each element

[Eye In The Sky]

This is a quote taken from the Project SOAR link.  I did a double take when I read this part.

And, according to Air Force research manager Dr. Michael Spivock, the transformation in fitness standards is about more than improving operational effectiveness; it’s about ensuring that our fitness standards are in accordance with Canadian law.

“When we develop these fitness standards, we are bound by Canadian human rights law to something called ‘bona fide occupational requirements’,” Dr. Spivock says. “Basically, that tells us that any test we administer has to be representative of a person’s job. It has to be reflective of job requirements and it must hold up in court; therefore, the process we are using to develop these standards is absolutely scientific, not anecdotal.”

WTF, over?  So I currently work on a Svc Tm that administers IT.  What do I do, a friggin' typing speed PT test? 

I've said it before; I'll say it again.  The civilianization of the CF must stop before it is too late.

 

[blacktriangle]

This just keeps getting better and better  ???

Well even if PT goes down the drain at least the army will still help fund my dream porsche and education..self respect whats that?  :

 

[rmc_wannabe]

This seems to me to be a lazy man's approach to fitness.
"Let's train to do solely one thing, and one thing only, and target only the muscles and reflexes that are required for work." Screw that!

Talk to any Sig Op and they'll tell you that your job as a soldier changes at the drop of a hat.

Case in point, last week I spent a day dismantling furniture and moving it to R&D, the next day I was doing server maintainence. Some days  I can be humping a 5-22 or setting up a mast antenna or simply sitting in front of a screen killing time. How in the hell does someone plan a PT programme around a job that has so many odd tasks and fills multiply roles?

I think this waste of money.

 

[krustyrl]

This just keeps getting better and better  ???

Well even if PT goes down the drain at least the army will still help fund my dream porsche and education..self respect whats that?  :

Are you assuming someone overweight and a little long in the tooth lacks self-respect.?  At the risk of being "fragged" I know several people that fit the older, heavier body style that are damn good techs and know their shyte......just as I also know the stereotypical athletic, slim build tech that is about as thick as they come.  By comparison, one "looks better in uniform" than the other.!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The issue of 'being physically fit' is discussed in a one aspect always, and that is the "ability to preform physical tasks".  It is thought of in terms of things like ability to hump a ruck, handle arty/tank ammo, run distances, etc.

The other things that are medically proven to being physically fit include ability to handle stress, fight off sickness and illness, perform well under minimal sleep, mental alertness/critical thinking, and the list goes on.

I think if we are going to accurately discuss and debate fitness in the Forces, we should discuss ALL aspects of being physically fit and the way ALL of those factors apply to CF members.

I have known some folks that you would look at and say "he's overweight" who would surprise you how nimble and quick they are, how far and fast they can ruck, etc etc.  Might be something to consider judging books by their covers when you haven't seen them perform before.

The thought of judging people by 'having a few extra pounds on' reminds of the the BMI Bible Thumpers of yester-year, and how many good soldiers, sailor and airmen/women did the Forces loose because of that mistake?

I think the medical and Trade professionals that will be selected to complete this difficult task will have the best interest of their MOCs in mind; they will assumedly have vast knowledge of what IS actually required.  If they make up a PT test for pilots that doesn't involve a ruck march but focuses on more important aspects of their jobs, as they would be done in the applicable operational context, I have problems with that.

Personally, I don't think this will mean the lowering of the current MPFS, rather the ability of MOCs that desperately need it, to up the standard, or expand on it.

 

[krustyrl]

Well said Eye in the Sky.  Some out there think if you pass the CFExpres Test ,  you are, physically fit .......when it actually means " you passed the Expres Test". Nothing more , nothing less.!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well said Eye in the Sky.   Some out there think if you pass the CFExpres Test ,  you are, physically fit .......when it actually means " you passed the Expres Test". Nothing more , nothing less.!

Agreed.  On the EXPRES Test sheet (can't remember the CFXXX number...) it says "Met MPFS" with a check for Yes or No.

MPFS=Minimum Physical Fitness Standard.

Which...IMO...is low.

 

[WannaBeFlyer]

Standards are low. The sad part is while working out, I have seen many members scream and yell when PSP staff tell them that if they do the test they may die. It's interesting to see the same person come back and thank the PSP'er for opening their eyes. This of course is after they have seen a Physician.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I've been thinking about this issue for a bit tonight.  What would be very refreshing is for suggestions as to what SHOULD be in the testing.

So...that is the question from myself, to those who would like to weigh in.

What would a PT test for those of you who are in the Cmbt Arms look like?  Navy?  Air Force?

Should there be different PT tests for CF mbrs, based on the environment they are in?  Example:  Med Techs.  Should they have one standard for all in this MOC, or should it vary based on whether they are with an Inf unit?  What about if they are posted to a CPF?  Should these Environmental standards be the same for Reg or Res? 

We've been long at identifying the problem; lets put some feedback into what we think is/are the solution(s).

Having said that, I will offer this;  PT is a daily part of the day of Cmbt Arms/CSS units, generally speaking.  How do we address that in units where there simply isn't time for more PT?  I spend part of my days in the shop staffed by 2 Cpls (techs) with no MCpl, and one Sgt who runs that shop, and another shop as well...and with the 3 mandatory PT sessions per week, there is just not enough time now to add PT into each day.  If they add PT in 2 more days a week, equipment might not work that is crucial to key gear that is required for flight ops. 

I am sure there are many more units like this...so I invite comments and ideas for solutions;  the problems are evident to all of us that have a working GAFF.

 

[BernDawg]

At work we were sent a link for a survey for task based exertional activities.  Things like how much do you lift, how often, how far do you need to walk, do you ever need to run, stuff like that. It seems to me that it's part of this new directive.  This, of course, was directed specifically to the Airforce side of the house.  Of course, being a dedicated Engineer like I am (zippit!! you know who you are) filled out all the items honestly and they may be surprised how physical our job is, even on a Wing.

 

[Greymatters]

And, according to Air Force research manager Dr. Michael Spivock, the transformation in fitness standards is about more than improving operational effectiveness; it’s about ensuring that our fitness standards are in accordance with Canadian law.

“When we develop these fitness standards, we are bound by Canadian human rights law to something called ‘bona fide occupational requirements’,” Dr. Spivock says. “Basically, that tells us that any test we administer has to be representative of a person’s job. It has to be reflective of job requirements and it must hold up in court; therefore, the process we are using to develop these standards is absolutely scientific, not anecdotal.” 

This is exactly what I was talking about - the view is a tunnel-vision view of a job position for a position and that position only.  If physical duties are not written into the job description (requirements), then physical standards are eliminated.  It completely ignores the fact that any and every soldier can be tasked at any time to move equipment, carry boxes, help with cleaning, standing guard duty, firing a weapon, driving a vehicle, filling a sandbag, or carrying a wounded comrade (etc, among other tasks). 

Next stop - soldiers saying they cant perform tasks they are expected to reasonably do because its "not in my job description".  Like a lot of civilians already working for DND...

 

[aesop081]

This is exactly what I was talking about - the view is a tunnel-vision view of a job position for a position and that position only. 

Everyone's employment includes both trade specs and general CF specs ( NCMGS for someone like me) and this review, as i was told, encompasses both.

 

[Greymatters]

Ive seen them, and there are loopholes, which is what this guy is talking about...

 

[aesop081]

Ive seen them, and there are loopholes, which is what this guy is talking about...

Then the problem is not the review but the NCMGS ( or officer equivalent)........Making things a military problem and not "civillianization".

 

[Greymatters]

I agree with that...

 

[George Wallace]

“When we develop these fitness standards, we are bound by Canadian human rights law to something called ‘bona fide occupational requirements’,” Dr. Spivock says. “Basically, that tells us that any test we administer has to be representative of a person’s job. It has to be reflective of job requirements and it must hold up in court; therefore, the process we are using to develop these standards is absolutely scientific, not anecdotal.”

WHOA!  "Bound by Canadian Human Rights LAW"  WTF!.  Is this survey going to be asking questions of CF members referencing their "workplaces", be they on land, in the air or at sea, as "sterile PEACETIME environments" or as "burning/sinking" workplaces in time of WAR? 

There is a very good line expressed on the commercial (short clip from) the new TV show, Flashpoint, "You are expected to be able to haul the bigest person of your team out of danger", or something to that effect.  That is what all members of the CF must be able to do; and should they be that "bigest member" of the team, and they are not physically fit, then why do they expect two other members to have to put their lives in danger to haul their ass out of danger?

What does the LAW have to do with Physical Fitness in the CF?

 

[aesop081]

What does the LAW have to do with Physical Fitness in the CF?

Quite a bit actualy. You might recognize that if you calmed down just a little. It doesnt mean we have to bend to every little civillian quirk but we, the CF, have to do a better job at articulating the needs of our job so that they meet the " bona fide occupational requirements" as laid down in Canadian law.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
What does the LAW have to do with Physical Fitness in the CF?

Evidently, there is a perception, I'm guessing, that some CF 'leaders' might (or, at least might want to) use physical fitness standards to discriminate based on age or sex - and that would violate charter rights which apply, equally, to the CF. If there was no such perception the there would be no reason to mention it. As with e.g. conflict of interest the CF must avoid unfairness and the perception of unfairness.

Someone mentioned that we you already have low fitness standards. That has always been the case: to ensure that the middle aged, female clerk would not be denied opportunity, in her part of the organization, just because she was unfit to be, say, a soldier in a combat engineer field troop. There is - and should be - a lowest common denominator which is applied absolutely without exception each and every person. There also need to be higher, specialized denominators for e.g. fighter pilots and infantry soldiers and so on.

If I read the original article correctly, the 'object of the exercise' is to ensure that we have the right standards for everyone - beginning with an appropriate 'lowest, common' one.

 

[George Wallace]

Quite a bit actualy. You might recognize that if you calmed down just a little. It doesnt mean we have to bend to every little civillian quirk but we, the CF, have to do a better job at articulating the needs of our job so that they meet the " bona fide occupational requirements" as laid down in Canadian law.

Actually, it will be a big can of worms that can easily go astray. 

 

[aesop081]

Actually, it will be a big can of worms that can easily go astray. 

:

Stop being so indignate. The can was openned well before i joined. You are preaching to the choire anyways. The simple fact remains that the CF, like any other employer, has to follow the laws unless it can manifestly demonstrate that there needs to be an exception. This can only go "astray" if we, the CF, cannot clearly articulate our requirements and justify them apropriately.

If our requirements cannot withstand lawful scrutiny there is 2 causes :

1- They were poorly laid out
2- Those requirements never really existed in the first place.

Now, as for those wondering why the AF would be lookignat a PT standard that meets its needs, ask yourself why the army uses the BFT and firefighters have their own PT test.The EXPRES test suits nobody.