CAP Talk

I agree with Dennis that we should have an officer PT test.  One which is age and mission appropriate.

A senior PT test...  How do you make allowances for someone like me?  I can blow doors off the pushups and situps, but becuase of psoriatic arthritis I cannot run, nor stretch and reach. My weight is just at the top end of the USAF weight... (at least I still have the 10% to mess with)

Gentlemen:

We have people who, for health reasons, could not pass a PT test in 100 years.

Yet they are contributing their knowledge, experience and intelligence....exercising leadership 'above & beyond', sometimes working through very real, chronic physical pain.

So let's see how many pushups, sit ups, bench presses and whatever else they can do, and by heaven, if they fail, they're OUT!

Why don't we leave this stuff for adults where it is job related?

FAA medicals for pilots; PFTs for GTL/GTM.

Again let me say, I like the thoughts and feelings behind the idea of a Senior PT test. 

But ... if what we want is a lean, mean, efficient machine ... we already have that.  It's called the Air Force.  CAP members by definition are not AF members, thus they don't have to meet physical fitness standards.  (Unless, of course, they want to wear AF blues.  If not -- like me -- there are plenty of other uniform combinations to wear.)

I doubt a PT test for Seniors would fly, though.  As ZigZag911 hinted, if we did that, we'd lose a lot of people whose skills the organization needs.

Jack

Another point, too is that the State Defense Forces aren't required to do PT (though they have the option of doing so) and are still very effective at serving the community, state, and nation, just like CAP.

You know a CUL up at 3am working 12hrs on a stressful mission w/ lots of technical issues, that's can tax the body a bit. Put that on top of the 300lbs guy with two bypasses behind him & you're not being responsible to let that person make a contribution to CAP that endangers them in such a fragile condition. We require cadets to do PFTs, make exemptions for medical problems, but there is no mercy for the fat kid that just can't do it, and there shouldn't be no matter how hard they work on everything else.

I don't think there should be a PFT for adults. Sure as hell for GT, and a physical to be passed to do anything ES related. Scanner/Observer needs to account for the high endurance level required.

I do however think it's peper of us to care about the health & energy of our members. I think it's correct to run or even require a general fitness program, not a test, but a health & wellness program you can alter to your own situation. I don't have a problem if that's a condition of membership.

Quote from: ColonelJack on February 10, 2007, 11:52:56 PM
But ... if what we want is a lean, mean, efficient machine ... we already have that.  It's called the Air Force.  CAP members by definition are not AF members, thus they don't have to meet physical fitness standards. 

That's a cop out. The ANG isn't the full-time AF, why do they have to do PT. I mean it's the Air Force where they decide where to put the runway so it won't interfere with the golf course, where the majority of people's jobs can't even be legitimately called combat support. And what about those missle guys, I mean outside of some thumb wars, what physical fitness level is required for their job? Most of the things we do in CAP require a basic fitness level, some a lot higher than 95% of AF jobs. Even if the job isn't physically or emotionally exhausting, it requires energy, & that requires fitness to sustain.

Far as uniform standards. The chart we have now (along with that grooming diagram) seem to pre-date the consideration of body fat. I believe there used to be a waiver involved for that. I think the AF view has been that the 10% (I could have sworn it was 20%) covers that & people aren't missing the scale cause they're too muscle bound. I think you could get them to update the requirement though. I'd address that thru the HSO track to the AF surgeon general to endorse over to the uniform board. I think you could get some movement on that, and in conjuncitn with a fitness program of some kind I think you could get some more slack.

The officer fitness test would be a serious challenge to create.

We have officers ranging from age 18 through to senility.  We have no physical standards to join.  Can we require a walk or run when nowhere in CAP regulations are you required to have legs?

I do not want to impose additional cost or admin burdens to units and members, so if someone has a medical excuse, I cannot see requiring them to pay a doctor to write out a sick slip in a volunteer organization.

Plus, we have different folks performing different missions.  A ground team engages in some pretty vigorous activity, but an admin officer sits in a chair all day.  Is it fair to demand that the admin officer pass the same test as the Ground Team?

My solution, which you can all feel free to shoot at, because I'm not emotionally committed to this issue, is this:

Create a scale of performance points.  Time over a one mile course equates to certain point values.  Points can be earned through pushups or situps too.  Then establish points to pass based on age and gender, as well as mission assignment.  This way, you could name your own poison.  If you were not fast enough over the one mile to pass, drop for ten, and you got it.  If you are strong as a bull, drop for 35 and forget about the run and situps.

Maybe put a maximum age on it too.  Older than, say, 60 you would be "Grandfathered."  (Pun intended.) But no more ground team missions for you, Pops.  Not unless you pass the PT test anyway.

I think this would have to be written by some kind of exercise physiologist.  Don't let an old street cop like me write it.  My favorite exercise is the "12-ounce repetitive curl."  Pop the top and ...  EXERCISE! 

Why not just require a PT test for the GTM/GTL ratings and forget the rest.

That way we are only adding adminstrative work for the ES Officer and only for those who really need it.

As you say...for all the rest it will be great challange to develop a PT test that does not result in it either being pencil wipped or causing us to loose 75% of our membership.

Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 01:28:55 AM
You know a CUL up at 3am working 12hrs on a stressful mission w/ lots of technical issues, that's can tax the body a bit. Put that on top of the 300lbs guy with two bypasses behind him & you're not being responsible to let that person make a contribution to CAP that endangers them in such a fragile condition.

I do however think it's peper of us to care about the health & energy of our members. I think it's correct to run or even require a general fitness program, not a test, but a health & wellness program you can alter to your own situation. I don't have a problem if that's a condition of membership.

I think you're suggesting limiting what an individual can do based on their health and general fitness...entirely reasonable, and a responsible attitude toward the individual, those serving with the person, and the accomplishment of the mission.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 11, 2007, 03:52:53 AM
.  My favorite exercise is the "12-ounce repetitive curl."  Pop the top and ...  EXERCISE! 

I like your views on "nutrition"!

The rest of it, not so much....

Look at some of the standards that are out there already in the NIMS world. each position either has been assigned an physical rating or will be. "None" is a valid rating. Most mission staff positions are either none or light. GT work would require a more intense level - I'm not sure which to use, though. With the "none" or "light" rating, you can reasonably rely on self certification.

Just cannon foder stuff here....

You're going to ask me to join your organization....oh yeah, then tell me the following....

1.  Pay membership dues.

2.  Buy my own uniforms.

3.  Pay for much of my own training out of pocket.

4.  Ask me to help pay squadron bills to offset lack of fundraising.

5.  Allow me to spend my own money for office supplies related to my CAP job.

6.  Require that I get in shape, most likely by joining Golds Gym and spending more $$$$ for CAP
volunteer membership.

just thinking out loud.

We should definately advocate a healthy lifestyle for our CAP Officer Corps.  But to require a PT test to participate.  I would have to disagree.

Well gees, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this. I do think a health & wellness program (indiv executed, result reporting, mod events as neccessary to your needs, etc) is a nice requirement for membership. That does satisfy the light/none req from FEMA. The reason it got brought up though was as a supplement to an effort to update the ht/wt standards with body fat, and in conjunction with this it'd help create some additional slack so more people could wear the AF-style uniforms & promote the identity & loyalty to it... that's why I brought it up. Not tests or pushing people out.

Now that said, I have had senior members who physically couldn't sit thru a course & required medical assistnace to get past the four hour mark - no I wasn't teaching :P If I request an MRO from the NOC & they send me this person sight unseen, then I'm going to have to request another one which is going to waste time & increase my logistics footprint, and hopefully this person doesn't become a victim along the way. A basic & current (every couple years) physical (form to take with you to for your standard checkup) should be a requirement of any ES job. All that has to mean is you can work an 8hr office shift w/ standing/sitting/light lifting/data entry. I got no problem making that a requirement of membership. The last person to fallout on me was not an ES or cadet event. I need to know someone can keep up the energy level & not need pampering when they are applying to attend or staff any kind of event. Yeah, I think SOMETHING would be reasonable.

For more advanced ES stuff, FEMA defines the standards & we will execute them. They aren't unreasonable & do relate to the job. I don't know what if any standards they'll have for scanner/observer, but something would be appropriate there.

We will have to meet some physical requirements for ES participation as mentioned above. 

I see no need for a general PT test for seniors.  After all, if we're going to let the 350 lb guy join and wear the CAP corporate uniform, it makes no sense to then tell him to pass a PT test.

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

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on February 11, 2007, 05:16:36 AM
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.

I am a strong advocate for this program: 

http://presidentschallenge.org/home_adults.aspx

While it's not a "PT Test", it is a good way for Officers to begin taking steps toward a new healty lifestyle and you get points for a lot of the stuff you already do, like mowing the lawn, gardening, housework, etc.  There is a lack of time constraints so you gather points as quickly (there is a daily maximum) or slowly as you want.  It takes out-of-shape people a little bit longer to collect their points.   

Here are a few of the activities allowed in the program that out-of-shape people can do for points:

• Billiards (you can sit down between shots)
• Croquet (you can sit down between shots)
• Darts (you can sit down between shots)
• Fishing (you can sit down between casts)
• Gardening (you can sit down while digging in the dirt)
• Household Tasks (you can sit down while folding laundry)
• Pedometer (for in between those times you're sitting down)
• Shuffleboard (you can sit down between shots)
• Stretching (you can sit down while stretching)
• Swimming (fat floats)

I believe the President's Challenge is probably the perfect pre-existing program for CAP Officers.

Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on February 11, 2007, 04:16:47 AM
We should definately advocate a healthy lifestyle for our CAP Officer Corps.  But to require a PT test to participate.  I would have to disagree.

I agree with that statement.   

To add to that a bit though, we have far to many members (just look at some of the comments on this board) that use their age as an excuse for their incredibly poor physical condition ("Well, at my age...", "I'm too old to...", etc.).  While I don't advocate a Senior PT program, it sure would be nice if members actually made the effort on their own to live a healthy more physical lifestyle rather than make excuses why they don't.  This of course isn't an issue unique to CAP - it's indicative our society as a whole. 

I'm not saying go out and run 3 miles daily at 6 minute mile clips - or even run at all.  I also don't think anyone is saying we should all be a chizeled set of warriors but we certainly shouldn't be confused for a patch of giant blueberries.  Simply take it upon yourself to make a reasonable effort to live a healthier lifestyle - better diet, some physical exercise.  It's not that difficult.  Not everyone in the organization should struggle just to fit into the van.  It could be argued that those members are actually a liability for several reasons.     

Regardless of which uniform a person wears, they represent the organization.  They should take pride in the wear of their uniform and do their best to always present the organization in a good light.  Physical condition/appearance play a significant role in this.  If someone doesn't think physical condition/appearance plays a role in that, well, then they simply don't have a clue.  Some also may think that's not "fair" but, hey, life's not fair.

I recently wrote a detailed staff study for the California SDF on this very subject -- attempting to define a PT standard and create a PFT for SDF members.  It many, many ways the issues that bedevil an SDF are the same for CAP.  (The average SDF  member is 51 years of age.)

It seemed obvious that a PFT should mirror mission requirements.  IOW, once you have a defined mission, it should be relatively easy to specify the minimum fitness level to accomplish the mission and develop a PFT so that commanders and senior leaders have some insight as to whether units can accomplish a given mission.  But of course the SDFs -- just like CAP -- have some difficulty pinning down their mission in a meaningful way.  It is normally formally stated as something like "Support the Guard," but in practice is really "be ready for anything from sitting in a TOC to sandbagging a river."

And like CAP, SDF members are essentially by definition older, larger, and less fit than our AD or Guard counterparts.  It is difficult or impossible to simply adopt the current Army or USAF PT tests for that reason.  Add to that the very real danger of injuring our members by simply conducting a vigorous PT test and you can begin to see the problem here.  And neither the SDF nor CAP has the resources to give every "over 40" member the recommended cardiovascular screening exam prior to giving a vigorous PFT.  Now add to the mix that CAP seniors would normally not be covered by any sort of CAP insurance while taking a routine PFT and you begin to see the scope of the problem.

After running the decision support template analyzing the various COAs and risks, I finally recommended that the SDF adopt the 2.5 Mile Walk Alternative Event from the Army's PFT.  Since it is a walking event, it seemed to offer the least risk to the members while having the advantage of validated standards for members 17-60 years of age.  See Chapter 14 of FM 21-20 (Army Physical Fitness Training).


Bottom line, it would be tricky but "within the window of do-ability" to develop a CAP officer PFT.  It would allow commanders and key leaders to assess our mission capability as well as allow officers a way to assess their own fitness levels.  We should do all we can to encourage healthy lifestyles for our members, regardless of age or condition.

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?

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.)

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.

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on February 11, 2007, 05:16:36 AM
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.

Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 05:38:31 AM

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on February 11, 2007, 05:16:36 AM
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?

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?   

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on February 11, 2007, 04:17:50 PM

Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 05:38:31 AM

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on February 11, 2007, 05:16:36 AM
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.

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.

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.   

Quote from: NEBoom on February 11, 2007, 06:25:44 PM
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.

QuoteGiven 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteThat'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.

Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 06:44:22 PM

Quote from: NEBoom on February 11, 2007, 06:25:44 PM
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: DrJbdm on February 11, 2007, 08:21:19 PM
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I don't think a test is needed but a physical assessment conducted by a Physician should be in order for those who want to join or to rejoin if your membership has lapsed. And for anyone applying for operational specialties. We have to keep our members safe and we can only do that if we first have health and fitness standards that we apply to everyone.

ES wise, FEMA is in process of setting PFT standards for just about everything we do, and we will be complying with that starting maybe as soon as next year. That right there I'm convinced will change the face of CAP. A lot of people will get pissed & walk, to which I say oh well. A lot of new people will then be recruited knowing full well what the standards are & expecting to be a part of a well trained expert team. That's the background to which we look at this issue.

Clearly there are physical requirements of duties as an officer & ion order to progress or participate in the program. Those should be eval'd w/ a physical up front, and updated every so many years (more often as you get older or if you have a health issue obviously). Clearly we'll also, within reason, accomodate individuals with hadicaps that may limit them in some ways, and to the extent that those maleties do not interfere with efficient energetic execution of those duties they might be assigned to perform... so basically the low end of the ES spectrum that we'd expect of staff. Which is roughly able to do 8hrs standard office work (sit/stand/mobility/lifting/data-entry/etc).

I think it's an excellent thing to have standards to get into CAP. It's called an "application" that you fill out to get in. You should be evaluated phsyically, mentally, professionally, & any other way necessary to determine if you can make a significant contribution to this work, and if not then you should be excluded. Which is within the law.

I personally have no problem with a physical fitness standard for senior members, but I also understand the concerns of making it a condition for membership. 

One aspect of this that should be mandatory is a physical assessment for anyone who wishes to participate in ES or Cadet Program funcitions.  If someone wants to be involved, but cannot meet expected physical requirements, then they should sign a medical waiver absolving CAP of any and all liability resulting from injury, illness or death from such participation.

Now, what would I include on a physical fitness test for seniors?

1.  Ability to walk one mile

2.  Ability to demonstrate correct form for lifting 20 lbs.

3.  15 push up below age of 50, 15 modified pushups above 50.

4.  A test of hand-eye coordination and reaction.

I think that these are reasonable expectations for a PF test.  However, taking this test should be voluntary.  Maybe, as an incentive, a special wing award should be awarded to those squadrons who meet, say 60% of senior members participating and passing the test.  Just a thought.

Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2007, 07:16:35 AMAdd to that the very real danger of injuring our members by simply conducting a vigorous PT test and you can begin to see the problem here.  And neither the SDF nor CAP has the resources to give every "over 40" member the recommended cardiovascular screening exam prior to giving a vigorous PFT.  Now add to the mix that CAP seniors would normally not be covered by any sort of CAP insurance while taking a routine PFT and you begin to see the scope of the problem.

So true.  Every now and then I read about some reservist dying during their first PT test on active duty.  There's no doubt we'd hurt some folks.

I may be talking through my anus, since I am not an expert in exercise psysiology, but how about a plan that establishes a baseline minimum physical fitness standard as a condition for participation in unit activities?

In other words, if you cannot pass a baseline minimum test, the one the chaplain came up with a post or two above sounds as good as any, you can be a CAP member, you can attand meetings at the units HQ, give classes, work in the office, etc., but any activity requiring a form 60 (Any activity outside the squadron HQ) would be closed to you.

This would exclude field trips to museums, air show operations, as well as ES missions.

If you were an IC, and ran the mission from your house, OK.  If you had to go to a mission base and set up operations there, No.

While I understand the safety side of things and the desire to make CAP more effective, efficient and safe, i don't think the manner in which this topic has been discussed has truly been in the best interest of CAP. Most of the discussion has been in-directly bashing the larger population of our membership. By larger, I mean in size and in number. I personally am rather appalled at the tone and direction of this thread.

I, myself am on the larger side and although i aspire to lose weight and be among those in AF Blues, I am not now, nor have been during my short tenure of membership. BUT, I bring a lot to the table and would be rather offended to hear a PFT would be required for membership. It is like throwing a stone my direction and asking me to leave.

"Thanks for everything you've done for us, but we don't need you now because you are fat."

Since when did this organization become middle school children?

Just mentioning that CAP would help provide the support needed to get those that don't pass the PFT healthy enough and skinny enough to do so, doesn't truly show compassion. From my stand point, it only makes you all appear "holier-than-thou." And I personally don't have time for that crap. I'm here to serve and lead and see CAP become the organization it aspires to be. Criticizing its members because of their weight won't help it get there.

If fact, if all of you that fit height and weight standards could pass the PFT and were the only ones allowed to remain in CAP, you'd be pretty darn lonely and overworked, even more than you are now. You might even see the vast majority of your units becoming flights or disappearing because of the sudden decrease in numbers.

Requiring a PFT for certain mission positions is a different topic in and of itself. If that is the direction this thread was meant to go, then take it that direction. Stop bashing the larger population of CAP and move forward with what regulations would be required for what positions.

*Stepping down off my soap box....*

There's yet another issue - the overhead in administering the test.

Again, we only get so many training hours per month.  If we require an annual PT test, we're going to need to divert some of those hours to the test.  And it's not like once a year is enough - members will need probably 3 make-up dates to accomodate schedule issues.

And then, we'll need an entire system to handle medical waivers to the PT test.  More hours, more overhead.

Plus, we'll need to set up a whole system to review PT test failures, determine disposition, and perhaps give second tests to members who fail after a suitable conditioning period.

It's actually a fair amount of work, and could take on a life of it's own.

Will it really be worth the effort in terms of mission effectiveness?

Personally, I can think of a rather simple test of the few folks who really need it.


For Ground Teams - just set up a road march with a single time standard and a standard gear weight. For example, 4 miles in under an hour with 20 lbs of gear or something.  Then just make it part of the intitial sign off and recert process.  No pass - no rating until you can pass.

For everyone else - I'm not sure it matters.

If CAP were to adopt the President's Challenge, one incentive could be to allow the wearing of the awarded patch as an optional patch.

http://presidentschallenge.org/earn_awards/awards_available.aspx#ala

Quote from: Dragoon on February 12, 2007, 03:16:16 PM
For Ground Teams - just set up a road march with a single time standard and a standard gear weight. For example, 4 miles in under an hour with 20 lbs of gear or something.  Then just make it part of the intitial sign off and recert process.  No pass - no rating until you can pass.

This type of test would be fairly reasonable.  After all, that's what ground teams do is walk with their gear.  The example you give though is a little fast.  Most people don't walk that fast for very far.  A 3 mile an hour pace is much more reasonable, and that is an average walking rate.  I can personally walk at 4 mph for a couple of miles, but I can do 3 mph for hours.  The 4 mph rate is what the Army uses in the testing for it's expert badges, which I don't think we really need in CAP.  Besides, if the GT walks too fast, it might miss some clues. ;D

I think the fitness qualifications should be required when job related and encouraged if not.  Look at it from a safety standpoint. Would you rather put seriously overweight people in an aircraft or put a lighter aircrew in and have a greater margin of safety by not putting the aircraft close to limits.  Don't get me wrong, i'm not advocating kicking heavier people out of the cockpit, but with all the emphasis CAP has on safety, why don't we tackle this one? There is certainly a way to do it without requiring a hardcore PFT.  There is a way for everyone to participate at different ages, abilities and levels of fitness.  When it comes to ES, if you can't walk a half a mile or knock out 5 jumping jacks without fear of collapsing then i'm not sure i'd feel really warm and fuzzy about going into the field or into the air with you. 

An aircrew or ground team that includes fitness as part of maintaining the ability to respond is a safer team IMHO.

Ya know, I thought about weight limits on aircrew (since I've seen what a 300+ lb person can do to weight and balance in a 172), but my guess is that is a political bridge too far.  We'll probably keep doing what we do today - match up the heavy guys with the light guys.

What problem are you all trying to address here?  Where's the issue?

How many missions have you gone on that CAP was not-mission-ready or unable to perform because of the lack of physical fitness amongst our responding members?

What new missions would the AF suddenly give to us based on the fact that we now ask our adult members to do some form of exercise once a month?

What do you really think you're accomplishing besides making it even more difficult to pay to volunteer your time in this organization?

Have you been on a Ground Team where people were to physically unfit to participate and it hindered the mission?  Uh, okay.  Your GT leader should have put a stop to that before you began.  Been called for a flight where the only available pilot would put the 172 out of weight and balance?  Why haven't you recruited more aircrew members to be available?

I don't see any issue with everybody of varying physical abilities and capabilities being a member of CAP.  If there are tasks that require more physical fitness than others, than the squadron commander, whose responsibility it is to appoint individuals to appropriate duties, should be appointing appropriately capable individuals to those duties.   Have hard terrain around your area for SAR?  You shouldn't be signing off people (aka: Unit Commander's Signature) who can't physically hack the rating their going for.

In every potential "problem" I see, the basis of it isn't the physical fitness of the volunteers themselves, but a failure of the unit in some respect -- either to recruit sufficient volunteers, or to appropriate assign and sign-off people for various things.

I don't need any level of physical fitness to execute my two current duty assignments, and I do a hell of a lot of work for my squadron.  Do I need to work on being more physically fit and toned?  You bet; it's a personal goal of mine for this year.  But do I need CAP to tell me to that?  I don't need that kind of crap.

Holy crap it's a safety issue to make people w/ no handicap be able to move around, lift 15lbs, and work in an office 8hrs? If you can't do that then attending meetings is a serious health risk for you & CAP is pretty neglegent.

Don't quote legal to me, don't quote safety to me. This is one of those damed if you do damed if don't things. We have to look at what our members will routinely be involved with over a CAP career & ask all members to meet a reasonable standard to get & stay in. It's FAR from arduous, and in the form proposed it involves doing it on your own time on the honor system.

Now ES, that's another story. There's one standard regardless of age, it's set by FEMA, & we are ordered to comply. This is still in the pipeline, but it'll hit CAP in the next couple years. All the standards aren't out yet, but IC Staff & GT are:
Physical/ Medical Fitness
Staff: Medical and physical fitness requirements established by the AHJ (Auth Having Jurisdiction - NOT CAP) that include the ability to perform duties under arduous circumstances characterized by working consecutive 12-14 hour days under physical and emotional stress for sustained periods

GT (WSAR)
Completion of the following baseline criteria:
1. Medical requirements established by the AHJ
2. Minimum physical fitness standards as required by the AHJ, such as:
* MRA 105.1 Fitness
* CO WSAR Fitness
* NWCG Pack Test "Arduous"
* MCSOMR/CAMRA Mountain Rescue Specific Physical Ability Test (MRSPAT)
* NIMS WSAR Type II and IV Fitness (this is the default)
3.     CDC/ WHO recommended inoculations

IE- That says we CAN make our own test if we must, but it has to meet the same kind of standards as those recommended. The examples were created for wildland firefighters & such. Comm, UDF & fixed wing will be any time btwn now & Sep (end of FY).

Aircrew:
The standard for fixed-wing pilots/crew I assume will be  to helicopter when that comes out. Standards for helos:
Completion of the following baseline criteria:
1. Medical requirements established by the AHJ
2. Minimum physical fitness standards as required by the AHJ
3. FAA requirements
4.  NFPA 1582, Standard on Medical Requirements for Fire Fighters8, or disaster specific equivalent

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 10, 2007, 09:51:24 PM
I agree with Dennis that we should have an officer PT test.  One which is age and mission appropriate.

I didn't like the PT Test even when I was in the military, when I was in great shape.  Can you imagine how this would be administered?  This is a bad idea - you would lose a lot of good people, unless it was like our organization - voluntary.

ES PFTs will be mandatory from the federal govt or no money & no CAP, no discussion, period. Everyone in the country is being held to the same standards, not just CAP. That fact alone will transform CAP membership. Those people you're scared of seeing go, when they can't do any kind of ES the majority of them will be gone. We'll be recruiting up behind with people that can be legit rescue personnel, we got no choice. Those are published facts. The exact dates aren't set yet, but they're not 2 years away. Now, understand PFT for ES is a COMPLTELY different subject than fitness for membership standards.

Far as fitness for membership... CAP should not allow membership (initial or ongoing) for people that significantly endanger themselves or others by participating in normal activities. We're just talking about a standard sports physical once every few year (additional form to hand to your own doctor), and an on your own time report results online under the honor system fitness program that literally counts playing pool or darts in a bar as legitimate excercise (president's challnenge link above).

AND once again, the reason it was brought up in the first place was something to work on with the AF surgeon general to present in conjunction with requesting that ht/wt standards for the AF-style uniform be relaxed a bit.

I understand that a NIMS specific PFT will be coming down the pipeline within the next couple of years and that CAP will have to comply if it wants in the game. That would be a huge positive moment for CAP.

  I do not think we need a mandatory PFT for all members, a voluntary one I can really agree with. But instead of a mandatory PFT, having a required physical in the same time regards for age as the FAA mandates for pilots would be fine. It is not unreasonable for CAP to require you to re-certify your continued health for CAP.

  You can't just have a member sign a waiver absolving CAP of any liability in order to avoid a physical, those truly do not work and CAP would still be liable, ask any injury/wrongful death attorney.

  It would be extremely difficult to mandate a required PFT for our members, most Police Departments have a standard PFT to get hired but extremely few have any sort of ongoing mandated PFT for it's Officers. If PD's can't do it then what makes anyone think CAP could do it? a very easy fix is a voluntary PF program and a required physical exam that is setup to minimum CAP standards. Yes, some very large members may be too unhealthy to join or maintain their membership but I doubt it would effect very many people. The standard I'm proposing is a pretty basic standard for office type work. (see my original post) If you are too unhealthy for basic office type work in a sometimes hot/cold/dusty/dirty environment then I have to seriously doubt your ability to function in CAP.

Is there anyone who truly believes these standards are completely unreasonable?

Right then, no disagreement on ES, not that it matters cause no one in CAP has a choice anyway. 

Fitness for membership standards... In addition to the basic background check we do now (which I'd like to see a bit stronger at least when you cross into ES leadership positions), and other standard factors, I think most people are going to find it very hard to argue that a basic physical updated every few years is unreasonable. Hell, if nothing else it gets you in for a checkup every so often.

Now the PT being discussed for adults is a bit controversial. For the life of me I can't see why. If I were saying run a mile in 6 minutes or get out, yeah I could understand people freaking out. If say you can choose from 100 different activities adjusted for age & wivered for physical handicaps or medical conditions; do it on your own time & report it on a website using the honor system; none of it is remotely arduous, athletic, or really even active, it's just not couch patato. Walking around the grocery store counts, playing with your kid counts, playing pool in a bar counts. This is the most minimal level of physical activity that can actually be considered a program. So very little is being asked in this standard that it's almost ludicrous. Why make it mandatory though? Well the ones that would do it if it were optional are already doing it. The ones that wouldn't are the ones that desperately need to start.

We do need to actually tell our members that they need to get off the couch & live an active healthy lifestyle, so they can be useful to us rather than devolving into a drag on others before they even know they're doing it.

I still haven't seen a convincing argument showing how the majority of non-ES CAP activities put anybody at any greater risk than if they were a member of the Elks Club.  We're talking about going to a meeting room 2-4 times a month for the most part.  Everything else is pretty much very rare special activities. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 13, 2007, 01:34:45 AM
I still haven't seen a convincing argument showing how the majority of non-ES CAP activities put anybody at any greater risk than if they were a member of the Elks Club.  We're talking about going to a meeting room 2-4 times a month for the most part.  Everything else is pretty much very rare special activities.

There is not any...except the underlying attempt to make the rank and file CAP member more like the AD USAF.

Plus travel to/from activities which will run for 8-12 hours per day over 1-2 days (PD for instance). And they are going to have to hold a staff position w/ duties at least equiv of office work, which must be maintained for a full shift timeframe. They will also be working in rough conditions (the nature of most CAP facilities) & will need to help with facility maint & operations. That excludes going to cadet activities or acting in any kind of leadership capacity locally or at events.

The standard to be set is not what the very minimum anyone can conceivably get by with, it's what is reasonablly expected of an average member over the course of their entire CAP career w/o being a drag on anyone else or allowing their own work to suffer. The physical requirements that answer that question are teh requirements of CAP membership, if we formally admit & enforce it or not. Anything less is harming the program, neglegently endangering people, & dragging down our capability.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 13, 2007, 02:10:05 AM
There is not any...except the underlying attempt to make the rank and file CAP member more like the AD USAF.

This thread started no where close to that. It started out talking about a tactic to use w/ AF in asking to loosen up the standards so heavier people can wear the uniform if they choose. Everything in this thread is about taking care of our people, not being more like the AF.

Quote from: DNall on February 12, 2007, 02:23:56 AM
so basically the low end of the ES spectrum that we'd expect of staff. Which is roughly able to do 8hrs standard office work (sit/stand/mobility/lifting/data-entry/etc).

Actually, I'd think that stringent physical requirements would really apply mainly to GTL/GTM and aircrew.

As far as mission management is concerned (including IC) if you can hold down a 'real world'  full time job, you should be capable of doing a mission staff job.

I didn't make that up, it's from the credentialing standards for type III staff.

Quote from: DNall on February 12, 2007, 08:08:46 PM
Staff: Medical and physical fitness requirements established by the AHJ (Auth Having Jurisdiction - NOT CAP) that include the ability to perform duties under arduous circumstances characterized by working consecutive 12-14 hour days under physical and emotional stress for sustained periods

LINK: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/im-job-titles.pdf (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/im-job-titles.pdf)

If I had made it up then I'd agree with you that a standard 8hr office work day, light lifting, occasional stress, yada yada... no problems. And that's basically what I think all members need to do. FEMA wants to make that a little tougher, I can see where they're coming from, and it being that close to the standard I'd want to see for general membership it seems hard not to just combine them.

Quote from: DNall on February 13, 2007, 03:14:06 AM
I didn't make that up, it's from the credentialing standards for type III staff.

Quote from: DNall on February 12, 2007, 08:08:46 PM
Staff: Medical and physical fitness requirements established by the AHJ (Auth Having Jurisdiction - NOT CAP) that include the ability to perform duties under arduous circumstances characterized by working consecutive 12-14 hour days under physical and emotional stress for sustained periods

LINK: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/im-job-titles.pdf (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/im-job-titles.pdf)

If I had made it up then I'd agree with you that a standard 8hr office work day, light lifting, occasional stress, yada yada... no problems. And that's basically what I think all members need to do. FEMA wants to make that a little tougher, I can see where they're coming from, and it being that close to the standard I'd want to see for general membership it seems hard not to just combine them.

DNall, i wasn't suggesting you invented it....a lot of people work more than the standard 8 hour day....I do see the reasoning behind FEMA's criteria for mission managment, don't see it excluding a lot of members; some, sure.

Guys:

Please do not get defensive about these suggestions.  I'm a chubby rascal, too.  And I absolutely hated the PT test in the Army.

And I can understand that even Jabba the Hut could make it through a two-hour meeting in most situations.

But our mission is not just to attend meetings.  Our missions are to train cadets, respond to emergencies, and educate others about aerospace issues.  That means that meetings are a tool we use, not the mission itself.

So, would it not be reasonable to create a standard of fitness that would permit a member to walk a medium distance without wheezing?  To climb up stairs to a third-floor classroom?  To walk that medium distance and up those stairs while carrying 10 or 15 pouinds of training aids and handout material?

I'm not seeking to create an elite force of Rangers, but I don't want some guy with the best intentions and desire to serve dropping over at an air show, either.

Quotethey are going to have to hold a staff position w/ duties at least equiv of office work, which must be maintained for a full shift timeframe.

I've held a whole bunch of CAP staff positions at various levels and I'm not sure I ever recall sitting down and doing work related to any of them for 8 hours straight.

Now, in real life I've held a lot of jobs in government, many of which have quite a few bouts of rigorous activity.  With the exception of one position (and that was an ES-equivalent job), none of these agencies thought a physical test was needed.  These agencies obviously aren't terribly worried about this issue, so I'm not either, and they've been responsible for my health insurance and have a much more vested interest in having me in shape than CAP ever will. 

Just not seeing the return on the investment of time CAP members would have to devote to administering any required program.  Its just surprising to me that this is being promoted by some of the folks who are most adamant about reducing demands on squadron officers' time so that they can focus on the important stuff.   

I wonder... does the Coast Guard Auxiliary have a mandatory PFT?

If they do, maybe we can model one after thieirs. 

Nope.  There have been occassional discussions as some CG Aux activities can be somewhat physically stressing.  Nothing like CAP GT work, but for older people there could be some concerns. 

If the CG Auxie is augmenting and there is physical requirement associated with the job (such as crewing on one of the small CG motor boats), then they would have to meet them. 

No specific weight requirements for wearing the uniform (which is more or less identical to the CG uniform) either.  Just a vague requirement to present a "military" appearance. 

Forgive me for being lazy in not wanting to search through four pages of posts to read all the opinions before posting, but...

...what I have read entails senior members complaining explaining about how PT isn't really necessary for senior members, and that people would leave if they were made to do a pushup, but they are currently contributing so much intellectually and through other methods.


Then tell me this...how is that any different from cadets?

Cadets don't have to be in shape.  Heck, you could be the fattest kid ever to walk the planet and still participate in CAP.  But we still encourage physical fitness and excellence by using PT tests.

Senior members really CAN do the same thing.

If you are absolutely set on sitting in a chair, helping yourself to more ding-dongs, and not taking the test, by all means, use the same method our cadets use, get yourself a physical fitness waiver.

You guys ask how you would take into account the 100 year old members who have bone problems, etc....The same way cadets deal with cadets with broken bones, etc.




It's really not that hard to figure out how such a program would be implemented.  My guess is that you just don't like the thought of actually getting out of your chair and exercising.  After all, "PT is for cadets."

::)


P.S. people also mention that physical fitness is only really required for a few jobs in CAP, and that only those should be required to be fit.  Tell me this:  "What "job" do cadets have to be fit for?"  A cadet can spend his entire CAP cadet involvement without ever going on a mission or stepping out of the meeting area.  Yet we still use a PT program in the cadet program.

It really is no different, folks.

Before you start calling those of us who don't favor the idea lazy, you might want to consider the fact that most of us hold some sort of ES rating and are probably going to be subjected to much higher standards than any discussed so far here for senior members in general. 

If you'll go back and actually read my post, you'll see I was calling myself lazy for not reading all four previous pages.

But on to your general idea, you'll also see if you actually read what I wrote, I continuously used non-specific, generic groupings such as "some people" and "others have said"....

...does that sound like a blanket statement that seniors are lazy to you??


Let's go back to 9th grade and start reading for context, not surface-level denotations, eh?

Alright folks...this is getting to be a meshegas.

Simply put, there is not proposal for PT up on any CAP Big Wig's desk or Board for apporval.  Its merely an idea someone has posted here.

My opinion is that if it is required, I will do it.  I could stand to get some organized PT in my life along with that I squeeze in.  If it is optional I will likely do it.

But, I am 30 years old and relatively healthy.  What of the WWII veteran who wants to operate radios or the Korean War veteran that likes teaching cadets or the veteran with no legs who won't be able to participate because of this new requirement?  In the grandiose schemes of PT there are going to have to be allowances made if CAP is to continue because the retired make up our corps.  How many can just drop work to deploy these days? The 20s, 30s and 40s aged people are preoccupied with career, family and life, it takes a lot to deploy for CAP.

It doesn't have to be an argument, just think realistically and a PT program can be developed that will be viable.

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 13, 2007, 04:34:27 AM
What of the WWII veteran who wants to operate radios or the Korean War veteran that likes teaching cadets or the veteran with no legs who won't be able to participate because of this new requirement?  In the grandiose schemes of PT there are going to have to be allowances made if CAP is to continue because the retired make up our corps.  How many can just drop work to deploy these days? The 20s, 30s and 40s aged people are preoccupied with career, family and life, it takes a lot to deploy for CAP.

What about cadets with a broken foot?  Or those in a wheelchair?

Simple.  They are put in a different physical fitness class.  The exact same could be done for seniors.  There really is no excuse for not having PT for seniors....other than SOME (RiverAux, that is SOME) seniors don't like the idea of actually doing work and so they find it easier to come up with some lame reason why cadets should and they shouldn't.

Quote from: CAP428 on February 13, 2007, 04:39:11 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 13, 2007, 04:34:27 AM
What of the WWII veteran who wants to operate radios or the Korean War veteran that likes teaching cadets or the veteran with no legs who won't be able to participate because of this new requirement?  In the grandiose schemes of PT there are going to have to be allowances made if CAP is to continue because the retired make up our corps.  How many can just drop work to deploy these days? The 20s, 30s and 40s aged people are preoccupied with career, family and life, it takes a lot to deploy for CAP.

What about cadets with a broken foot?  Or those in a wheelchair?

Simple.  They are put in a different physical fitness class.  The exact same could be done for seniors.  There really is no excuse for not having PT for seniors....other than SOME (RiverAux, that is SOME) seniors don't like the idea of actually doing work and so they find it easier to come up with some lame reason why cadets should and they shouldn't.

Listen, all I am asking for is for people to think realistically.

Many of us are young and vital, others of us are older and drawn to service.  An 85 year old CAP officer who mans a radio, goes out on ELT mission during the day while people work or sits in the back seat as a Mission Scanner or on the aircrew as a Mission Observer does not need to be barred from CAP because they cannot meet some standards that did not even exist in the 1940s not to mention when they joined.

I find it an oddity that people continue to try to design things to exclude people from CAP service.

Plus, if one is going to have standards they need to be absolute.  Thus, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Drop the various "standards" and have everyone conform to the norm!  Either we as CAP want standards or not.

Simply put, this needs more thinking and debate...

QuoteBut on to your general idea, you'll also see if you actually read what I wrote, I continuously used non-specific, generic groupings such as "some people" and "others have said"....

Yes, and you appeared to be referring to the people on this thread who were responding negatively to the idea, who are the only ones who have heard of it.  No senior member sitting around the squadron eating ding dongs knows a thing about it yet.   

Mr 428, I think you'll find that, as you get older, your capacity to maintain the same level of fitness you have/had at age 16 will be greatly diminished. My first wife used to kid me all the time about middle age spread smacking my previously skinny butt really hard at 40. She was right. Admittedly there was a major lifestyle change for me at that age, so it wasn't unexpected.

I was in a Composite Squadron working with cadets until about three years ago. At that time, I could run the mile faster than about half the cadets in the unit. I think it's really sad that an out of shape 55 yo SM can run a mile faster than any cadet.

I suggest that you reevaluate what you've said regarding us olde farts. I think it would be almost impossible to come up with a fair PFT for members over 40. There are too many variables to consider. And, in the long run, I think we'd lose many valuable members if they were required to do any sort of PFT.

Joe, med waivers were stipulated explicitly at the very beginning. Reasonable accommodation is given to the extent it does not detract from the activity, particularly efficiency in operations.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 13, 2007, 04:09:10 AM
I've held a whole bunch of CAP staff positions at various levels and I'm not sure I ever recall sitting down and doing work related to any of them for 8 hours straight.

SLS/CLC/UCC, most any weekend activity - cadet or ES related would be 8hrs at a higher rate of speed, 12-15 if you're in a leadership position for the event.

QuoteNow, in real life I've held a lot of jobs in government, many of which have quite a few bouts of rigorous activity.  With the exception of one position (and that was an ES-equivalent job), none of these agencies thought a physical test was needed.  These agencies obviously aren't terribly worried about this issue, so I'm not either, and they've been responsible for my health insurance and have a much more vested interest in having me in shape than CAP ever will. 

Key difference.... The application you filled out I'll bet said 'capable of moderate lifting (25lbs), long periods of sitting or standing, etc.' That's almost universal on applications, be it a grocery store or govt secretary. You checked that you could do these things & signed (under penalty of law for a govt app), you were then interviewed where the interviewer made a subjective judgment if that answer was BS or not, then were hired & if you'd been unable to do the work you would have been let go. CAP doesn't ask, then if you can't do the job they don't fire you they let the job suffer cause CAP doesn't have standards.

Far as administration, it doesn't have to be complicated. eServices mirror of the pres fit personal activity log, dumps scores monthly/quarterly to a report accessible to HSO & Unit CC. And really, there's no reason it has to be administered by the Sq.

ES standards... there are no waivers & that's as it should be. Most of us have been on a mission at some point where a badly out of shape member has slowed us down. There have been cases where such members required missions to stop so they could be rescued & provided medical attention. That's unacceptable. ALL GTMs need to be able to hike 3-6 miles off trail w/a 40lbs pack at 15min mile pace, provide first aid at the other end, load survivors & haul them a mile or more to a helo LZ. The first rule of rescue is don't become another victim, the second is there are people in field out there bleeding & you need to get to them fast with the capability of doing something about it. You don't set requirements for the 95% of the time that's easy, you train for the 5% that's super hard. You never lower the bar for any reason, and if you think we should, I have to ask about your ethics.

Quote from: DNall on February 13, 2007, 09:06:13 AMALL GTMs need to be able to hike 3-6 miles off trail w/a 40lbs pack at 15min mile pace, provide first aid at the other end, load survivors & haul them a mile or more to a helo LZ.

That's one opinion, and I think it's a bit much.

How many actual CAP Saves involve a litter carry done by CAP members?  How many of those litter carries were a mile in length?

Does 24 hour gear weigh 40 lbs?  If not, why the requirement?

The distance may be good, but why a 15 minute pace, since the pace of searching is much, MUCH slower?

And using the argument "if it happens even once, we have to be ready" is sadly, BS.  Because if we adopted that attitude, then every Ground Team would include a field surgeon and a mountain rescue specialist "just in case."

No, unless standards are specifically imposed on us (and we'll see how that really plays out), the best answer for us is to analyze our missions (both what we do and what we'd like to do) and then set the bar appropriately to ensure we have adequate assets.

(and just as a point of disclosure, I could meet the standards you state above with one hand tied behind my back.  I just think they're not neccessary.)

Again, it comes back to the mission.

The CP is designed to educate America's youth using a military structure.  As a training environment, the requirements can almost be considered ends in themselves.  Guiding Cadets towards healthy choices in exercise and nutrition is part and parcel of making better citizens.

The Senior program, OTOH, is not a self-help group.  We are recruiting and training members to perform missions.  Some missions require a level of physical capability: if so, we need to test to that level.

Would it be nice to have all of our Officers be "PJ-fit?"  Yes, but not at the expense of the mission.

"Nice to Have" always has to defer to "Need to Have."

Is there any way local unitis could require PT?  Such as a local PD requirement?

Quote from: ddelaney103 on February 13, 2007, 03:07:36 PM
Would it be nice to have all of our Officers be "PJ-fit?"  Yes, but not at the expense of the mission.

PJ-fit? Are you serious, did you read the standards written? Sit in a chair working on a computer for 8hrs, walk across the room & lift 15lbs. We're talking about capable of doing staff work & participating in classroom training wekends as student, instructor, or staff/leadership w/o hendering the activity or holding back the people around you. That's a LONG LONG way from PJ-fit!!! What we do right now is lower the standards at the expense of the mission so more people can participate, and that's unacceptable.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 13, 2007, 02:14:31 PM

Quote from: DNall on February 13, 2007, 09:06:13 AMALL GTMs need to be able to hike 3-6 miles off trail w/a 40lbs pack at 15min mile pace, provide first aid at the other end, load survivors & haul them a mile or more to a helo LZ.

That's one opinion, and I think it's a bit much.

Just extrapolating a CAP mission profile from the PFT standards set by FEMA, you don't like it take that up with the experts that just spent the last couple years working on it.

QuoteAnd using the argument "if it happens even once, we have to be ready" is sadly, BS.

Why's a cop carry a gun? Chances are in 20-30 years he'll never use it. His work is hours & hours of boredom punctuated with fleeting minuites of craziness. Should he train for the hours or the minutes? How is GT any different?

DHS is just executing a Presidential order backed up by Congressional action on the money to standardize all responders in the country into skill ratings (credentialing), capability levels (resource typing), & functional together in a unified operating system (ICS). CAP has been trying since the inception to get waivers, exemptions, modifications, etc & been flatly refused. The word is you live up to these standards or you can't be involved. NB has finally agreed, so though we're a little behind in the process & need to catch up, we are getting compliant. Starting probably in FY08 these standards with the PFT will have to be implemented.

QuoteNo, unless standards are specifically imposed on us (and we'll see how that really plays out), the best answer for us is to analyze our missions (both what we do and what we'd like to do) and then set the bar appropriately to ensure we have adequate assets.

Well, these are the standards set for every other responder in the country. Agencies with missions to give are required to use teams certified by these standards or potentially have all federal funds cut off to them. They can get permission to use such a team, but it's pulling teeth from a cabinet member to do it. NB has voted to comply, and this is all goign to be quite mandatory in the near future.

That said, these are the standards for teh missions we really do & those we'd like to do. You're not required to use all thsoe skills or physical ability 95% of the time, but standards are set fo the 5%.

The following is an excerpt from the AAR on the KIM family search which illustrates the very real need for SAR personnel to be capable of handling the missions put before them.  CAP should have been involved on this, but there seem to be some political machinations that prevented it.   imagine if we had to have personnel rescued from the search because they were unfit to handle the mission.

Excerpt follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fitness and Qualification of Resources

One of the issues in this search is that unqualified and/or unfit resources were
used in the field. A specific example of this was using a volunteer resource that
was not equipped with the proper survival gear, clothing, and training to go into a
ravine. The report states this volunteer was wearing cowboy boots and actually
had to be assisted from the search area. In another case, SWAT members
dressed in camouflage clothing were difficult to see by the helicopter pilots who
were lowering them to the ground on a long line.
There are resources available around the state that are trained and equipped for
almost any type of environment. Reaching out to these resources would help
insure the safety of persons involved and prevent the necessity to suspend or
slow down search efforts to rescue the rescuers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Captalk Thread on it here:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1419.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1419.0)

You can argue about the PFT and Discrimination and "I don't need pushups to do my job", yadda yadda yadda, but here is the real world example of why there need to be standards for ES personnel that work in the field.

Quote from: DNall on February 13, 2007, 08:27:26 PM

QuoteAnd using the argument "if it happens even once, we have to be ready" is sadly, BS.

Why's a cop carry a gun? Chances are in 20-30 years he'll never use it. His work is hours & hours of boredom punctuated with fleeting minuites of craziness. Should he train for the hours or the minutes? How is GT any different?

That's  horribly, horribly flawed example.  Using that logic, based on the big AK-4y shootout in California a few years back, why doesn't every cop carry an assault rifle and wear full body armor 24/7  After all, he might need it.

Answer - it doesn't come up often enough to matter - SO IT'S NOT WORTH DOING. Sure when it does come up. The cop with the pistol is sure gonna wish he had an assault rifle handy.  But statistically, it ain't worth it. And the cost, both in time and resources, of outfitting every cop with this level of gun  all day long, is more than the police dept can afford to allocate.

So I ask again - how often do CAP ground teams need to hump 40 pounds all day at a 15 minute pace, or carry a litter a mile to a helo LZ.   

Does it happen often enough to be worth the pain involved in enforcing the standard, or the number of otherwise suitable participants we'd lose. 

We should set the bar high enough to handle the job (quality) but low enough to ensure we have the numbers we need (quantity).

One without the other is a total waste of time. 


Now, if it truly comes down to "do this or lose your money," sure we'll do it.

But it isn't down to that yet.

Not by a long shot.

The sky is not falling.

And in the meantime, realism, not some race to meet a not yet fully implemented standard, should be the guiding principle.

Quote from: MississippiFlyboy on February 13, 2007, 09:55:37 PM
The following is an excerpt from the AAR on the KIM family search which illustrates the very real need for SAR personnel to be capable of handling the missions put before them.  CAP should have been involved on this, but there seem to be some political machinations that prevented it.   imagine if we had to have personnel rescued from the search because they were unfit to handle the mission.

Excerpt follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fitness and Qualification of Resources

One of the issues in this search is that unqualified and/or unfit resources were
used in the field. A specific example of this was using a volunteer resource that
was not equipped with the proper survival gear, clothing, and training to go into a
ravine. The report states this volunteer was wearing cowboy boots and actually
had to be assisted from the search area. In another case, SWAT members
dressed in camouflage clothing were difficult to see by the helicopter pilots who
were lowering them to the ground on a long line.
There are resources available around the state that are trained and equipped for
almost any type of environment. Reaching out to these resources would help
insure the safety of persons involved and prevent the necessity to suspend or
slow down search efforts to rescue the rescuers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Captalk Thread on it here:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1419.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1419.0)

You can argue about the PFT and Discrimination and "I don't need pushups to do my job", yadda yadda yadda, but here is the real world example of why there need to be standards for ES personnel that work in the field.

While I agree with your conclusions, the report excerpt you provided doesn't say a durned thing about physical fitness.  It's complaining that some searchers had wrong or inadequate equipment (cowboy boots and camo clothing).

And speaking of camo clothing, yet another reason not to wear USAF uniforms! ;D

Again...the issue is not about whether PT should be required for Ground Team.....NIIMS is going to mandate some sort of standard (just which one we will have to wait).

But that is far as it should go.

A CAP wide PT test would increase the administrative burden on the squadrons, will result in a marked loss of members and would not increase our ability to do our missions.

Sure the law enforcement in camouflage were hard to see, because they were not properly equipped search team apperently. CAP on the other hand requires the dayglo vests for all activities in the field. Why is it that people that say CAP should get away from the USAF Cammie uniform always forget that CAP requires the vests? Oh yeah, I remember now, it shoots down their arguement.

I would support requiring and in depth physical of GTM's - to prevent the 300 lb SM from having a heart attack.  Or the 90 lb cadet being on a team requiring she carry a 80 lb 72 hr pack etc. -
As for a PT test, I think that GTMs ought to be required to do some physical activity, but Im unsure of what would be acceptable, be it the "Pack Test" or something else.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 14, 2007, 07:37:15 PM
While I agree with your conclusions, the report excerpt you provided doesn't say a durned thing about physical fitness.  It's complaining that some searchers had wrong or inadequate equipment (cowboy boots and camo clothing).

And speaking of camo clothing, yet another reason not to wear USAF uniforms! ;D

yes it does "Fitness and Qualification of Resources"  ;D

I know that Fitness can mean different things....but how many people do you want to put in rugged backcountry that whine about running a mile?  I think those of us who live in urban areas forget that much of our country is still very remote. And the further west you go the poorer the cell coverage gets outside of populated areas.  taking a self-sustaining team into the rough is still something CAP GT need to train and prepare for.     

I think NIMS has the potential to really further the cause of professional standards for SAR in CAP

Again, not looking to have Sqs in any way involved in the administration. You input your data online, then once a month the system automatically generates a monthly or quarterly score listing as +/- from the standard they are supposed to be at based on age. At that point it can be administered, at that poitn it can be administered autonomously by sending a warning email to the individual & eventually locking them from renewal until a local CC unlocks them based on extenuating circumstances or finally deciding to work out. Or it can be administered by some level above Sq. Good job for a Wg or Gp HSO. The only thing I wanted administratively at Sq is this as a basis for discipplinary non-renewal or temprorary suspension, and some conseling, all at the dsicrestion of the unit CC. It REALLY doesn't have to be that complicated at all.

Plus think about what we do for cadets now. The PFT is the least troublsome administrative item in their whole file.

Far as the point, yeah it'll run off some members that I'm not sure we want in the first place. You're not willing to walk a block a week & put it down in an online log on the honor system? Great committment you're showing there, let me put you in charge of something. People need to be able to do the level of office work that's required of membership, or they don't need to be members.

Quote from: DNall on February 14, 2007, 08:20:54 PM
Again, not looking to have Sqs in any way involved in the administration. You input your data online, then once a month the system automatically generates a monthly or quarterly score listing as +/- from the standard they are supposed to be at based on age. At that point it can be administered, at that poitn it can be administered autonomously by sending a warning email to the individual & eventually locking them from renewal until a local CC unlocks them based on extenuating circumstances or finally deciding to work out. Or it can be administered by some level above Sq. Good job for a Wg or Gp HSO. The only thing I wanted administratively at Sq is this as a basis for discipplinary non-renewal or temprorary suspension, and some conseling, all at the dsicrestion of the unit CC. It REALLY doesn't have to be that complicated at all.

Plus think about what we do for cadets now. The PFT is the least troublsome administrative item in their whole file.

Far as the point, yeah it'll run off some members that I'm not sure we want in the first place. You're not willing to walk a block a week & put it down in an online log on the honor system? Great committment you're showing there, let me put you in charge of something. People need to be able to do the level of office work that's required of membership, or they don't need to be members.

"Administration" isn't just paperwork- we're describing "administering the program."  This includes scheduling and executing the test, keeping track of medical waivers, making sure everyone takes it within the time constraints, making sure evalutors are properly trained, setting up make-up tests,  etc.

Using this broader definition, the PFT is most certainly not the least troublesome item in the Cadet Program - it takes a lot of valuable meeting time to give the test.  Plus it may involve transporting cadets to an appropriate place to do the run, giving them a place to change clothes, etc.

And it's this additional workload that folks are justifiably worried about.

Now if the concept is an honor system - if it was that easy (and trustworthy), the real military would have done it years ago.  Self-reported data is always suspect.  If you really want to demand physical fitness, you need to evaluate it like any other mission skill.  Hands on with a trained evaluator.

Quote from: BillB on February 14, 2007, 08:06:02 PM
Sure the law enforcement in camouflage were hard to see, because they were not properly equipped search team apperently. CAP on the other hand requires the dayglo vests for all activities in the field. Why is it that people that say CAP should get away from the USAF Cammie uniform always forget that CAP requires the vests? Oh yeah, I remember now, it shoots down their arguement.

Have you ever seen what an orange vest looks like when worn under green load bearing equipment and a brown camelbak?   :)

Quote from: Dragoon on February 16, 2007, 06:40:57 PM
"Administration" isn't just paperwork- we're describing "administering the program."  This includes scheduling and executing the test, keeping track of medical waivers, making sure everyone takes it within the time constraints, making sure evalutors are properly trained, setting up make-up tests,  etc.

You talking about ES or PT for seniors in general. Far ES goes, there's no choice in that, and it's no hassle. dopt standards, admin give test, record results just like any other item in the task guide. Now, the general PT for seniors program being discussed, there are NO TESTS!!! It's a self logged health & wellness program that encourages people to stay in good enough shape to do standard office work.

QuoteUsing this broader definition, the PFT is most certainly not the least troublesome item in the Cadet Program - it takes a lot of valuable meeting time to give the test.  Plus it may involve transporting cadets to an appropriate place to do the run, giving them a place to change clothes, etc.

The cadet PFT has at no point been discussed as a possiblity to put adults thru.

Even so, you must do it under one hour, it can & should be done in under half that, and you have to do it once a month. I haven't had any problems. I schedule it two Sat's a month around outside activities. We do ES training before/after to get them to show up for it.

QuoteNow if the concept is an honor system - if it was that easy (and trustworthy), the real military would have done it years ago.  Self-reported data is always suspect.  If you really want to demand physical fitness, you need to evaluate it like any other mission skill.  Hands on with a trained evaluator.

Yes you're right, but remember this is not the ES testing, it is just the general fitness program for all adults, and meant merely to tell them they need to be a degree of fit to serve in any capacity w/ CAP. If they flat out lie, which is pointless cause you don't even have to work out to meet the standards, then it's no different than we have now. However, they'll know they are lying & they'll have this program here telling them this is what's required of them to serve in CAP.

Quote from: DNall on February 16, 2007, 07:42:18 PM
Yes you're right, but remember this is not the ES testing, it is just the general fitness program for all adults, and meant merely to tell them they need to be a degree of fit to serve in any capacity w/ CAP. If they flat out lie, which is pointless cause you don't even have to work out to meet the standards, then it's no different than we have now. However, they'll know they are lying & they'll have this program here telling them this is what's required of them to serve in CAP.

How exactly will you know they're lying if you don't test them?

And if you don't test them, why bother?

And if the standard is so easy that anyone can pass, why bother having a standard at all?

Who exactly are you trying to weed out, and how will a self reported fitness rating weed out those folks?

I dont see a big problem with test administration.  I also don't want to get into medical waivers, since that would put more expense on the member.  I also don't want officers kicked out that can't pass the test.

But, I do want the commanders to know who may be at increased risk of illness or injury, and who should not be exposed to physical stress.

That's why I kicked out for discussion some very minimal standards based on walking, lifting, and bending/reaching that an officer would be likely to encounter.  The result of not taking or failing the test would merely be NOT going out of the unit HQ on missions, ES or other types.

Our guys work air shows as aircraft marshallers.  If a guy can't walk a half mile, how can he walk a flight line? 

Even duty as light as being a museum tour guide involves walking, and if you walk the whole museum area to open the doors and turn on the lights, and then are too winded to speak to a group of 40 people and explain the exhibits, you have failed in the mission.  And I really hope you don't have to rush back to the office and get the AED because a guest has collapsed, or the paramedics may have two to transport.

Our physical requirements are low, but they are not non-existent.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 16, 2007, 07:44:52 PM
How exactly will you know they're lying if you don't test them?

And if you don't test them, why bother?

And if the standard is so easy that anyone can pass, why bother having a standard at all?

Who exactly are you trying to weed out, and how will a self reported fitness rating weed out those folks?

I would have thought by now it would be obvious, but this has nothing to do with weeding anyone out!!!!

You know when a fat guy goes to the doctor, the doc says you need to alter your behavior to be more active & live healthier or you're going to regret it later? Well the doctor doesn't then schedule a once a month PFT to check your progress.

The health & fitness standard to be effective as a CAP officer w/o hampering activities or decreasing efficiency, and baring a medical issue that can reasonably be worked around, are just slightly higher than expectations of a professional in the outside world. That's all people are being asked to meet. I've taken a pace counter with me to the grocery before, and they twice a week si about the over-50 standard.

The practical point of this , besides encouraging good health for our members, is two fold. One, to tell people that being healthy enough to do the job is part of the job; and two, to push this thru at the same time we're asking for update of the ht/wt standards to include BMI (body fat) and a touch more slack in the standard so we can give more people the option of the AF-style uniform.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 16, 2007, 08:07:48 PM
I do want the commanders to know who may be at increased risk of illness or injury, and who should not be exposed to physical stress.

Our physical requirements are low, but they are not non-existent.

That's true. My idea is that if your PT isn't current, then you can't participate in any weekend or outside Sq activities. And if you do have a medical reason not to do the PT program (just like we make cadets get) then the staff should be aware of that so they know if they can accomodate you reasonablly w/o detracting from the activity.

Quote from: DNall on February 16, 2007, 08:18:43 PMI would have thought by now it would be obvious, but this has nothing to do with weeding anyone out!!!!

Yes you are.  You said:

Quote from: DNall on February 16, 2007, 08:18:43 PM
My idea is that if your PT isn't current, then you can't participate in any weekend or outside Sq activities. And if you do have a medical reason not to do the PT program (just like we make cadets get) then the staff should be aware of that so they know if they can accomodate you reasonablly w/o detracting from the activity.

So you are trying to "week out" folks from participating who don't do the PT.



The only way to make this work is to get commanders involved in assessing fitness.  If it's self reporting, and a guy wants to participate, he's going to "self report" that he's done the PT.  Even if he hasn't.  How exactly does this help?

We do self reporting now.  We tell our members when something is physically taxing, and if they don't think they can handle it, they don't participate.  No muss, no fuss.  And if they have medical conditions, they let us know.  It's been working for years.

The guy who goes beyond his limits is still going to do so with any kind of unpoliced self-reporting system.

If you want to rachet things beyond that, you need a commander's program with a test, so you can catch the folks who aren't meeting the standards.  And that has all the admin overhead issues we've discussed.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 20, 2007, 07:03:23 PM
So you are trying to "week out" folks from participating who don't do the PT.

Not trying to weed anyone out of the organizatyion. I got no problem at all restricting previledges if you don't do what's required of you. Nothing in CAP, including membership, is a right. But, I'm not trying to throw fat guys out. I'm not trying to throw anyone out. I'm saying if you are stubborn & don't want to do what you're told for the good of the organization, then you don't get to do fun stuff.

QuoteThe only way to make this work is to get commanders involved in assessing fitness.  If it's self reporting, and a guy wants to participate, he's going to "self report" that he's done the PT.  Even if he hasn't.  How exactly does this help?

We do self reporting now for ES tasks. You go on a mission, come back, log-in, check whichever tasks you want as completed. There's even an integrity statement you have to click past to get to it. You don't think it's dramatically more important to know how to do a task you're certified for than PT, yet self reporting is good enough there.

QuoteWe do self reporting now.  We tell our members when something is physically taxing, and if they don't think they can handle it, they don't participate.  No muss, no fuss.  And if they have medical conditions, they let us know.  It's been working for years.

Do we really? Sometimes sure, but mostly we don't know till it happens. What I don't like is leaving it on them to decide. People always think they can do something far beyond the point they've become a liability to the job. Far as ES, that's settled so no worries, but every single year we say encampment will be strenuous, and every single year people apply that would have to be sent home. The first encampment I went to actually was to fill in for a SM that couldn't keep up. How much training time is lost, how much are we slowed down, ahow disorganizaed do things become, how much less work gets accomplished.... people need to be able to do the jobs CAP does. There is absolutely muss & fuss - internally as grumbling behind your back & externally when the confidence in us that leads to missions is based on our least common denominator.

QuoteThe guy who goes beyond his limits is still going to do so with any kind of unpoliced self-reporting system.

If you want to rachet things beyond that, you need a commander's program with a test, so you can catch the folks who aren't meeting the standards.  And that has all the admin overhead issues we've discussed.

Way off in theoretical-ville, I'm not entirely against a test, but I don't think it's necessary. Rememebr we're talking about fitness to be a staff & activity officer, not ES. If someone lies & can't do the job then no one gets killed, we're just less efficient, which is bad, but you do what you can. Most people will do what's required of them when you tell them they have to. The people that won't don't need to be in CAP & if they leave pissed off over this program then that's good for CAP. BUT, that's not the intent of the program, it's just bonus.

Quote from: DNall on February 20, 2007, 07:40:49 PMNot trying to weed anyone out of the organizatyion. I got no problem at all restricting previledges if you don't do what's required of you. Nothing in CAP, including membership, is a right. But, I'm not trying to throw fat guys out. I'm not trying to throw anyone out. I'm saying if you are stubborn & don't want to do what you're told for the good of the organization, then you don't get to do fun stuff.

I guess the problem is that you have not really shown how this is "good for the organisation".  PT requirements for the rank and file members a) has little or no mission imact. b) creates an additional administrative burden on the squadrons. c) Will result in members quiting.

I am not arguing against PT requirments for GT members.  That makes sense and will become a requirment for NIIMS compliance.  But your admin officer who does nothing with cadets and does nothing with ES?

The idea is to set a single standard that's expected of the average officer (excluding ES & ES-training). That means supporting a few wknd activities a year, moving boxes around, doing officer work, able to sit thru 8hr classes.... stuff like that. When I have to stop a class of 30 people cause one person is falling apart from sitting there two hours, that hurts the class. That happened at a SLS here just last month. I can't tell you the number of cadet activities I've moved staff around on mid-activity or sent people home when they just couldn't do the work. That means people that have prepared for a couple months to do a particular job are moved to something else & the quality of the training drops considerably, or we're stuck with no one that can struggle thru the duty & the person can't get it done so we have to drop requirements on the end cause we couldn't deliver the service the students signed on for. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It is indeed possible ot hide out in the back as an admin officer or whatever & never show up to anything but weeknight meetings & do that one little simple task, but that's not what's expected of a CAP officer over the course of their career.

I know this topic has hit a nerve with many of CAPtalk's members and I'm late to the fray. 

I'm not here to argue either way but want to let all know that we started a voluntary senior member physical fitness program in the Missouri Wing using the "President's Challenge" -- an already established program that's individualized, trackable, and has an already established awards program.

If you're interested in possibly doing this, do check out their website at www.PresidentsChallenge.org, you might like what you see.

In place for about a year now, we have 25 senior members that are participating.

Here's our original announcement:

----------

The Missouri Wing Commander challenges you to "GetMOCAPFit"!
 
Announcing a new voluntary physical fitness program for senior members of
the Missouri Wing. You are invited to join the President's Challenge and
get fit while having fun reaching your goals and competing against other
Missouri Wing senior members for national and Wing awards.
 
The President's Challenge is now in its 50th year and is a series of
programs designed to help improve anyone's activity level, no matter
whether you are a beginner or seasoned athlete. The Active Lifestyle
program is for those just starting out and requires a commitment to be
active only 30 minutes a day at least 5 days a week (60 minutes of
activity for children under 18 ). For those more active, there is the
Presidential Champions program where points are awarded for each activity
you participate in. To learn more about the President's Challenge program
go to their website at www.PresidentsChallenge.org
 
Here's how to register for this free program:
1) Go to www.PresidentsChallenge.org/login/register_individual.aspx
2) Fill out the registration form
3) Use the Missouri Wing Group ID Number (45768 ) and our Group ID/Name
(GetMOCAPfit)
 
After registering, start logging your activities. As you log activities,
you'll be able to track your progress toward winning a President's
Challenge Award or Medal and other Wing awards.
 
It's easy, it's fun, it's free, and it's good for you! You've been
challenged!

----------

Maj. (Dr.) David A. Miller
Assistant Wing Medical Officer
Group II Commander
Missouri Wing

Quote from: DNall on February 20, 2007, 07:40:49 PMWe do self reporting now for ES tasks. You go on a mission, come back, log-in, check whichever tasks you want as completed. There's even an integrity statement you have to click past to get to it. You don't think it's dramatically more important to know how to do a task you're certified for than PT, yet self reporting is good enough there.

Not even close to the truth.

The member inputs what task he has been tested on.  Also he types in the CAP ID of the GUY WHO TESTED HIM (in other words, he was tested.  He didn't test himself)

By entering the CAP ID of the test, we've established an audit trail to help handle dishonest members.

But that ain't all

Then, the request for a qual to the ES officer or squadron commander for validation.

The only possible way the ES officer can validate the request is to review the pen and ink SQTR to ensure there are valide entries, and to spot check the member's compliance.  Discuss who he trained with, perhaps call up and tester or two if he has reservations.

It's not a perfect system, but it's not just a matter of "tell me you know how to work a radio and I'll give you a 101 card."



If we were to use the same system for a PT test

1.  There would be a list of valid PT testers.

2.  The member would have to get tested by one of them., not just go out and test himself.

3.  The member would report the test in the database, along with the date and the tester's CAPID.

4.  The Squadron Commander would then be tasked to validate that the entry was correct and that the member was physically fit for duty.


This is a far cry from simple "self reporting"

No it's exactly self reporting. I don't know how it is in other places, but you don't tend to get all your training locally here. You go all over & to people your boss may never have heard of. You get 20 dif trainer IDs on an SQTR. If your CC or ES officer knows you can do the job in the field, they take you at your word on the hundred other least used tasks. Far far from perfect is what it is. And there's no tests either. You just do something on a mission & they check it off, if you need something else they have you do that for a few minutes & check it off too. I think it's stupid, but NHQ takes self reporting as okay in that case.

So, pencil-whipping is approved ES procedure in Texas?