Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )

[MJP]

It would have been just too simple to have a 220 lb mannequin with a tac-vest on that you had to drag 100m, instead we're taking the co-efficient of friction into consideration :facepalm:

If only there was an organization that does a casualty drag with a fully dressed mannequin already, if only.  Man I really wish we could find such a thing like that in for example our fire services or something similar to utilize instead of using sand bags. 

 

[GAP]

If only there was an organization that does a casualty drag with a fully dressed mannequin already, if only.  Man I really wish we could find such a thing like that in for example our fire services or something similar to utilize instead of using sand bags.

How hard would it be to acquire one on a one-off purchase specifically for that purpose. There's all kinds of mannequin/dummies companies out there, just google it.

Here's one example, although they are probably pricey...
http://bullex.com/product/rescue-manikins-firefightertraining/

Or....if one of your people know of someone who is handy with a serger (a must for the abuse the dummy has to take) make it of denim/canvas and fill to desired weight.

 

[stellarpanther]

For people who haven't done the test in the NCR since they started doing it in the basement at NDHQ, I can't tell you the general consensus was that it felt lighter this year. 

 

[PMedMoe]

For people who haven't done the test in the NCR since they started doing it in the basement at NDHQ, I can't tell you the general consensus was that it felt lighter this year.

It's NDHQ.....I'm not surprised.... 

 

[Navy_Pete]

For people who haven't done the test in the NCR since they started doing it in the basement at NDHQ, I can't tell you the general consensus was that it felt lighter this year.

I was talking to the PSP staff and I guess they dropped a sandbag after the pilot; it used to be heavier.  I had done it previously at the higher weight, and almost fell on my ass when I went to get it moving and expected more resistance.  I'm a bit of a featherweight so thought I'd be fighting physics a bit more.

The only part I can see people failing now is the 10m dash; not hard, but I think if you forget to do the jazz hands or something once it's pretty tight on time.  For that one, how fast you cycle up and down really seems to make way more of a difference then how fast you do the 10m.  I was sprinting and almost overshot the line a few times due to the varying traction on the floor.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

So I've done this test twice now... I am not impressed. The first time I put in maximum effort to see how much I could beat the standard time by. The 2nd, I did it as slow as I possibly could and still had plenty of time to spare on most events. The only one that required "effort" was the run with getting up and down. But whatever, if non combat trades want an easy test so be it.

Rant:
I know the Forces love this one standard baseline BS, except when it comes to hair length, diet, etc. I may not entirely agree with all of it, but I get it. What I do not get is the the ability of our army to recognize that certain trades require a higher level of intellectual capability. Yet the inability to recognize or won't enforce different standards for fitness.

I know the argument is that we can make them fit. But from what I have seen this is not the case. Often if someone doesn't have a fitness mindset already they stray back to their old habits. Not too mention that I've never really seen the system work on properly preparing people for the rigours of certain courses. I've seen too many people fall out of attacks, too many people getting so tired they patrol with their head down. And I bet the fatties didn't fair so well in the early stages of Afghanistan. Which would have not put only themselves at risk, but the lives of the people who count on them.

Finally, a higher fitness standard is required to protect people from their own bodies. I recently had the pleasure of running back from the range. And we had one guy go ghost white, flop over and pass out. Only to be rushed to the hospital. Sure good on him for pushing himself that far and he's a smart guy. But he should not even be in uniform if he can't do a little run. There was a lot of other weakness on this run... And from what I'm told is that there was 2 heart attacks during the brigade ruck. Again people who could pass the FORCE test their bodies couldn't handle what the military requires of them.

So I think the CO should be allowed to enforce a higher standard, especially if the unit is supposed to be operationally ready. Call it the IORT (Infantry Operationally Ready Test) or wtv. But personally there are guys in my coy who I would be afraid of in an operational role. They might pass out (holding up the patrol), drink my water (now I'm dehydrated and less situationally aware), or maybe I have to carry his kit, etc. When all is said and done I should be able to trust the guy next to me. A fitness test should reflect that and it should protect them from themselves.

 

[PMedMoe]

But whatever, if non combat trades want an easy test so be it.

Should I get a measuring tape out??  :

 

[ModlrMike]

So I've done this test twice now... I am not impressed. The first time I put in maximum effort to see how much I could beat the standard time by. The 2nd, I did it as slow as I possibly could and still had plenty of time to spare on most events. The only one that required "effort" was the run with getting up and down. But whatever, if non combat trades want an easy test so be it.

Thank you for that opinion. I'll be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.

 

[stealthylizard]

FORCE is a military wide base level fitness test.  Trades can and do set higher benchmarks.  The infantry still relies on the BFT and the Cooper's Test.  If you don't pass the BFT, you can be placed on C&P.  If you don't match or improve your results on the Cooper's Test, you can be given remedial PT.

 

[ballz]

So I think the CO should be allowed to enforce a higher standard, especially if the unit is supposed to be operationally ready. Call it the IORT (Infantry Operationally Ready Test) or wtv. But personally there are guys in my coy who I would be afraid of in an operational role. They might pass out (holding up the patrol), drink my water (now I'm dehydrated and less situationally aware), or maybe I have to carry his kit, etc. When all is said and done I should be able to trust the guy next to me. A fitness test should reflect that and it should protect them from themselves.

There actually are a few ways to enforce a higher standard, it takes some leadership to make it happen though, and I've only seen it followed through properly once so far. While there is a minimum physical fitness standard, that doesn't mean people who continuously fall out during unit PT can't receive 5b PDRs for physical fitness. Have a few of those on your file in a short period of time and the CoC can begin to substantiate an Initial Counselling under "Performance." This is just one example of the resources being available to create change that are not often rarely used.

 

[ModlrMike]

There actually are a few ways to enforce a higher standard, it takes some leadership to make it happen though, and I've only seen it followed through properly once so far. While there is a minimum physical fitness standard, that doesn't mean people who continuously fall out during unit PT can't receive 5b PDRs for physical fitness. Have a few of those on your file in a short period of time and the CoC can begin to substantiate an Initial Counselling under "Performance." This is just one example of the resources being available to create change that are not often rarely used.

I think that would set the conditions for a successful redress of grievance. To put someone on IC for fitness when they've passed the fitness test seems like a losing proposition to me.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think that's why they have this for FF;

DAOD 4007-4, physical fitness for FF
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-4000/4007-4.page

They are require to pass the annual FF fit test, and go on RW etc for failures.  Could be wrong, but believe this is on top of the FORCE test; they used to get an exempt on the old EXPRESS.

FF are a little different though as they are scattered over many units, so this means it's consistently applied.  Nothing stopping a unit commander from having mandatory PT, and I think as long as it had suitable time to properly prepare for some additional fitness test, it would stick.  I think arbitrarily starting a new fitness standard and putting someone on IC at day one would not work terribly well.

 

[Infanteer]

FORCE is a military wide base level fitness test.  Trades can and do set higher benchmarks.  The infantry still relies on the BFT and the Cooper's Test.  If you don't pass the BFT, you can be placed on C&P.  If you don't match or improve your results on the Cooper's Test, you can be given remedial PT.

Incorrect.  The FORCE test is the only fitness standard for the Army.  The infantry battalions are, with other Army elements, required to complete the annual Load Bearing March (LBM) of 13 km as part of the annual IBTS, but it is not an enforceable fitness standard.  I could see remedial measures for performance being possible for repeated failure to conduct a LBM, as this is an Army mandated task.  The Cooper's test is not used in any sort of Army fitness examination, and putting someone on remedial measures for failing to meet a "benchmark" would be subject to a grievance.

 

[Franko]

I think that would set the conditions for a successful redress of grievance. To put someone on IC for fitness when they've passed the fitness test seems like a losing proposition to me.

Correct. The IC or any other level of redress would be quite successful.

 

[ballz]

Correct. The IC or any other level of redress would be quite successful.

The FORCE test is a minimum fitness standard for safety reasons, a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement. It is not a minimum performance standard. If you're a Pl 2IC and you repeatedly can't make it out of the parking lot on a platoon or company run, you're not performing to the standard that's expected of you. We can "what if" this to death but it's already happened and the redress was not successful, but I'm not sure how far it went or all the details of it.

I could see remedial measures for performance being possible for repeated failure to conduct a LBM, as this is an Army mandated task.

I've already been told from the CoC for our upcoming LBM that if any of my troops fail, they're going on IC for performance. No arguments from me...

What I am a bit disgruntled about is why they didn't use this transition from minimum fitness standard to an IBTS to raise the bar a little.

 

[stealthylizard]

I don't know what to say.  I was put on C&P in 2010, for failing to improve my score on the cooper's test (scored under 20 both time).  Yes, I was a sad sack of hammers physically, and I feel that it was a deserved action.  My Xpres test results had no bearing on the administrative action.

Perhaps things have changed since then.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Straight to C & P; no IC or RW? 

I don't think I'd of said "okay" to that if it were me but...

 

[Franko]

I don't know what to say.  I was put on C&P in 2010, for failing to improve my score on the cooper's test (scored under 20 both time).  Yes, I was a sad sack of hammers physically, and I feel that it was a deserved action.  My Xpres test results had no bearing on the administrative action.

Perhaps things have changed since then.

Seeing as C&P is now on your record permanently, I'd have an issue with that.

Regards

 

[stealthylizard]

I'm no longer serving, and don't plan to re-enlist, so I'm not really worried about it.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

Incorrect.  The FORCE test is the only fitness standard for the Army.  The infantry battalions are, with other Army elements, required to complete the annual Load Bearing March (LBM) of 13 km as part of the annual IBTS, but it is not an enforceable fitness standard.  I could see remedial measures for performance being possible for repeated failure to conduct a LBM, as this is an Army mandated task.  The Cooper's test is not used in any sort of Army fitness examination, and putting someone on remedial measures for failing to meet a "benchmark" would be subject to a grievance.

There in lies the problem. And thanks for clearing that up for everyone (As I've done multiple tests now but none can be enforced as a PT standard). It was my understanding the FORCE test was supposed to reflect work life. I still believe there should be a separate standard as people who barely pass the FORCE test are putting themselves at risk for what an infanteer is actually required to do.

As for stealthy lizard, I never heard of 3VP doing that. I experimented there as well with that test. I was often near the 100 but never quite there. Nothing came of having good scores. So I decided to see what would happen if I put in little to no effort. Like yourself I scored below 20 and unfortunately nothing came of that either. But I'm glad to hear that they took action against you, just not the specific action they took...

And Ballz, an IBTS standard would be a brilliant idea. As that would get rid of my gripe about being on operations with these people.