The PFA is dead. Long live the PFA!

The thing is @JOHNG, in all the vitriol that you have thrown at me, you haven’t addressed my original point which was about management and measurement of change.

THOR and the new tests are change programs. Fundamental changes in both the way that the Army conducts fitness training and the way it assesses the success of that training.

You cannot measure the affect of a change program with a binary pass / fail indicator. At best you end up overshooting and oscillating either side of the indicator. At worst undershoot and end up lowering the pass level. And you have no means of knowing whether the program is actually successful because you don’t know there the test level is right (and vice versa).

So the way you measure change is to isolate relevant parameters that you can measure objectively and preferably baseline against external best practice. Use standard indicators that are easy to measure and easily comparable with aligned programs.

You can argue it anyway you want, but aerobic fitness is a key parameter of fitness. The definitive measure of aerobic fitness is VO2Max and it is easy to measure using cheap equipment

(the stuff you posted about 100% accurate tests is bollocks; there is no statistically significant difference between VO2Max estimated using a chest strap and measured in a lab).

The problem with “relevant tests” is that they don’t isolate definitive parameters. To illustrate why, reflect that you can’t measure VO2Max weightlifting. So if you come up with a relevant test that involves moving a weight multiple times, you have no idea what you are actually measuring. Which is why the England cricket team isolate fitness parameter and measure them properly (and I made it quite clear that they measure VO2Max as one single parameter).

It’s all gone quiet on the science of the wall. You’ve ignored my comment on your 100% measurement accuracy post, you reversed your position when I pointed out that the papers you posted contradicted your argument. And you appear to have no knowledge of change managent it measurement. So carry on....
I have never 'reversed' any position in this thread, as I have explained numerous times as I have the rest of your nonsense.

The tests detailed so far are TESTS with a pass / fail result. They replace TESTS.

They're not designed or intended to measure or grade the success of THOR or any other programme - just to test if a soldier is up to the minimum set standard. Nothing more. It couldn't be simpler.

What's being discussed here by everyone else is i) if the tests are relevant and ii) if the standard is correct.

If you can't add anything to that discussion and want to discuss something entirely different instead, up to you; I'm no longer prepared to.
 
Has the run time of 11 min for 2km actually be confrimed. On the notice detailing PFA changes there's no mention of the actual run time required.
To repeat, and to attempt to get back on topic, AFAIK this is all that's available so far from official and unofficial sources and anything else is pure speculation:
The Army Role Fitness Tests
  1. Single powerbag lift (20kg up to 60kg to a 1.49m platform)
  2. Water can carry (2 x 22kg, 30m shuttles)
  3. Repeated lift & carry (20 x 20kg sandbag, 30m)
  4. Load carriage: 4km TAB (50 min, 4.8km per hour, heavy load of 40kg), then a 2 or 4 km TAB (shorter time, faster pace and a lighter load of 25kg – TBC)
  5. Casualty drag (111kg, 30m)
  6. Tactical movement in urban terrain (zig-zag sprints, window entry, 10m crawl, 15m sprint, wall clearance – TBC)
  7. Fire & movement – Army & RAF (7.5m bounds over 150m – 5 x 30 shuttles, 15m crawl and 15 sprint.
Role Specific Tests
  1. Casualty extraction from a vehicle – RAC only (40 – 110kg pull using a rope)
  2. Swimming (Royal Marines only)
  3. Rope climbs (Royal Marines only
If anyone has any other details maybe now would be a good time to give a source and/or link.
 
This is surely the way forward, the perfect melding of scientific method and sheer will to win:

 
The tests detailed so far are TESTS with a pass / fail result. They replace TESTS.
No they don't; they replace an assessment and a test. Its in the thread title!

They're not designed or intended to measure or grade the success of THOR or any other programme - just to test if a soldier is up to the minimum set standard. Nothing more. It couldn't be simpler.
That's about the most stupid comment you have made here. The minimum standard is the end state, Thor is the means to getting there. The two are inextricably linked; you can't set an arbitrary standard and then implement a training regime that isn't designed to deliver that standard.

It doesn't matter what you are measuring, a binary indicator is only suitable if the success you are measuring is binary. Fitness is not binary; we are all different, all at different levels of fitness. The inevitable result of setting binary standards for non-binary parameters is that the bar gets set low so that the pass rate is high. Which is what is happening.

We all agree that the new standards are too low, but what is the right binary standard? None of us will agree what the standards should be; its entirely subjective. Which is not the case with objective tests like VO2Max where you can set a standard baselined externally. Once again, I draw your attention to the FBI program, which is widely lauded for delivering and objective, measurable and verifiable fitness that applies for men and women of differing ages.

Bottom line, this is about accountability; with the new tests, commanders can go home for tea and medals knowing that their unit has a very high (potentially 100%) fitness pass rate against the defined standard. Meanwhile, average fitness could easily have fallen and their finest no fitter, fittest soldiers could be no than I am at 55. Not clever.

Binary measures for non-binary parameters don't work......so my point is entirely relevant to this thread and I'm fucked if you are going to bully me over what I can and can't post.
 
No they don't; they replace an assessment and a test. Its in the thread title!
So a thread title on Arrse is now Army policy? You utter moron.

AFAIK the only two sources quoted here are the Defence Gateway and the leaked copy of it given above. Neither supports what you say, so if so your claim is, as usual, a complete fabrication and absolute nonsense. If you or anyone else has other sources then give them - put up or shut up time.
you can't set an arbitrary standard and then implement a training regime that isn't designed to deliver that standard.
Nobody has, you half-wit.

There's no point going round in circles with this and the rest of your rubbish - the danger here, and the only reason I'm continuing to respond, is that someone here may be stupid enough to believe that what you're now posting is either Army policy or has happened, when neither is the case and as usual you're simply making it up.

Edit: nor, FWIW, was THOR designed or intended to change fitness standards. It was introduced to reduce injuries and wastage while maintaining the same end results, which it's done admirably. I've given a definitive link earlier.
 
Last edited:
So a thread title on Arrse is now Army policy? You utter moron.

AFAIK the only two sources quoted here are the Defence Gateway and the leaked copy of it given above. If so your claim is, as usual, a complete fabrication and absolute nonsense. If you or anyone else has other sources then give them - put up or shut up.

There's no point going round in circles with the rest of your rubbish.
You appear to be quite incapable of holding a reasoned discussion about anything without resorting to passive aggressive bullying language and ad hominem remarks. Frankly John it’s rather sad and pathetic.

I’ve argued a consistent line on here backed by examples, papers, reflections etc; I’ve not gone around in circles. You’ve just shouted, contradicted yourself and ignored when you have been proven wrong.

Generally the debate on Arrse is enjoyable; whenever you get involved it descends into venality. Why?
 
You appear to be quite incapable of holding a reasoned discussion about anything without resorting to passive aggressive bullying language and ad hominem remarks. Frankly John it’s rather sad and pathetic.

I’ve argued a consistent line on here backed by examples, papers, reflections etc; I’ve not gone around in circles. You’ve just shouted, contradicted yourself and ignored when you have been proven wrong.

Generally the debate on Arrse is enjoyable; whenever you get involved it descends into venality. Why?
Rather stupidly I react to and try to debate with morons, while most others (including everyone still posting here) ignore them; I'll be happy in this instance to do the same.
 
Rather stupidly I react to and try to debate with morons, while most others (including everyone still posting here) ignore them; I'll be happy in this instance to do the same.
Actually John I think it’s me who has been stupidly reacting to you. Looking back through this thread, you’ve made plenty of posts agreeing with or criticising others, but hardly anyone has engaged back. Only me! Reality, no-one gives a **** about what you and I post!

As I said before, I make no apologies for my views about measurement of performance and accountability; they are based on serious study and professional learning and experience.

Someone asked you earlier how you would measure fitness; your answer was along the lines that you think the new tests are reasonably close to being right. I don’t. I’ve explained my reasons; you haven’t persuaded me otherwise. Let’s leave it there without further abuse.
 
Someone asked you earlier how you would measure fitness; your answer was along the lines that you think the new tests are reasonably close to being right.
To put the record straight, I said nothing of the sort nor was that the question asked (previous page, post #290). As usual, pure fantasy.
 
To put the record straight, I said nothing of the sort nor was that the question asked (previous page, post #290). As usual, pure fantasy.
So you didn’t write post #292 in which you specifically say that you think the type of test is about right?

I don’t agree for the reasons I have explained. A shame that you can’t objectively discuss the issue without resorting to abuse.
 
Last edited:
So you didn’t write post #292 in which you specifically say that you think the type of test is about right?

I don’t agree for the reasons I have explained. A shame that you can’t objectively discuss the issue without resorting to abuse.
The question, unedited:
What do you think the tests and standards should be? If it was your train set, how would you test people in today's military?
Purely about " ... tests and standards ... in today's military" - very different, as you are constantly pointing out, ad nauseam, to "measuring fitness" which was what you posted.

My answer (post #292), again unedited:
I actually think the type of tests have been reasonably well thought out, at least for inf / lt cav. I can't, though, see the relevance of most for cav, particularly CR2, any more than I can see why the lone special to arm test for cav is to be applied to all cav including lt cav, where it's totally irrelevant, but not to armd inf where it's evidently as relevant as it is for a CR2 crew.

That seems to indicate that they haven't been thought through at all and nobody's looking at the big picture.

Where the whole exercise really falls down, though, is where the bar's been set which is just absurdly low - gender and age neutral doesn't mean a DCC / inf standard which has to be achievable by a fifty year old woman, which is where the bar seems to have been set.
Totally different to your claim that I "think the new tests are reasonably close to being right" as a means to "measure fitness" .

That was in front of you, on the previous page. You're either stupid beyond belief, don't understand English, or a congenital liar. On past performance I'd go for the latter, but it doesn't make much difference - either way, you're posting nonsense and now you've confirmed it.
 
You appear to be quite incapable of holding a reasoned discussion about anything without resorting to passive aggressive bullying language and ad hominem remarks. Frankly John it’s rather sad and pathetic.

I’ve argued a consistent line on here backed by examples, papers, reflections etc; I’ve not gone around in circles. You’ve just shouted, contradicted yourself and ignored when you have been proven wrong.

Generally the debate on Arrse is enjoyable; whenever you get involved it descends into venality. Why?
Are you new here?
 
Actually John I think it’s me who has been stupidly reacting to you. Looking back through this thread, you’ve made plenty of posts agreeing with or criticising others, but hardly anyone has engaged back. Only me! Reality, no-one gives a **** about what you and I post!
Yep, he's on ignore for an awful lot of people.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
BFPO The Training Wing 47
W AGC, RAPTC and SASC 9
Davros_the_Dalek The Intelligence Cell 2

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top