PFT For Seniors

[sandman]

Although it would be difficult to sell and to spin up, I would advocate for some sort of physical standard for active members of the ground team. It only makes sense.

All other non-ground team CAP members should be encouraged to participate in a healthy lifestyle to include physical activity. That is currently the mission of the CAP health services officers.

Could there be an incentive for members who participate in a PT program? In other words, instead of mandating PT, encourage participation by offering an incentive....knock a few months off of the standard promotion cycle?

[O-Rex]

The President's Council on Physical Fitness (same folks who award the patches to kids in school) has a program for adults. 

We're not talking two miles in under fourteen minutes, but it can be tailored to age and physical ability level. That way you don't exclude those with physical disablities.

Wouldn't be difficult for CAP to give an official nod to the program, and offer some gee-gaw, or something for participation.

I think someone did the stats a while back, and figured out that the median age of our Senior population was somewhere in the mid-40's: an age when most Military are either retired, or getting there.

Even in the military, PFT's stop at a certain age (or at least they did.)

[arajca]

If you're going to do something like this, first sell it on the ES quals. Most seniors won't fight that, since, if you use some nationally accepted standard that directly applies to the task, it make sense. Once that threshold is proven as good, you can look at expanding it.

By directly applying, I mean using the NWCG physical standards as an example. Radio Operator has a physical of "None".  Don't use "Arduous" for MRO just because you think the NWCG doesn't have a clue, or you want to enforce a tough, hardcore standard.

[MIKE]

What if there was another ribbon or a badge or both? I anticipate a new PT uniform only sold by vanguard in the works...

They already sell PT uniforms, as did CRAPMart and the Bookstore before them.

[Robert Hartigan]

What if there was another ribbon or a badge or both? I anticipate a new PT uniform only sold by vanguard in the works...

That's just blatantly cynical with not even the slightest attempt to engage the logic.

Yes you are correct to some degree at least that my response was a little cynical but you have to agree that the comment does not miss the mark. We have badges for everything and ribbons for the stuff a badge does not cover.

Why can't we be physically fit for being physically fit's sake? Why do we need a program? The standard has been set. What more do you all want?

[RiverAux]

In order to keep valued members we have we have made it possible for very overweight people to participate in CAP and not have to meet weight standards to wear AF-style uniforms.  As long as we're going to allow that, I don't see any circumstance under which a required PFT will be enacted to cover all senior members. 

Now, if CAP eliminated all corporate uniforms and made everyone meet weight and grooming standards I could see us taking the next step and instituting PFTs just like we do for the cadets.  However, even on this board where many regular posters seem to lean towards a more "military-style" CAP, there wasn't strong support for this option in a recent poll. 

The case for PFTs for ES activities is fairly strong and will probably be made for us by the NIMs changes so that is almost a done deal.  But how are you going to convince the cadet moms and dads just in the squadrons to support their kids and a lot of other folks participating in the program that it is necessary for them to pass some pt test?  After all, they're not doing anything more strenuous than you'll find in the Elks or Rotary club.   Are we really willing to lose them over an issue that makes no difference to the performance of any of our primary missions?   

[DNall]

What if there was another ribbon or a badge or both? I anticipate a new PT uniform only sold by vanguard in the works...

That's just blatantly cynical with not even the slightest attempt to engage the logic.

Yes you are correct to some degree at least that my response was a little cynical but you have to agree that the comment does not miss the mark. We have badges for everything and ribbons for the stuff a badge does not cover.

Why can't we be physically fit for being physically fit's sake? Why do we need a program? The standard has been set. What more do you all want?

Bling is a slightly controversial method of inducing optional participation in things. We weren't thinking of this being optional, but rather a condition of continued membership. What was mentioned was a helth & wellness program, that Presidential Fitness program sounds fine, I didn't know they went beyond kids.

Why can't we do it for it's own sake? Well we should, but the people that are going to do that already are, it's the people who choose not to do anything that endanger their health & selfishly put that burden off on CAP.  

I've had adults that couldn't sit thru half the first day of an SLS w/o medical attention. If that person is an MRO & I call the NOC saying send me an MRO, they call her sight unseen & she shows up unable to work 8 hours when what i need is someone to work 12 on 12 off for days on end. Now I'm going to have to ask for another MRO which wastes time & increases my logistics footprint. Meanwhile I got people down in the field waiting for help & how long's it take to get my crap together?

What about if I'm Project Officer for an event & I'm scheduling staff & students, but I don't know if everyone can sit in a chair for any length of time, much less need to fall out. What if I'm looking at TAC applications for encampment where this person has to keep it moving at cadet pace for very long days. How do I know what I'm getting sight unseen? Even if they can stay awake in a chair capable of speech, are they able to keep a high energy level & do the job at peak all the way to the end?

River, you're missing the point. Not talking about a PFT, certainly nothing physically challenging, just a health & wellness program that makes you capable of functioning in an office environment w/o being a burden on anyone else. The only PFTs will be dictated by FEMA for particular ES jobs.

Anyway, the reason this topic was broght up was in response to John saying we should get AF to update the ht/wt/grooming standards to the modern ones that include body fat & individual appearance. It's very likely that such a thing would be approved, thereby allowing more members to wear the AF-style. Now if you're going to do that, then work w/ the AF surgeon general to endorse a mandatory health & wellness sort of PT, which might help create some additional slack in teh ht/wt standards while getting them changed.

The people left over that cannot wear the AF-style still got the corporates, and now a new support netork to help them get the weight down to healthy proportions.

[NEBoom]

Just a couple of thoughts on this.

I don't see where CAP will have either the authority or the ability to mandate a PFT, or for that matter a physical conditioning standard even, for seniors.  The "real military" can make such requirements of it's members for one main reason, they are paying those members.

Given this reality, I'd like to see CAP adopt a sort of "core values" approach to this.  CAP should clearly emphasize and encourage physical fitness among its members, relating its importance to our mission capabilities, and the fact that we want our members to be healthy and active to continue their service to CAP for as long as possible (I'm always saddened when we lose a good member due to health reasons).  But at the end of the day, personal fitness still going to be an individual responsibility.

I also don't think we need to build our own fitness/wellness program as there are many such established programs out there.  I like the idea of the of adopting something like the President's Challenge program (in fact, that may be the exact program we want to endorse) as a means of providing our members some good information on physical fitness.  Of course members can get this information for themselves just about anywhere as decent fitness information is quite readily available.  All CAP has to do (and IMHO about all CAP can do) is point out the need and encourage our members to take care of themselves.

That's it.  No new training requirements that require documentation and hassle our members.  No new uniform bling.  Just a common sense approach that addresses the issue and gives some good information for members to use on their own.

[RiverAux]

If its not directly and obviously job-related you're going to have major problems even getting it approved much less implemented.  CAP is not our nanny.  I don't smoke and hardly ever drink, but should smokers and drinkers be excluded from CAP because of the health risks associated with those activities? 

If CAP is going to go to all AF uniforms and make people meet height weight standards, a mandatory program would make sense as part of the overall package.  But as a stand-alone action it is going to be a non-starter. 

Keep in mind that the Presidential progam, at least the adult version (I am actually an on-again, off-again participant) is entirely self-directed.  I could input in that I'm doing 3 hours of exercise a day and no one would know the difference.  Any such program will need to be monitored to keep people from cheating.  So, now you're talking about documentation, etc.

If all we want to do is encourage healthy living I'm all for a voluntary program for CAP members.   

[DNall]

Just a couple of thoughts on this.

I don't see where CAP will have either the authority or the ability to mandate a PFT, or for that matter a physical conditioning standard even, for seniors.  The "real military" can make such requirements of it's members for one main reason, they are paying those members.

That's just flat wrong. There is no circumstance under which it matters if there's a paycheck involved. If CAP decides a conditioning standard (which I'm leaning toward a number of points by age under the pres fitness pgm) is a condition of membership, then it is. This still allows for exemption due to handicap, but not for laziness. There is a varriable mission performance standard for ES as well as attending PD training. That standard needs to be met, or we sacrifice performance (and sometimes program failure) to hold those people up. We can set whatever we want as a condition of initial or continued membership.

Given this reality, I'd like to see CAP adopt a sort of "core values" approach to this.  CAP should clearly emphasize and encourage physical fitness among its members, relating its importance to our mission capabilities, and the fact that we want our members to be healthy and active to continue their service to CAP for as long as possible (I'm always saddened when we lose a good member due to health reasons).  But at the end of the day, personal fitness still going to be an individual responsibility.

I agree, and that's the terms in which the mandatory conditioning program above is being discussed - individual execution & report points on the honor system, that's where we are now anyway, that and a basic physical every couple years says you can do 8hrs office work at satisfactory levels w/o assistance or health risk.

I also don't think we need to build our own fitness/wellness program as there are many such established programs out there.  I like the idea of the of adopting something like the President's Challenge program (in fact, that may be the exact program we want to endorse) as a means of providing our members some good information on physical fitness.  Of course members can get this information for themselves just about anywhere as decent fitness information is quite readily available.  All CAP has to do (and IMHO about all CAP can do) is point out the need and encourage our members to take care of themselves.

Theft of good ideas is a leadership quality isn't it? We do need to have some requirements to get people to do it though.

That's it.  No new training requirements that require documentation and hassle our members.  No new uniform bling.  Just a common sense approach that addresses the issue and gives some good information for members to use on their own.

I would tend to agree, but I think there are some other administrative burdens that need to be lifted off the Sq, and a set of duties I'd like to have my medical officer on top of. No bling, we agree there, that's petty & degrades the point of this.

[NEBoom]

Just a couple of thoughts on this.

I don't see where CAP will have either the authority or the ability to mandate a PFT, or for that matter a physical conditioning standard even, for seniors.  The "real military" can make such requirements of it's members for one main reason, they are paying those members.

That's just flat wrong. There is no circumstance under which it matters if there's a paycheck involved. If CAP decides a conditioning standard (which I'm leaning toward a number of points by age under the pres fitness pgm) is a condition of membership, then it is. This still allows for exemption due to handicap, but not for laziness. There is a varriable mission performance standard for ES as well as attending PD training. That standard needs to be met, or we sacrifice performance (and sometimes program failure) to hold those people up. We can set whatever we want as a condition of initial or continued membership.

Sure, you can set whatever standard you want.  Good luck enforcing it though.  That's all I'm saying.  The military has a certain leverage over its members (namely a paycheck and that pesky contract that says you can't quit) that CAP just doesn't have.  I guess my main point was that if we want this to work, we have to approach it from a different angle than just mandating something, and we have to be realistic with our approach.

[DNall]

I'm of the view that we need to meet a performance target & that's what matters.  Membership rollover is so that fast I don't care if we lose people cause there'll be 2 more in their spot before the chair gets cold. I know that sounds harsh, but it's backed up by some strong statistics going back 20 years. I have no fear of losing people. I believe if you reshape the force that people who don't like the new way will leave & new people who do like it will fill right in behind them.

I ebelieve there are a lot of changes that need to be made. Some of them relate to making this more like the military, which is mostly about attaining a level of good order & discipline, quality standards, etc that mission doable. But, if you talked to me a little beyond that you'd hear about needing to defer the cost of participation & protect the time contributed, cause unemployed couch patato is not a good qualification to move up & command others, neither necesarily is independently wealthy.

[Chaplaindon]

My mother used to say, "if wishes were horses then beggars would ride." Now that I think about it ...  I WISH CAP members could fly F-16's (just for entertainment) with a PPL --no ragged-out 150HP C172 for me-- my wishes wouldn't ride they'd fly!

But, friends, like the opined-for SM PFT ... it isn't going to happen. And, to quote Martha Stewart, "that's a good thing."

If a member, cadet or senior wishes to "buff" up, I say enjoy her or his self. That's "a good thing," too.

However, if you're demanding that I --INVOLUNTARILY-- submit to someone else's arbitrary PF standards (or "get out" of CAP --- likely, too, a violation of Federal non-discrimination statutes) ... I say hogwash.

This is a silly, purely academic, and Quixotic idea. It isn't going anywhere, and it shouldn't.

[DrJbdm]

Well, The obvious first start is to require a physical exam from your doctor on a CAP approved form in order to join CAP. There are many volunteer organisations that require physicals for membership so CAP wouldn't be the first. We are also a Federal Agency that is is tasked with emergency services missions, we can reasonably require everyone to meet a minimum health standards that is consistant with that.

  CAP is not required to comply with the ADA act, but we have said we would voluntarily comply with the standards as long as it did not interfer with our mission. That being said, It is not unreasonable to have a set minimum health standard for membership. it actually makes sense from a safety standpoint as well as a risk management standpoint. To have NO standards is just setting CAP up for a liability issue as well as mission failure.

 The minimum health standard isn't and shouldn't be "I wake up every morning and I'm still breathing." a minimum health standard for what we do is: being able to do light lifting (10 to 15 pounds), sit for long periods of time.(8hrs), free of serious cardiac problems, free of serious cardiovascular problems, be able to walk across the room without having to stop to catch your breath, able to walk up one flight of stairs without having to have assistance. Obviously there can be waivers for those with valid handicaps but who are in otherwise good health. And no, obesity shouldn't be a valid handicap...obesity is an indicator of a serious health condition. I'm talking medical obesity here not simply being overweight by 20 to 40 pounds.

 A health standard for membership is a safety and risk management issue for CAP, it could also be a liability issue if someone was to get hurt or die because they where not in decent physical condition for the environment they where exposed to.

 These are not just standards for ES but for everyone. As CAP members and Officers we are not just sitting in clean environments doing nothing more then sitting around and talking, We are exposed on a continual basis to heat, cold, stress, dust and dirt. We are expected to be able to do some light lifting such as lifting a ream of paper, moving chairs, tables, ect. and we are expected to be able to move around a room as needed.

 Just things to keep in mind. Safety is huge issue, and someones physical condition is a safety issue in a mission context. And I mean all three of the missions CAP has. Cap is here to save lives, and that means our own lives too.

[Chaplaindon]

DrJbdm,

As I responded in another of these threads about physical standards several weeks ago,

"I never asserted that it was the ADA that is/was the issue here ... it has to do with federal LAW and CAP Regulation IAW those laws.

I encourage you and others to read CAPR 36-2 (15MAY2006) http://level2.cap.gov/documents/R036_002.pdf to verify what I am saying.

The Paragraph 1 (a) of that Regulation states unambiguously, "The Constitution of the Civil Air Patrol, Article VII, states 'Discrimination based on race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, or disability is prohibited.'"

Paragraph 1 (e) & (f) speak to the DoD and USAF policies relative to this matter IAW the Rehabilitation of Act of 1973, section 504. This paragraph in CAPR 36-2 states the DoD policy explictly that, "no qualified handicapped person ... shall on the basis of handicap be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or otherwise subject to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Federal Government or receiving Federal financial assistance."

As to what "qualified handicapped person" is to be understood to mean in CAP, CAPR 36-2, 3 (e) states, "Qualified Member with a Disability means a CAP member with a disability who, either with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions required by a CAP program or activity that such CAP member desires to participate in."

Paragraph 4 (c) 1 tasks "all commanders" with "... implementing and enforcing CAP policies, procedures and directives prohibiting discrimination, as well as DOD Directives 5500.11, 1020.1, and AFI 36-2707, throughout their respective commands."

Thus, this is not a matter of ADA compliance, nor politically-correct speech or action, it is nothing less than compliance with Federal Law, DOD, USAF, and  CAP regulations and instructions."

Since CAP accepts (even "lusts" after) DoD dollars, it mustn't discriminate against persons with a disability and ---YES-- obesity is a medical condition, a legal disability.

A prospective medical exam as a/the criteria of membership acceptance would explicitly constitute a form of discrimination (discriminating between potential members and picking ones that meet our physical criteria) --however well-meaning-- which would seem to be expressly forbidden by DoD, USAF, and CAP directives and regulations.

Now, if CAP unilaterally refused federal $$$ (like that'll happen), it might be able to do as it pleases. Otherwise, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Joust at another windmill, friend.

[DNall]

Well, The obvious first start is to require a physical exam from your doctor on a CAP approved form in order to join CAP. There are many volunteer organisations that require physicals for membership so CAP wouldn't be the first. We are also a Federal Agency that is is tasked with emergency services missions, we can reasonably require everyone to meet a minimum health standards that is consistant with that.

  CAP is not required to comply with the ADA act, but we have said we would voluntarily comply with the standards as long as it did not interfer with our mission. That being said, It is not unreasonable to have a set minimum health standard for membership. it actually makes sense from a safety standpoint as well as a risk management standpoint. To have NO standards is just setting CAP up for a liability issue as well as mission failure.

 The minimum health standard isn't and shouldn't be "I wake up every morning and I'm still breathing." a minimum health standard for what we do is: being able to do light lifting (10 to 15 pounds), sit for long periods of time.(8hrs), free of serious cardiac problems, free of serious cardiovascular problems, be able to walk across the room without having to stop to catch your breath, able to walk up one flight of stairs without having to have assistance. Obviously there can be waivers for those with valid handicaps but who are in otherwise good health. And no, obesity shouldn't be a valid handicap...obesity is an indicator of a serious health condition. I'm talking medical obesity here not simply being overweight by 20 to 40 pounds.

 A health standard for membership is a safety and risk management issue for CAP, it could also be a liability issue if someone was to get hurt or die because they where not in decent physical condition for the environment they where exposed to.

 These are not just standards for ES but for everyone. As CAP members and Officers we are not just sitting in clean environments doing nothing more then sitting around and talking, We are exposed on a continual basis to heat, cold, stress, dust and dirt. We are expected to be able to do some light lifting such as lifting a ream of paper, moving chairs, tables, ect. and we are expected to be able to move around a room as needed.

 Just things to keep in mind. Safety is huge issue, and someones physical condition is a safety issue in a mission context. And I mean all three of the missions CAP has. Cap is here to save lives, and that means our own lives too.

Chaplain,
You're reading FAR too much into those standards & CAP's compliance requirements. We are an organization that participates in ES & Cadet Programs, both of which require a minimum degree of physical well being. It is perfectly legal for us to require physical standards comensurate wit the duties to be assigned & there are minimum duties. There are also missions that come up during meetings & redirect operations on a dime when we cannot be hampered.

It has been clearly stated that hadicaps do not preclude you from mebership and do waive physical fitness standards you are unable to complete, but do also restrict your ability to particpate in certain duties. That's what the law says & that's what we have said. Now CAP is not & never has been an inclusive organization. It requires significant time & financial contribution, which in itself a greater discrimnator than anything else we could errect for legitimate purposes. Without standards at all, we not only expose ourselve to liabiity & drastically limit what we are asked to do, but we seriously put ourselves into a situaiton where people are depending on us & we can't deliver.

Many of the things talked about on these forums consern transforming CAP into a more effective force. That requires some pain to achieve those gains, and no one should be scared of that.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Setting aside GT tasks for a moment, let me toss out this question:

Is there a minimum physical fitness level that is necessary for CAP members to meet in order to perform their mission?

Now, think before you start typing "Hell No."

Do CAP members have to walk from their cars to the flightline, and down the flightline to an airplane?  How far is that?

Do CAP members have to climb stairs?  What is the most staircases they are likely to encounter?

Do CAP members ever have to lift objects?  How heavy is the heaviest thing they have to lift and/or carry?

Do CAP members ever have to bend and reach?  How many times?  How flexible do you have to be?  Can you switch tanks on a C-172, or will your gut get in the way?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but when I know them, I will know what minimal level of physical fitness to establish by test.

Like I said.  We need an expert to design this.  I'm just an old street cop.

[DrJbdm]

Chaplain Don,

  With all do respect you are mistaken. CAP is not and cannot be the ALL inclusive club you may want it to be. You have misunderstood the regs you mentioned and the laws you mentioned. First of all, the key term here is "reasonable accommodations" which means that you can accommodate someone within reason to do the task IF they are qualified to perform the task safely and efficiently with regards to getting the mission done. Can you make an accommodation for a 400 pound Pilot to fly a C-182 with a full crew and still be within safety and operational requirements? No you can't. So by telling that pilot No you can not fly the mission are we not discriminating against him because of his weight? even though he has met the FAA standards and the CAP standards to be a mission pilot? Do you see what I'm saying?

   CAP does have a standard of fitness and health that is required in order to complete any of the missions, even with reasonable accommodations there is still a standard. I still disagree personally with making obesity a legal disability. That's something they can control. You may flame me Sir, but CAP has no place for the morbidly obese. Our main focus needs to be on getting the mission accomplished....All three missions... Our focus shouldn't be on making sure everyone who wants to join can join. The mission always has to come first. Without a mission we have no place to exist. Please don't come back with the old line of "if we keep excluding members we won't have any" The truth is we will have more people who want to join when they see some standards, even minimal health and fitness standards.

CAP can not perform it's missions if we keep this attitude of "We need EVERYONE who wants to join, no qualifications needed" it is counter productive to our missions.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I am interested in this, but I am not committed to the idea of a test.  That is just one of the things buzzing around in my brain about improving CAP's officers.

But... I think that some kind of physical assessment is in order, before we assign an officer to a mission.  By "Mission" I don't mean ES missions, necessarily.  I mean ANY mission.  If a guy can't walk between the kitchen and the bathroom without getting winded, I'm not going to want him to assist at an air show, where he might have to walk the length of a flight line.  If I don't test him, how will I know that he can't do it, regardless how how much he wants to and says he can?

[DrJbdm]

John, you are correct we do need an expert to design this for us. We have to know the requirements for health and fitness for our missions and come up with a standard that accomplishes all three missions at it's basic full operational level. Of course ground teams will require a much higher fitness level as will Air crew positions. I personally think, that in order to do any of those positions that you should have to have a physical and a PFT that is conducted to make sure you meet the minimal standards for that job.

   Please guys, keep in mind the PFT and the medical standards are not designed to keep people out of those positions but rather to keep you safe and the mission safe. CAP sells itself on performing the missions, we take money for the missions we take on, so we better be able to back it up with real mission accomplishments. You can not complete a mission if you have to stop your mission because someone wasn't physically up to the task. That makes up look real bad to our customers and to the public.

Health and fitness standards are not an unreasonable requirement if they are based directly on what we do. You know I would love it if we had a fitness standard that was as tough as most fire departments physical standards but we don't have a need for a standard that exclusive because it doesn't fit in with our mission requirements. But walking, bending, climbing, lifting, reaching, those are all requirements we have for every mission. And we do all those things in places that can be uncomfortable and stressful at times. We need to screen our members for those standards. Our mission success depends on it as do our Safety and risk management considerations.