The PFA is dead. Long live the PFA!

The thinking is right, but the application is flawed. This kind of test needs to be in addition to, not instead of. I hated the BFT/BPFT/BPFA/PFA, but I recognised it for what it is, a basic test of cardio fitness - the basic requirement of any physical activity. It is also a good ready reckoner for commanders.
 
The thinking is right, but the application is flawed. This kind of test needs to be in addition to, not instead of. I hated the BFT/BPFT/BPFA/PFA, but I recognised it for what it is, a basic test of cardio fitness - the basic requirement of any physical activity. It is also a good ready reckoner for commanders.
It was a crap reckoner for commanders. Some people can just about run 1.5 mile and no further but are deemed fit because that was all the test wanted.
 
On second thoughts, @dingerr, it could be worse (don't look a the link if you're eating, particularly baked beans).
The thinking is right, but the application is flawed. This kind of test needs to be in addition to, not instead of. I hated the BFT/BPFT/BPFA/PFA, but I recognised it for what it is, a basic test of cardio fitness - the basic requirement of any physical activity. It is also a good ready reckoner for commanders.
But commanders don't need to know how fit their tps are! Do they?

The plan (and no, I only wish I were kidding) is that after doing the new PFA (or whatever) the results are entered in the computer, along with your BMI, and everyone gets a personalised automated print out telling them what training they should be doing in their own time.

... great ... except it's only updated when you do the PFA, so once a year, so useless after the first month.

As you say, the thinking's right but the application's fatally flawed. If you fight as a team you need to train and work as a team and commanders need to see for themselves how their tps are doing, who can do what, strengths and weaknesses, etc. It's hardly a new concept or rocket science.
 
that took the combined brains of the RAPTC and Chichester University's Department of Human Physiology, plus a few assorted experts, three years to come up with.
What they’ve come up with makes perfect sense, but they haven’t covered the practicalities.

Has anyone even risk assessed it?
 
It was a crap reckoner for commanders. Some people can just about run 1.5 mile and no further but are deemed fit because that was all the test wanted.
It was fine if treated as the most basic of tests. Everything has to start somewhere.

Can you suggest an alternative basic test?
 
It was fine if treated as the most basic of tests. Everything has to start somewhere.

Can you suggest an alternative basic test?
I suggest doing tests that are relevant. When I was on the regt cross country team I regularly beat people over 5 or 6 miles who would beat me in a PFT. Which of us was the fittest?
The females just about had to do a fast waddle to pass their PFT. Which was shown on AFT when by far a higher percentage of females would fail compared to men.
 
Do we have a full list of the tests involved yet? Al I’ve seen are vids and pics of people gurning about doing some form of battle PT.
 
Even worse was when they did the bleep test especially if they were over 35. Barely broke into a jog before their test was over.
 
Even worse was when they did the bleep test especially if they were over 35. Barely broke into a jog before their test was over.
Yet we are all equal (supposedly).
 
Do we have a full list of the tests involved yet? Al I’ve seen are vids and pics of people gurning about doing some form of battle PT.
Yes, it's been posted several times, but a lot of the detail's missing - pretty well all of the standards required by different units which, if set too low as they appear to be, makes the tests meaningless.
The thinking is right, but the application is flawed.
Agreed 100% - these are exactly the sort of tests that need to be done, relevant to what units and soldiers will have to do in the field for their role.

The casualty extraction from a vehicle test, however, seems almost unbelievably badly thought out, highly likely to cause injury, and not relevant to the task it's supposed to test - while I know next to nothing about armour, I'm 100% sure you don't lift a casualty out of their seat, hold them suspended in mid-air for three seconds, then dump them back in their seat again!
On a final point, if this is meant to replace the PFA (or whatever it’s called this week) well done for a massive and unnecessary cost increase which will see a great reduction in these tests being conducted, for the simple fact a PFA could be completed in a 40 minute session with minimal logistics. For this pile of shít you are going to need a troop of Pioneers to set it up; oh yes, that’s right, they were binned in yet another calamitous decision.
Remember it's supposed to be an annual test, which in itself is totally wrong - an annual test is something you build up to as a standard to be achieved, not a minimum standard to be maintained throughout the year which is what this should be.
 
Yet we are all equal (supposedly).
... and that's where the whole plan collapses.

Not only is it wrong that this has become a standard to be trained towards progressively and reached only once a year when it should be the minimum standard maintained throughout the year, but it's set to be achievable by those who don't need to do it.

To be 'age and gender neutral' it's been set so that it can be done by the lowest common denominator - a fit 50 year old woman. Why? Not just pointless but downright stupid.

Gender should, quite rightly, be irrelevant. If a woman can do the job, whether it's as a nurse, a clerk, a cook, driver, dog handler, loggie, signaller, gunner, engineer, infanteer, para or marine, they should be allowed and encouraged to. If they can't then they shouldn't, just as men who can't do the job (and there are plenty of those too) shouldn't be allowed to. There should be no allowances, no consideration, and no sympathy. End of story.

Age is an entirely different matter. 50 year olds don't have to do the same job as 20 or 30 year olds, and neither do the vast majority of 40 year olds - a very few do and can, but they should be the exception not the rule and certainly not the ones the standard is set for. WOs and Majors / Lt Cols in field command appointments should, by their position, be exceptional and so their physical fitness should be equally exceptional for their age, able to keep up with those under their command. Beyond that it's totally unnecessary.

40 or 50 year old REMFs, even in a field combat unit, don't need to be up to the same physical standard as a 20 or 30 year old. They need experience and mental ability, not physical agility. A QM / RQMS / CQMS is going to be older and doesn't need to be as physically fit to do their job as a soldier in a rifle coy and it's stupid to pretend they do - it's simply an excuse to lower the standard for the rifle coy.

It's clearly totally wrong to group gender and age together to come up with a standard that's both gender and age neutral. One's necessary, one isn't.

By making age a similar factor to gender, though, there's an ideal, PC ready, excuse for standards to be lowered.
 
Yes, it's been posted several times, but a lot of the detail's missing - pretty well all of the standards required by different units which, if set too low as they appear to be, makes the tests meaningless.
That’s strange in itself, the current test requirements are readily available and differs between age and gender, this is what I would like to see for the proposed tests, not posting them after making a media statement shows me something is amiss.

If this is replacing the PFA why are there different tests for different arms? Is it to replace the CFT as well? It’s all quite confusion.
 
That’s strange in itself, the current test requirements are readily available and differs between age and gender, this is what I would like to see for the proposed tests, not posting them after making a media statement shows me something is amiss.

If this is replacing the PFA why are there different tests for different arms? Is it to replace the CFT as well? It’s all quite confusion.
I've posted on another thread about the tests the females are currently trialing. I wager that once they have looked at those results they will decide what the thresholds should be.
 
I've posted on another thread about the tests the females are currently trialing. I wager that once they have looked at those results they will decide what the thresholds should be.
I'm sure you're right (It was in the Women in USMC thread, post #5879.)
That’s strange in itself, the current test requirements are readily available and differs between age and gender, this is what I would like to see for the proposed tests, not posting them after making a media statement shows me something is amiss.

If this is replacing the PFA why are there different tests for different arms? Is it to replace the CFT as well? It’s all quite confusion.
I don't think there's that much confusion (although I think there's plenty amiss!):

The new test, which will take about three hours, replaces the PFA and AFT / CFT.

There are some gym-based 'pre-tests' - see the link to @stacker1's post.

The tests are set and being trialled, but not the specific weights and speeds for different arms.

@stacker1's guess (and mine) is that after the trials the standard will be set and published - and, guess what, that stinks.

On a different note, if I've understood you correctly, we're in agreement that there should be different standards for age (see my post #432 above), but why do you think there should be different standards for gender (again, unless I've misunderstood you)?
 
The tests need to be the same regardless of arm.

The lightweight racing snakes must be shitting it.
 
The tests need to be the same regardless of arm.
Only if all arms do the same job, which clearly they don't.

If different jobs need different aerobic and anerobic strengths, then they need different PES.
The lightweight racing snakes must be shitting it.
Have you actually looked at the tests and the vids?

If so, which do you think a "lightweight racing snake " would find difficult?
  • Running 2 kms in PT kit?
  • A 30 metre sprint in PT kit?
  • Lifting the same power bags they did to pass recruit selection?
  • Carrying the same jerry cans of water?
  • Throwing a 4 kg medicine ball?
  • Dead lifting 70 kgs?
  • Lifting and running 30m shuttles with a 20 kg power bag, 30 times?
  • A 4 km 'CFT' done in 50 mins (3 mph instead of the current 4 mph, for less than half the current distance) followed after 5 minutes by a 'best effort' 2 km run carrying 25 kg including weapon? Edit: pass time for the 2 km run is reportedly a not particularly demanding 15 minutes.
  • Basic fire and movement crawls and sprints?
  • Dragging a 55 kg drag bag (possible max 111 kg) 20 metres?
I'm still interested to know why you think men and women doing the same job should have different standards, which is what you seemed to be saying in your previous post?
 
Last edited:
Only if all arms do the same job, which clearly they don't.

If different jobs need different aerobic and anerobic strengths, then they need different PES. Have you actually looked at the tests and the vids?

If so, which do you think a "lightweight racing snake " would find difficult?
  • Running 2 kms in PT kit?
  • A 30 metre sprint in PT kit?
  • Lifting the same power bags they did to pass recruit selection?
  • Carrying the same jerry cans of water?
  • Throwing a 4 kg medicine ball?
  • Dead lifting 70 kgs?
  • Lifting and running 30m shuttles with a 20 kg power bag, 30 times?
  • A 4 km 'CFT' done in 50 mins (3 mph instead of the current 4 mph, for less than half the current distance) followed after 5 minutes by a 'best effort' 2 km run carrying 25 kg including weapon? Edit: pass time for the 2 km run is reportedly a not particularly demanding 15 minutes.
  • Basic fire and movement crawls and sprints?
  • Dragging a 55 kg drag bag (possible max 111 kg) 20 metres?
I'm still interested to know why you think men and women doing the same job should have different standards, which is what you seemed to be saying in your previous post?
First time I’ve seen a list of the tests involved, the comment about racing snakes was tongue in cheek.

I can’t remember saying there should be different standards for men and women.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Praetorian Army Reserve 45
C Army Reserve 7
AlienFTM The NAAFI Bar 63

Similar threads

Top