Draft 52-18 (Cadet Physical Fitness Program) Posted

[lordmonar]

That is fine.  So long as you test to the standards and not to what you thing is right.   

[Spam]

See my "we will execute to it" portion, which you probably missed.

I know that the non-adherence rate will climb, though, at least in my AO.

V/R
Spam

[jeders]

Holding back C/SrA with a broken leg for six months from making SSgt because some commander across the country is using Cat II to give a pass to his less then physically fit cadets is not the way I would do it.

If they have a broken leg and are in a cast, that means they probably saw a doctor. Have the doc fill out a medical evaluation and put that cadet in cat 3, problem solved.

The answer is [...] to monitor CP operations more. 

How?

I'll echo the 'how'? Where are you going to get the people at all levels to go out and inspect/spot check the squadrons with any sort of regularity to make it worth doing. (One wing staff guy coming by once every 5 years doesn't cut it). It's not just the squadrons that are short staffed, it's group, wing, region, and national; there simply aren't the capable people available to do what you suggest. So instead, we make common sense rules to try and keep the problems to a minimum.

[lordmonar]

Jeaders,

That's my point.  More hoops to jump through.  The cadet's in a cast...I know he is in a cast, I don't need to send the cadet and his parents back to his doctor to sign a note.   

If the problem is "CP officers gaming  the system" notes from the doctor or not is not going to stop them.  Oversight and repercussions will.

Adding more rules only puts road blocks in the way of people following the rules.  Those CP officers gaming the system will continue to game the system.  They don't care about the rules.

So stopping cadets from promoting beyond a mile stone due to a CAT II condition as a stop gap to CAP officers pencil whipping their less then fit cadets through a promotion is next to worth less.   "I will cheat and give you a by on an achievement 3 promotion....but not Wright Brothers because that's important." was never said by anyone.

[Ned]

Jeff,

Thank you for the feedback.  Comments below:

1/ CPFT monitoring and inspection is not as useful as it used to be, given an IG system which just has completed dumbing down the SUI CP Tab inspection items to little more than safety items and online CI record checks. It is illogical to keep proposing adding "shall" and "will" compliance items for tests and billboards and so forth, holding unit commanders to these more complex standards, without any expectation of ever actually inspecting them to standards. I speak as a recent DCP who highlighted a number struggling units who failed to measure their run courses, failed to use cadenced pushups, and so forth. Many of these units were poorly staffed, marginally trained, and were doing their best to stay afloat given that many of their officers were non prior service, valiantly trying to keep their units afloat and serve the complex CP program requirements. (Lets be honest, this program is not designed to be run easily by three adults). Some of those units failed and were shuttered, rather than compromise standards; is this result a "win", or a "fail", overall, I would ask?

I can only agree that any unit with only three adult leaders is going to be challenged.  But that was certainly true before any CPFT revisions were even considered.  Three is the legal minimum, and trying to be successful with the minimum staffing will always be tough.  My personal vision is that each unit with cadets assigned have a minimum of three master-rated CP folks (in addition to AE and an important support slice) to provide adequate "depth on the bench" for our admittedly overtasked CP crews at the local level.  Beyond a cadet alumni association to re-engage former members, I haven't been able to figure out a way to make that happen, however.

It is also important to remember that our IG system is a compliance system designed to support the units, not the other way around.  I'm sure you agree with me on that.

2/ KISS principle is being vastly ignored here in the new CPFT draft. Making a program element and its associated verification methods (i.e. tests) MORE complex than it has ever been, regardless of its provenance from a science standpoint, is a recipe for disaster from the viewpoint of this subset of generally well intentioned yet moderately trained volunteers we have in CAP. The ratio is gradually getting worse over time, for NHQ-mandated workload vs. available time for the average small unit with perhaps three adult officers directly working with cadets. In several of these cases, the general response to my counseling during inspections and SAVs, and during TLC events on how to correctly administer the CPFT was blank incredulous stares and then unprintable comments, added to general expressions of the high workload involved in the mandatory boards, testing, inspections, monthly content required, etc. The CAP cadet program is not designed for small units to run easily, and it frequently falls apart in those cases (*viewed from my perspective of five Midwest and east coast Wings over the past 35 years of watching the CP program get more and more complex over time).

I honestly don't think that the new events are significantly more complex than what we have now.  There is a slight variation in the sit-ups and curl-ups.  The mile run is the same, and the PACER replaces the shuttle run.  Not really much more to it than that in terms of the actual event.  A big plus from the administration standpoint should be that the CPFT will be administered less often (quarterly) and we are encouraging neighboring units to cooperate on the event, if feasible.  And of course, many - if not most - cadets will already be familiar with the specific events since most schools already use the PYFP.

There are absolutely a lot of requirements in our terrific  CP.  But as long as we agree that physical fitness is one of the four components, we need to periodically review and improve it just like AE, Leadership, and CD.

3/ Verification measures of program effectiveness (MOEs) in the form of a Test should be succinctly and clearly written in a CAPT (Test) not in a Pamphlet. The overarching requirement "Shall" and "Will" language needs to be contained only in a Reg or Manual, not in a Pamphlet. Pamphlets are as mentioned herein suitable for class guidelines and informative material, not test
standards.

We continue to have an active discussion about what belongs in a "reg", "pam," or other document.  Indeed since we began this project, Gen Vazquez has directed a significant overhaul of our publications and this question may well be resolved by that.

However, you may recall that I tried to roll the 52-10's requirement's into the 52-16 and received a LOT of feedback that it made the 52-16 too large and complex to be useful to the average CP volunteer professional at the unit level.  Like the 39-1, at some point it is just too much.

But we will continue to look at how best to put the information into the field.

4/ Comment from two of my CP officers: "The new six-month "Healthy Fitness Zone" certification effectively does an end-run around other regulations by adding additional cadet promotion requirements and an administrative burden on senior members".
and "What is the HFZ and what is it for? Why not just accept a passing grade"?

I'm not sure I understand their concerns, because for the purpose of the CPFT, the HFZ is the passing grade.  If you perform at the HFZ, you pass.  If you don't, you fail.  Although I'd probably tell the cadet he "needs improvement" before she can be promoted.

5/ ES standards of fitness need to be task-based, not normed to populations based on age cohorts or nominal measures of fitness. If CAP ever does move to establish physiological quals for field teams and aircrew, those should be established on the basis of a mission task decomposition which breaks down tasks to establish required KSAs (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities) to document the physical requirements if any. We do knowledge and skills now, but not strength stamina and endurance. In the mid 1990s, NAVAIRSYSCOM 4.6 (Aircrew Systems Engineering Branch) responded to a Naval Aviation Medical Research Lab request to establish required strength factors for each Navy aircraft (e.g. AV-8B Harrier manual canopy pulls, SH-60 collective failure arm pulls at ~150 lbs, etc.) Doing this for CAP would be the only non-controversial, science based way to avoid sex and age biases in using physio measures for duty selections (i.e. no question about females, minorities, or older or younger crew, as long as they could do the tasks).  Having been involved in this research from the NAVAIR (Pax River) end, I don't see us doing this easily for CAP, but that's the path to go if we do.

Personally, that makes sense to me.  But officially, the CP shop has no opinion on ES qualifications or standards.  That is simply not in our lane.  If the ES shop asks, we'd be happy to share our research and contacts with them.

6/ Comments from another of my officers: "The new program requires the use of slow cadenced exercises (which target slow-twitch muscles) for the entire cadet program, then suddenly switches to the maximum-effort USAFA PT test (which requires the use of fast-twitch muscles) for the Spaatz award" and "At the specified 3-second cadence, it is not possible to do 61 push-ups or 81 curl-ups in only two minutes.  The max is 40.  (The USAFA test does not specify a cadence, which is why those numbers are possible for academy applicants.)  Those numbers are also a huge jump from the CAP standards of 18 and 24, respectively.  At what point are the Spaatz candidates supposed to make such a quantum leap in fitness"?

These inconsistent mismatches (in both the cadenced standard, as well as the numbers) embody negative transfer of training along a continuum of PT training towards an ill defined goal. This indicates a need for a more systematic approach before approval of this revision.

You're absolutely correct that there is an abrupt switch between the standards for the achievements and the test for the Spaatz.  We were in a bit of a "[darn]ed if you do, [darn]ed if you don't situation.  When we shared the draft with our colleagues and friends at the Spaatz Association (I'm a life member), they were very concerned that we keep the requirements for our most prestigious award "in the same neighborhood".  And frankly, if we used the PYFP, they would not have been.  So, in a nod to Gen Spaatz' legacy, we looked for another objective exam and found the USAFA Entrance exam which has standards for 16 & 17 year olds (but not 12-15 year olds).

While this is an important discussion, we should not lose sight of the fact that the PYFP will work fairly well for the 99% of our cadets who do not attempt the Spaatz exam.

6/ So, I argue that a balance of taking a science based approach and meeting our internal (cadet) and external (military) customer expectations is needed. Looking forward as well as backwards in terms of tracing our requirements is necessary, in a good Systems Engineering approach. Requirements traceability is a serious issue when planning requirements verification (aka "tests"). This is behind the "good science" justification COL Lee mentions, and I support that approach. Yet, a CPFT approach entirely focused on the PYFP is focused backwards, where our cadet customers have been, and not forwards, on where they may intend to go. One of the recommendations of our Wing CAC (to which I was advisor as DCP) when examining this issue was to ensure that CAPs revised program did more to prepare cadets for military entrance exams of all types.   By spending years teaching cadets to do cadenced exercises not as performed by the services, and only single mile runs versus the 1.5 miles done by many services, and by omitting training on common DoD trainee eval items such as pull ups, the proposed CPFT actually MAL-trains our cadet customers who look to our program to help prepare them for competitive Academy/ROTC and other military scholarship and entrance evals.  Recommend that the directorate specifically extend the requirements trace beyond the primary and secondary school science based approach to entry exam standards, and consider adopting a best fit curve to acclimate and train our cadets "to be prepared for service to the ... nation" - physically.

You sure have a lot of "#6"s.    

Even speaking as a retired Army officer whose career was greatly enhanced by my cadet experience, I can't agree that the military is our primary stakeholder / external customer in this regard.  Don't get me wrong, our AF colleagues and support are absolutely critical to our success, but our figures show that less than 10% of our cadets find their way into the AF.  Even counting the other services, it is still less than 20%.

The overwhelming majority of our cadets, of course, go on to become leaders in their communities, businesses, and faith groups.  And all of us need to be healthy to continue to engage in these important activities.  And that's where the science-based HFZ comes into play.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.

7/ What can be done with a customer based focus vice a strictly science based approach?  Everything. My unit now has three USAFA cadets, six full scholarship ROTC cadets, and several AD enlisted right now including a 22 year old former cadet PJ credited with saving ten lives. This draft CPFT is unpopular with my troops, and if implemented as is will get in our way, but we will execute to it, and continue to run 3 mile runs, continue to administer pull ups, and continue to train to our Customer requirements because, as our unit motto says, "We Expect More".


R/S (Respectfully Submitted)
Spam

As always, outstanding work, sir.  I can only hope that all units could be successful as yours.

Thank you for your work with our cadets and your feedback on the proposed revisions to the 52-18.  We take them very seriously.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

[TheSkyHornet]

I'm going to comment on the OP and the response

Jeff,

Thank you for the feedback.  Comments below:

1/ CPFT monitoring and inspection is not as useful as it used to be, given an IG system which just has completed dumbing down the SUI CP Tab inspection items to little more than safety items and online CI record checks. It is illogical to keep proposing adding "shall" and "will" compliance items for tests and billboards and so forth, holding unit commanders to these more complex standards, without any expectation of ever actually inspecting them to standards. I speak as a recent DCP who highlighted a number struggling units who failed to measure their run courses, failed to use cadenced pushups, and so forth. Many of these units were poorly staffed, marginally trained, and were doing their best to stay afloat given that many of their officers were non prior service, valiantly trying to keep their units afloat and serve the complex CP program requirements. (Lets be honest, this program is not designed to be run easily by three adults). Some of those units failed and were shuttered, rather than compromise standards; is this result a "win", or a "fail", overall, I would ask?

I can only agree that any unit with only three adult leaders is going to be challenged.  But that was certainly true before any CPFT revisions were even considered.  Three is the legal minimum, and trying to be successful with the minimum staffing will always be tough.  My personal vision is that each unit with cadets assigned have a minimum of three master-rated CP folks (in addition to AE and an important support slice) to provide adequate "depth on the bench" for our admittedly overtasked CP crews at the local level.  Beyond a cadet alumni association to re-engage former members, I haven't been able to figure out a way to make that happen, however.

It is also important to remember that our IG system is a compliance system designed to support the units, not the other way around.  I'm sure you agree with me on that.

1/ I'm the sole CP officer in my squadron even with two other TLC-trained officers in the squadron; although, it was previously ran by just about every other senior member taking on some oversight of the cadet program. I'm since remedied that, and while it is improving, that does take time and some extra help. But I've restructured it so that we know exactly what roles are filled, what needs to be filled, and where we can get an extra hand if need be, all under the oversight of the CDC when applicable. It's starting to mold into a very functional system, albeit there are still some training deficiencies that I'm trying to work on, which can't be overcome overnight. But I come from a unit that was very much "We're structured...but we need to make some exceptions," and those exceptions turned into standard operating procedures that were used on a "okay, fair enough" basis. Not having my own cadet in my program, nor any ties to seniors, despite some unintentional opinions that have formed over time, I feel that I have nothing that holds me to favor anyone or striving to do well other than for the benefit of the cadet program. I guess you can argue it could go the opposite direction, and I could just frankly not care, but I wouldn't have stuck around if that was the case.

The new CPFT isn't disrupting the CP leadership in any squadron. Our own squadron, due to staffing, requires other seniors to get involved during the CPFT in order to monitor the activities for safety reasons. Some seniors also participate. And I'm totally fine with that. So the changes to the exercises and scoring isn't detrimental to how the cadet program runs. I disagree, however, with wanting to require three master-rated CP members in the squadron. I guarantee you that would absolutely kill squadrons. You have a cadet who grows up, isn't in CAP anymore, and mom or dad decide to drop off as well, and there goes the cadet program. We just don't have the manpower and training resources to accomplish this. It's a vision, but it isn't feasible. I do heavily agree with more oversight of squadron cadet programs, not as a tool to point fingers, but to mitigate problems and start looking for trends throughout groups, wings, and nationwide that need to be addressed. Compliance is a huge problem in squadrons, and we all know there is a lot of stuff that goes on under the noses of group/wing commanders that squadrons get away with that would be shredded on CAP Talk. I myself have brought some of these up. But this goes back to having the manpower to address it, because a lot can happen between inspections. The frequency of reviewing units should be amplified.

2/ KISS principle is being vastly ignored here in the new CPFT draft. Making a program element and its associated verification methods (i.e. tests) MORE complex than it has ever been, regardless of its provenance from a science standpoint, is a recipe for disaster from the viewpoint of this subset of generally well intentioned yet moderately trained volunteers we have in CAP. The ratio is gradually getting worse over time, for NHQ-mandated workload vs. available time for the average small unit with perhaps three adult officers directly working with cadets. In several of these cases, the general response to my counseling during inspections and SAVs, and during TLC events on how to correctly administer the CPFT was blank incredulous stares and then unprintable comments, added to general expressions of the high workload involved in the mandatory boards, testing, inspections, monthly content required, etc. The CAP cadet program is not designed for small units to run easily, and it frequently falls apart in those cases (*viewed from my perspective of five Midwest and east coast Wings over the past 35 years of watching the CP program get more and more complex over time).

I honestly don't think that the new events are significantly more complex than what we have now.  There is a slight variation in the sit-ups and curl-ups.  The mile run is the same, and the PACER replaces the shuttle run.  Not really much more to it than that in terms of the actual event.  A big plus from the administration standpoint should be that the CPFT will be administered less often (quarterly) and we are encouraging neighboring units to cooperate on the event, if feasible.  And of course, many - if not most - cadets will already be familiar with the specific events since most schools already use the PYFP.

There are absolutely a lot of requirements in our terrific  CP.  But as long as we agree that physical fitness is one of the four components, we need to periodically review and improve it just like AE, Leadership, and CD.

2/ I agree that KISS is being thrown out the door in CAP. It's becoming more and more complex, and it's to the point where CP seniors stand around in huddled groups debating what something means or is intended to do. Cadets ask questions that seniors can't always explain, and you find a common issue when you go to other squadrons to see what their take is. Try walking into a group of 4 or 5 other CP seniors and asking for their input, and they spend the next half hour arguing over it before we just agree that nobody knows. This isn't so specific to the CPFT, but just CAP and cadet programs in general.

As for the CPFT, I have my concerns, but this could just be me, and maybe I'll get comfortable with it once it's in the works and I get more used to it. I can't really say until I'm stuck doing it. I've made it a practice of requiring a demonstration of each graded exercises before starting that CPFT event to eliminate questions from the cadets. It's amazing how many cadets have been in a unit for over a year that still ask every time "Is this how we're supposed to do it?" It's not so much a complexity issue from my end. I just have my personal disagreements with the way the activities are being performed, and I'm obviously not the only one. Maybe I'm overthinking it, maybe not.

3/ Verification measures of program effectiveness (MOEs) in the form of a Test should be succinctly and clearly written in a CAPT (Test) not in a Pamphlet. The overarching requirement "Shall" and "Will" language needs to be contained only in a Reg or Manual, not in a Pamphlet. Pamphlets are as mentioned herein suitable for class guidelines and informative material, not test
standards.

We continue to have an active discussion about what belongs in a "reg", "pam," or other document.  Indeed since we began this project, Gen Vazquez has directed a significant overhaul of our publications and this question may well be resolved by that.

However, you may recall that I tried to roll the 52-10's requirement's into the 52-16 and received a LOT of feedback that it made the 52-16 too large and complex to be useful to the average CP volunteer professional at the unit level.  Like the 39-1, at some point it is just too much.

But we will continue to look at how best to put the information into the field.

I completely agree regarding the differences between what belongs in a pamphlet versus a regulation document. The rules need to be in the reg. This is what we refer to when we need to maintain a level of authority and accountability. I will not hold anyone to a pamphlet. It's not regulatory. I go by the regs. I do this for a living. I'm not pointing to a poster on a wall and saying "that has all of the information you need."

To Col Lee's point, yes, adding more to 52-16 does make it longer; however, that's why pamphlets exist. A pamphlet should reflect what's in 52-16 and be used as a guidance material, but that's not where we put criteria and requirements. Split the reg into multiple pamphlets. I do this at our squadron. I have SOPs based off of the standard that must be met by regs, and I have supplemental techniques on how to accomplish tasks in those SOPs. Everything points back to the reg in the end, but this is smaller, easier reference material that provides all of the "should be done this way" and not the "shall/must be done this way," which is the reg side of it.

4/ Comment from two of my CP officers: "The new six-month "Healthy Fitness Zone" certification effectively does an end-run around other regulations by adding additional cadet promotion requirements and an administrative burden on senior members".
and "What is the HFZ and what is it for? Why not just accept a passing grade"?

I'm not sure I understand their concerns, because for the purpose of the CPFT, the HFZ is the passing grade.  If you perform at the HFZ, you pass.  If you don't, you fail.  Although I'd probably tell the cadet he "needs improvement" before she can be promoted.

I'll be honest here. I'm somewhat lost on the HFZ. Is this the score they need to have in that event? This sounds like funky wording to me.

5/ ES standards of fitness need to be task-based, not normed to populations based on age cohorts or nominal measures of fitness. If CAP ever does move to establish physiological quals for field teams and aircrew, those should be established on the basis of a mission task decomposition which breaks down tasks to establish required KSAs (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities) to document the physical requirements if any. We do knowledge and skills now, but not strength stamina and endurance. In the mid 1990s, NAVAIRSYSCOM 4.6 (Aircrew Systems Engineering Branch) responded to a Naval Aviation Medical Research Lab request to establish required strength factors for each Navy aircraft (e.g. AV-8B Harrier manual canopy pulls, SH-60 collective failure arm pulls at ~150 lbs, etc.) Doing this for CAP would be the only non-controversial, science based way to avoid sex and age biases in using physio measures for duty selections (i.e. no question about females, minorities, or older or younger crew, as long as they could do the tasks).  Having been involved in this research from the NAVAIR (Pax River) end, I don't see us doing this easily for CAP, but that's the path to go if we do.

Personally, that makes sense to me.  But officially, the CP shop has no opinion on ES qualifications or standards.  That is simply not in our lane.  If the ES shop asks, we'd be happy to share our research and contacts with them.

I think the ES standards go back to my previous point in an earlier post about having PT qualification requirements for actually serving on mission teams. So it doesn't seem like this needs to be addressed further. This is a CPFT outline for line cadets, not team members.

6/ Comments from another of my officers: "The new program requires the use of slow cadenced exercises (which target slow-twitch muscles) for the entire cadet program, then suddenly switches to the maximum-effort USAFA PT test (which requires the use of fast-twitch muscles) for the Spaatz award" and "At the specified 3-second cadence, it is not possible to do 61 push-ups or 81 curl-ups in only two minutes.  The max is 40.  (The USAFA test does not specify a cadence, which is why those numbers are possible for academy applicants.)  Those numbers are also a huge jump from the CAP standards of 18 and 24, respectively.  At what point are the Spaatz candidates supposed to make such a quantum leap in fitness"?

These inconsistent mismatches (in both the cadenced standard, as well as the numbers) embody negative transfer of training along a continuum of PT training towards an ill defined goal. This indicates a need for a more systematic approach before approval of this revision.

You're absolutely correct that there is an abrupt switch between the standards for the achievements and the test for the Spaatz.  We were in a bit of a "[darn]ed if you do, [darn]ed if you don't situation.  When we shared the draft with our colleagues and friends at the Spaatz Association (I'm a life member), they were very concerned that we keep the requirements for our most prestigious award "in the same neighborhood".  And frankly, if we used the PYFP, they would not have been.  So, in a nod to Gen Spaatz' legacy, we looked for another objective exam and found the USAFA Entrance exam which has standards for 16 & 17 year olds (but not 12-15 year olds).

While this is an important discussion, we should not lose sight of the fact that the PYFP will work fairly well for the 99% of our cadets who do not attempt the Spaatz exam.

I don't know why we're doing cadenced exercises to begin with. I'll address that in response to the second #6 bullet point. But I agree that the change in pace is nonsense. Either we treat the exercises to be the same, expecting greater performance under the same conditions, or we drop the whole thing. It does disrupt the progress process and makes goal setting nonuniform and even more difficult.

To Col Lee's point on the Spaatz Association's requirement to keep it the way it is, that's a fair and legitimate point, and that's what they want to see from Spaatz cadets. I think copying the CFA is a compromise, and that's another fair counterpoint. I don't necessarily agree with the CFA, but that goes with saying that I'm not a fitness expert.

6/ So, I argue that a balance of taking a science based approach and meeting our internal (cadet) and external (military) customer expectations is needed. Looking forward as well as backwards in terms of tracing our requirements is necessary, in a good Systems Engineering approach. Requirements traceability is a serious issue when planning requirements verification (aka "tests"). This is behind the "good science" justification COL Lee mentions, and I support that approach. Yet, a CPFT approach entirely focused on the PYFP is focused backwards, where our cadet customers have been, and not forwards, on where they may intend to go. One of the recommendations of our Wing CAC (to which I was advisor as DCP) when examining this issue was to ensure that CAPs revised program did more to prepare cadets for military entrance exams of all types.   By spending years teaching cadets to do cadenced exercises not as performed by the services, and only single mile runs versus the 1.5 miles done by many services, and by omitting training on common DoD trainee eval items such as pull ups, the proposed CPFT actually MAL-trains our cadet customers who look to our program to help prepare them for competitive Academy/ROTC and other military scholarship and entrance evals.  Recommend that the directorate specifically extend the requirements trace beyond the primary and secondary school science based approach to entry exam standards, and consider adopting a best fit curve to acclimate and train our cadets "to be prepared for service to the ... nation" - physically.

You sure have a lot of "#6"s.    

Even speaking as a retired Army officer whose career was greatly enhanced by my cadet experience, I can't agree that the military is our primary stakeholder / external customer in this regard.  Don't get me wrong, our AF colleagues and support are absolutely critical to our success, but our figures show that less than 10% of our cadets find their way into the AF.  Even counting the other services, it is still less than 20%.

The overwhelming majority of our cadets, of course, go on to become leaders in their communities, businesses, and faith groups.  And all of us need to be healthy to continue to engage in these important activities.  And that's where the science-based HFZ comes into play.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.

I go back to my point on times exercises rather than cadenced. I think it is fair enough to only require a mile run as opposed to 1.5-2 miles, since we are not training cadets for military service, but standard field performance in a non-combat arena. This seems doable; although, I would like to see, as pointed out, more behind the reasoning for a single mile. This is important in briefing leadership as to why it is this way. "Because this is what they do" isn't a good answer. That's not a reason, it's a deflection. So Spam makes some very good points here. Back to the matter of cadences, I just don't get this. I don't know of any fitness test in a grade school or military branch (excluding AFA) that makes you do this. It must be something youth-based, but the cadenced push-ups is one of the biggest complaints I get on the CPFT from cadets, aside from not wanting to run, that they don't understand why they don't do it timed, which is what they have to do in school (those schools that still force gym and didn't ban dodgeball yet). Granted, I've been a big advocate of multiple PT sessions each month. I think once a month is not enough. Sure, cadets are supposed to work out on their own on the side, but let's be realistic and not visionaries. My big question: Are we testing cadets or are we training cadets? The CPFT is an evaluation of performance. Cadenced exercises, to me, seem to be more performance improvement and training rather than evaluating physical capabilities. Once again, I'm not a fitness expert, and I'll never claim to be one.

I agree with Col Lee on the point that the community is our primary customer once our cadets leave the cadet program. If cadets want to go into the military, it's their job to do the final prep to qualify. We can't do that for them, and it's not our job to do so. I'm willing to help any cadet who wants to work alongside me to join ROTC, go active duty, or any other military career path. I'm in total support of it. But that's a side activity, not something I'm going to do at a meeting. So, I think we're on the same page here.

7/ What can be done with a customer based focus vice a strictly science based approach?  Everything. My unit now has three USAFA cadets, six full scholarship ROTC cadets, and several AD enlisted right now including a 22 year old former cadet PJ credited with saving ten lives. This draft CPFT is unpopular with my troops, and if implemented as is will get in our way, but we will execute to it, and continue to run 3 mile runs, continue to administer pull ups, and continue to train to our Customer requirements because, as our unit motto says, "We Expect More".


R/S (Respectfully Submitted)
Spam

As always, outstanding work, sir.  I can only hope that all units could be successful as yours.

Thank you for your work with our cadets and your feedback on the proposed revisions to the 52-18.  We take them very seriously.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

I commend Jeff's fitness program as his unit. It goes well above the minimums, which I love to see. As I said before, I believe we should have more fitness activities, and I'm glad that this is authorized; however, most squadrons, due to scheduling, resources/manpower, or lack of organization, don't go beyond a monthly CPFT. I brought this up last weekend with our Deputy Commander that I'm absolutely willing to take an evening outside of the normal meeting, or spend a weekend, and get together with some seniors and cadets and do some PT, even if it includes administering additional CPFT's for those who are ready to give it another shot if they didn't do so great the last time. I was never a huge physical fitness person early on, and PT kicked my butt when I started out. It does get better with effort, but you also need that motivation. So I'm very go-to on it now, and I'll be right alongside the cadets during a workout if they want to give it a try. And I'm sure those 14-year-olds will make me feel old and decrepit.

I want to say that I do appreciate Col Lee's hard work to get some changes implemented in CAP, especially in the cadet program. It has some ways to go, but it's progress. I don't agree with all of it, but then again, I'm sure he disagrees with a lot of stuff I've said on here since my CAP Talk tenure. But it's great to see that the higher ups do care and are trying.

[Spam]

All this time, and no one has commented on quidditch as a recommended fitness activity?

Saturday night fun!
Spam

PS... perhaps I missed if someone else already caught this and commented, but the length and complexity of the document has taken me three readings to notice it.

[USACAP]

Right?
We'd be better off if they did! There isn't much "scientific" about "exercise science."
This new reg doesn't really specify much ... Lost me with mention of "Yogacize." Shall we add Zoomba too?
It DOES look like a direct-lift from PYFP, right down to the pics and language - so should be easy to have a HS PE teacher administrate it.

Stop using science!!!!

The US Military, on the whole, has a strong focus on low-intensity cardio-respiratory and what it sees as muscular fitness. Most military service members aren't very strong, however, given the emphasis on calisthenics.

This CAP reg is in-line with what the .Mil likes to see when recruits show up for training and intake.
The minimum standards for military PT tests are disappointing while the maximum standards are pretty easily achievable.
Looking at the overall fitness of the force today coupled with Military obesity rates, I'd say we have a failed model.
It's certainly not CAP's fault but it's disappointing to see kids/cadets get sucked into the notion that pushups and situps make one strong.

[Spaceman3750]

The CPFT is not about making cadets strong, it's about promoting fitness and lifelong exercise. In other words, it's about being healthy, not about how much you can dead lift.

[thebeggerpie]

The CPFT is not about making cadets strong, it's about promoting fitness and lifelong exercise. In other words, it's about being healthy, not about how much you can dead lift.

Besides, if we wanted to get the cadets stronger(which is done via weight resistance, or weight lifting.) every unit would have to shell out a ton of money they don't have to either buy gym memberships or get a full set of weights and benches.

I always make sure to discuss with my cadets about setting up a fitness routine of their own and talk about eating healthy.