Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )

[dapaterson]

My boss is a 95 lbs female and i think that she may have a hard time with the sand bag drag.  The fireman's carry was done using someone of your own size so why not do the same for that part of the test?  Proportional to one's weight.

In the real world the injured person you have to evacuate may not be your size.  So in that case do we just abandon them?

One standard for everyone.

 

[armyvern]

My boss is a 95 lbs female and i think that she may have a hard time with the sand bag drag.  The fireman's carry was done using someone of your own size so why not do the same for that part of the test?  Proportional to one's weight.

Tell her that she needs to work on getting the initial budge.  A good fucking hoofing then keep her damn legs moving and she should be fine ... if not, well, you know, I weigh 182lbs (I am NOT fat!!  ) so if she can't drag my ass out of our vehicle when the shit goes down ... should she even be in the vehicle to begin with?

The minimum operational FORCE standards say, "no" and I'd have to agree with them.  Like it or not, this is the military and bad shit happens.  No exceptions.  BTW, I'm a girl.

 

[caocao]

In the real world the injured person you have to evacuate may not be your size.  So in that case do we just abandon them?

One standard for everyone.

like i said, it should be proportional to the body weight of the pers doing the test.  Maybe 1.5. X the pers body weight.  In my case, 270 lbs (1.5. X 180) which is about what i have to do right now.  Someone heavier and hopefully stronger would pull more and someone lighter less.  You don't need to be A genius to figure this out!  I am sure that come 1 Apr 2014, the FORCE test will be different from what it is now.

 

[caocao]

Tell her that she needs to work on getting the initial budge.  A good ******* hoofing then keep her damn legs moving and she should be fine ... if not, well, you know, I weigh 182lbs (I am NOT fat!!  ) so if she can't drag my *** out of our vehicle when the crap goes down ... should she even be in the vehicle to begin with?

The minimum operational FORCE standards say, "no" and I'd have to agree with them.  Like it or not, this is the military and bad crap happens.  No exceptions.  BTW, I'm a girl.

Vern, there's a big difference between 182 and 250. 

 

[dapaterson]

like i said, it should be proportional to the body weight of the pers doing the test.  Maybe 1.5. X the pers body weight.  In my case, 270 lbs (1.5. X 180) which is about what i have to do right now.  Someone heavier and hopefully stronger would pull more and someone lighter less.  You don't need to be A genius to figure this out!  I am sure that come 1 Apr 2014, the FORCE test will be different from what it is now.

Only change might be to add incentives.  Current model of same standard for everyone will not change.

The testing conducted demonstrated the correlation between the FORCE tasks and the UoS standard.  They also did further work to demonstrate that, with coaching, even those who have difficulty completing FORCE can be trained to improve their performance.

 

[armyvern]

Vern, there's a big difference between 182 and 250.

Nah; that's where the adrenalin kicks in when shit hits the fan (Just google video of obese dude lifting helicopter up to rescue someone!!).  One minimum operationally required standard - no exceptions.

 

[Infanteer]

Only change might be to add incentives.  Current model of same standard for everyone will not change.

The testing conducted demonstrated the correlation between the FORCE tasks and the UoS standard.  They also did further work to demonstrate that, with coaching, even those who have difficulty completing FORCE can be trained to improve their performance.

Agreed, that is all that needs to happen, incentives.

The standardized test is going in the right direction - it measures varied, functional body movements and is s**t simple.  The science behind it allows us to head off the grievances and excuses.  It's now up to leadership to apply the standard.

 

[caocao]

Lay off the kool-aid people, you are scaring me! :-[

 

[Jarnhamar]

Lay off the kool-aid people, you are scaring me! :-[

Don't worry if you're 100lbs and you need to drag someone who weights 260lbs in an emergency situation you can just raise your hand and say hey I'm only 100lbs this isn't fair I want someone my own size. Someone will be sure to come along and drag the person to safety for you.

 

[Infanteer]

you are so funny, i bet you haven't seen the inside of a gym this decade.

Oh snap, you 12 girlfriend?

Here's your warning new guy.  Grow up.

The Staff.

 

[McG]

In the real world the injured person you have to evacuate may not be your size.  So in that case do we just abandon them?

One standard for everyone.

like i said, it should be proportional to the body weight of the pers doing the test.  Maybe 1.5. X the pers body weight.  In my case, 270 lbs (1.5. X 180) which is about what i have to do right now.  Someone heavier and hopefully stronger would pull more and someone lighter less.  You don't need to be A genius to figure this out!  I am sure that come 1 Apr 2014, the FORCE test will be different from what it is now.

What you have quoted is not like you have said at all.  One standard means one invariable standard.  You have proposed each person get their own personal standard.  Your proposal would not be a defensible a performance based system.

 

[caocao]

I guess i should have use the reply button instead of quote.  My mention of proportional testing came earlier in the thread.  The Expres test had different scales based on sex and age, so what i am saying is why not body weight instead which to me would make it a more accurate test.

 

[McG]

Because the required performance does not vary by the person performing the task.  Standards that vary by age, weight or gender are not defensible.
We are required by law to only conduct job relevant fitness tests, and if hauling 150 lbs is enough for the 100 lbs person to do the job, then it is enough for the 250 lbs person to to the job ... and the courts would agree if we tried to remove the 250 lbs person for not meeting your hypothetical test of 1.5 x body weight.  Just because one is lighter, our tools & equipment do not become lighter and tasks do not magically become less demanding - the smaller person must be able to do the same job.

As Vern mentioned, one does not get to choose the weight of a casualty in battle.  So, everyone need be able to haul anyone else. 

One test.  One minimum standard.

 

[caocao]

I remember when we had one standard for dress...good times!

The problem with pencil pushers that make policies is that they are influenced by the flavour of the day.  The pendulum always swing from one end of the spectrum to the other never pausing in the middle to see what might happen.

 

[Jarnhamar]

As much as I want to make fun of the force test I can't help but think it's on the right track.

On one hand I don't think it's fair to expect a 50 year old soldier to keep up with a 19 year old when it comes to fitness. 
On the other hand when the moment comes that fitness is truly tested in a life or death situation then whatever it is won't take gender age or weight into consideration. It's pass or fail.

A 100 lb female soldier (complete with poor upper body strength) pulling a near 300 pound dummy might really suck and seem unfair but it's not an unrealistic expectation of what every soldier might face.
Picking a soldier the same body weight to evacuate doesn't make sense.

 

[caocao]

I agree with you that FORCE is an improvement as the component of the test resemble tasks expected of a soldier.  But, and there's always a but, we are not quite there yet and there is still plenty of room left for improvement. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Very true. It's bringing up  something that's already been mentioned a few times in this thread but I also think combat arms trades (not units) should have a more difficult fitness test to reflect their vocation.
Be it a bft, express type test or a combination.

 

[George Wallace]

Very true. It's bringing up  something that's already been mentioned a few times in this thread but I also think combat arms trades (not units) should have a more difficult fitness test to reflect their vocation.
Be it a bft, express type test or a combination.

At anytime, anyone, not just Combat Arms, can find themselves in combat or a very serious situation requiring the same physical fitness.

 

[McG]

... it's not an unrealistic expectation of what every soldier might face.

Not just soldiers.  It is a realistic expectation of any service member.

I agree with you that FORCE is an improvement as the component of the test resemble tasks expected of a soldier.  But, and there's always a but, we are not quite there yet and there is still plenty of room left for improvement.

So what do you suggest those improvements might be?  Aside from suggesting lesser standards based on weight, you have only offered insults and not-so witty one liners in this thread.

 

[ModlrMike]

Because the required performance does not vary by the person performing the task.  Standards that vary by age, weight or gender are not defensible.

By that yardstick then, only one result for the PER: pass/fail.