FORCE test, COVID and PERs

[dimsum]

CAF L1s are free to create their own tests to encourage physical fitness standards that better meet their environments needs including more stringent testing/standards for certain courses or trades.

RCAF tests: Endurance-sitting, speed-reading, and accurate-typing. Add some coffee-cup bicep curls too.

 

[Navy_Pete]

RCAF tests: Endurance-sitting, speed-reading, and accurate-typing. Add some coffee-cup bicep curls too.

NCR test

Rope pushing, meeting endurance tests, max patience reps.

Also you could do the specialist 'Working Group Evasion' and 'conduct after bureaucratic capture' courses.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Likely very few but that isn't the point nor is the FORCE designed to encourage a healthy life style. It is a bare minimum physical standard that applies to all military personnel as they could have to do any one of those six tasks at some point in their career regardless of trade. Lots of folks that thought they would never have to encounter those tasks got introduced to them from 2002-2012.

CAF L1s are free to create their own tests to encourage physical fitness standards that better meet their environments needs including more stringent testing/standards for certain courses or trades.

Are there any examples of such tests introduced by L1s?

Seriously, I have no idea (as per SOP ).

 

[MJP]

Are there any examples of such tests introduced by L1s?

Seriously, I have no idea (as per SOP ).

You know some of them, we just don't think of them in that fashion

BFT
Combat Force Test
CANSOFCOM has a few like Coopers Test for JTF2 and the CSOR Selection

Trade/course specific
SAR Tech
Fire Fighter
Para
Close Protection

 

[dapaterson]

SOF and SAR, I believe.

The Army brought in FORCE combat, which is... wanting.

 

[MJP]

The Army brought in FORCE combat, which is... wanting.

FORCE Combat strikes me as the brain child of some staff officer that was asked to recreate the BFT but make it seem like it wasn't the BFT. Funny part is is we wasted so much money making fake magazines instead of just upping the weight carried by 5 pounds.

The good part is we finally got training plates something that took a force of nature to do before.

 

[Furniture]

How many trades does the six common military tasks affect on a daily basis? I have never done any of those things, including on international ex’s or deployments. The minimum standard for our current FORCE test is a joke and doesn’t encourage a healthy active lifestyle.

Using LRP as an example, Pilot Captains are Aircraft Commander and Crew Commanders. They sign for aircraft, and lead crews of up to 14+ people and sometimes a small maint team on deployments to foreign countries to conduct operations. They pass upgrades, boards and are appointed to their Skipper position ultimately with the CO blessing. ACSOs are Lead ACSOs (TacNavs) and also crew commanders, also after successfully navigating upgrades, boards, and CO appointment. AES Op Snr and Jnr NCOs are appointed as Lead AES Op by COs and charged with many aspects of leadership and responsibility, including assessment of subordinates and their flying/trade proficiency. Flight Engineers are responsible for the maint folks, AC serviceability, weight/balance. They can range in rank from Cpl to MWO and are also appointed as Lead FE by the CO. A top category Cpl can effectively be a Basic Category qual MCpl -> MWOs boss for all things flying related.

Despite all of the responsibility and trust bestowed on these folks...it's somehow above their ability to oversee a fitness test?

We, as the CAF, entrust things like UDIs to Warrant/Petty Officers, Junior Officers. Designated Assistants...same. Summary Trial, Remedial Measures to correct Conduct/Performance deficiencies. These are all done by the same people who could administer a simple fitness test.

I'm not a fan of 'wide brush' restrictions or policy to prevent something that "might happen" on a limited level. Punish those who abuse their authority. Simple. If we can't be trusted with a fitness test, we're truly fucked and should be disbanded as a military.

I did say it was above their level, and I find it amusing the people feel the need to get that absurd when countering my point. Look at the quote at the top, now place that attitude in charge of testing people's fitness, and remove oversight from outside the CoC. Maybe you have only experienced perfect leadership in your years in the CAF, but I have certainly encountered enough people who would seek ways to abuse the authority.

Having PT testing done by PSP is hardly a "wide brush" restriction, and having it devolved to Snr members from outside the CoC is not a "wide brush" restriction either. It is a loosening of the current rules, while creating a system to prevent possible abuses and prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest in the event someone fails and requires administrative measures.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You didn't say it was "above their level", agreed. I never suggested you said that; I said it is certainly within their level.

What you did say was...and what I replied to was...

I haven't suggested we don't let units conduct the PT training, I suggested we don't allow them to evaluate the training. It helps prevent units from deciding on their own standards, and as I said earlier rewarding/punishing those they choose. I'm not suggesting most units would do it, but it would happen.

You do realize, of course, the same people you're suggesting shouldn't evaluate PT tests are the same people who do more important things with the same (un) biased approach and ethics as the mbr's PER? If they can't be trusted to fairly evaluate a PT test, why are they ok to produce / influence a PER, PDRs?

 

[Quirky]

When it first came in I said the same thing... about a week later Portage-la-Prairie flooded and I had to send a bunch of pilots to fill and pile sandbags.

I hope for the recruiting systems sake a bunch of pilots in their 20s don’t keel over and die after moving some sand bags. After 10-15 years in the rcaf and a couple larger flightsuit/combats, not everyone can handle the same simple tasks without stopping for a monster and a smoke.

 

[PuckChaser]

FORCE Combat strikes me as the brain child of some staff officer that was asked to recreate the BFT but make it seem like it wasn't the BFT. Funny part is is we wasted so much money making fake magazines instead of just upping the weight carried by 5 pounds.

The good part is we finally got training plates something that took a force of nature to do before.

That's probably because there's some weak individuals who thought that because the BFT said your rifle and helmet had to be carried, they could put it in their rucksack.

 

[Furniture]

You didn't say it was "above their level", agreed. I never suggested you said that; I said it is certainly within their level.

Despite all of the responsibility and trust bestowed on these folks...it's somehow above their ability to oversee a fitness test?

That's fair, you didn't say it you simply implied that I had said it..

You do realize, of course, the same people you're suggesting shouldn't evaluate PT tests are the same people who do more important things with the same (un) biased approach and ethics as the mbr's PER? If they can't be trusted to fairly evaluate a PT test, why are they ok to produce / influence a PER, PDRs?

Using PERs as an example here is a bad choice. The PER system is a proof positive that CAF will create their own standards at every level possible to suit a Commander's whim. I am fairly certain we have all experienced the "no more than 10% "immediate" PERs" regardless of performance, or the "it's your first PER so it has to be developing". The PER system is pretty much the perfect argument as to why we shouldn't let units conduct their own PT testing.

To me it comes down to the seriousness of the offence, and the potential consequences for breaking the rules. Almost everyone breaks the law every time they drive, by speeding. We do it because as long as you don't go nuts, you can get away with it, and if caught the consequences are minimal. I'm willing to bet none of us have committed fraud, because the consequences both legal and moral are severe.

Passing someone as a Aircraft Captain because they are a "good guy" might lead to death, or the loss of an aircraft. Giving an out of shape "good guy" a pass on the FORCE test has no real consequence, so the supervisor can give a pass with a "stern warning" and nobody dies, no planes fall from the sky.

Now picture the opposite, the out of shape member is bag of hammers on their last leg, their supervisor decides that dropping their PT scores to below a pass is a way to "solve a problem". The member, who may have been a bag of hammers, or maybe the supervisor just disliked them, gets released from the CAF.

I'm not saying all, or even most units would do it, but pretending it wouldn't happen is unrealistic. Just as unrealistic to my mind, is pretending the CAF would catch all or even most of the instances of it happening. If you were looking into a claim that someone's CoC had falsely given a failure on the PT test, who would you believe in the last scenario I presented? The bag of hammers, or the CoC?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm not talking about a CAF process, such as CFPAS, specifically. I'm using it as an example of, more importantly, the PEOPLE who the CAF entrusts to properly employ processes to evaluate other CAF members, etc. In that context, PERs/PDRs are a good example, I think.

"if they can't be trusted to administer a PT test, how can the same people be entrusted to administer a PER, of which PT test results for a small part of".

If the CAF leaders from the rank of MCpl and up can't administer a simple PT test, then we as a military have some kind of systemic ethical deficiency. Personally, I do not think that we do and that NCOs, Warrant/Petty Officers, and Commissioned Officers are fully capable of administering the FORCE test. Will there be some who "score unnecessarily harshly"...of course; the RCAF recognizes that junior instructors will mark harder than experienced ones - it is included in the Flight Instructor Course content and explained "why" this might/does happen. Knowing/accepting that as fact, I monitored junior personnel new to any instructional roles more closely than those with 6, 12 + months of instructional experience. I think that is normal, as well.

I'm not saying all, or even most units would do it, but pretending it wouldn't happen is unrealistic. Just as unrealistic to my mind, is pretending the CAF would catch all or even most of the instances of it happening.

Using your logic, no one should drive a car because someone will drive impaired. Punish those who abuse their authority accordingly.

If you were looking into a claim that someone's CoC had falsely given a failure on the PT test, who would you believe in the last scenario I presented? The bag of hammers, or the CoC?

I would believe neither; it would be an abuse of authority allegation and that is not something I'd "flip a coin" over; failing a fitness test AND abuse of authority are fairly serious performance and/or conduct deficiencies. A PT test failure is pretty routine in the COAs to be taken; the abuse of authority, not so much. In that case, I would gather all the facts available, and using the balance of probabilities, make the best recommendation, to the superior officer who tasked me to investigate, for their determination. If conducting an informal AI, up to a UDI or SI, I'd have some left/right of arcs in the form of verbal/written TORs.

If I had an NCO that was one of my subordinates who was intentionally failing other subordinates of mine/theirs, that individual would be dealt with as harshly as my CofC would permit. RMs, charges if warranted, required PER scoring and narrative...the more serious the transgression, the more serious the consequences.

I'll agree that there is a likelihood someone will abuse their position as "test evaluator". If I had a NCO in my unit I thought "might" do something...as a leader it would be for me to mitigate that risk for my subordinates and superiors. We have tools, policies and procedures to mitigate that, and to deal with those who have ethical choice issues/deficiencies.

My last thought; DS SOLUTION. NCMs and Officers do not test people from their own unit/section. As an Aircrew WO, I would administer the tests to the maintenance pers at the Sqn, Maint NCMs and Officers would administer test to aircrew pers.

 

[kev994]

If someone ‘protects the force’ by not exposing himself to the barber does that fall under initiative or reliability?

 

[PuckChaser]

Both, but you lose marks for Accountability and Ethics and Values for not following CAF dress instructions.

 

[kev994]

Both, but you lose marks for Accountability and Ethics and Values for not following CAF dress instructions.

The standard has been ‘relaxed’ here as they’ve all been closed for months. I’ve seen some taking it to the extreme, probably falls under the ‘supervising’ bubble of someone else.

 

[Navy_Pete]

If someone ‘protects the force’ by not exposing himself to the barber does that fall under initiative or reliability?

I bought some clippers and have been cutting my own hair; can I get marks for self directed learning and hand skills?

Some hilarity has ensued for everyone else when something didn't blend, or I missed a chunk in the back. Easy fix, but kind of silly to have 3 phases of a haircut evolution.

 

[dapaterson]

We'll send someone with a red helmet and matching mask to watch you cut your hair next time, and throw thunderflashes at you while you do it.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

FORCE Combat strikes me as the brain child of some staff officer that was asked to recreate the BFT but make it seem like it wasn't the BFT. Funny part is is we wasted so much money making fake magazines instead of just upping the weight carried by 5 pounds.

The good part is we finally got training plates something that took a force of nature to do before.

It was actually an old CWO who did the Pathfinder Course back in 1990ish. So obviously scientifically validated of course