I’m expanding on why the occupational-specific fitness test is just a test and what is the actual fitness needed to perform on a mission being constrained by the tests must be doable and more importantly being connected to minimum adequate physical fitness needed rather than maximum performance fitness.
For example one can max out the current PAST tests or the proposed tests but lack the standing height or arm reach, or stride (leg length) to do the tasks encountered in the operational environment. Further doing tasks in the operational environment are often much more demanding psychologically in that tasks are performed under much more duress and uncomfortableness than a fitness test can replicate. Doing a task requires much more cognitive ability than doing a fitness test.
I also desire to expand on the justification of the “current” idea of making someone non-deployable if they fail the test, and kicking them out of the AFSC for multiple failures. First this is not a new idea, but rather official policy that has been in-place for the Pararescue career field since 1947 and the Combat Control career field since 1988. Justification putting policy in-place connected to regardless of rank and duty position all PJs will be mission-ready and mission-available. Secondary justification was after injury or lengthy illness preventing being mission-ready and mission available there must be a fitness standard to determine fitness to be put into requalification training to be back in mission-ready and mission available status.
Performance of tasks competently and effectively in the operational environment and often the training environment thus require much more motivation than needed to pass a fitness test. There is a mission need for human performance in doing tasks reliability and dependability.
For example consider the open water far out to sea night jump where there are no safety boats or ground party relaying sea state and surface winds. This is where the jumpmaster is determining whether the jump is feasible from the aircraft over the mission objective. The jumpmaster or team leader than needs to convince the aircraft commander the jump is reasonable to do and more importantly the other jumpers have to have much confidence in the jumpmaster being competent and correct in his assessment of winds and sea state. This is duress because judgement of many being correct and some of the convincing of the aircraft commander is dependent on the aircraft commander having confidence the jumpers have the fitness and training to deal with the winds and sea state.
This is even true for doing a low-and-slow from a helicopter to a life boat. I just visited with the aircraft commander (Captain then, retired Colonel now) who allowed me to do a low-and-slow from his helicopter. Most of his comments was of how scared he was of giving the ok to do the low-and-slow and how scared he was that I and the other PJ were going to drown.
For example one can max out the current PAST tests or the proposed tests but lack the standing height or arm reach, or stride (leg length) to do the tasks encountered in the operational environment. Further doing tasks in the operational environment are often much more demanding psychologically in that tasks are performed under much more duress and uncomfortableness than a fitness test can replicate. Doing a task requires much more cognitive ability than doing a fitness test.
I also desire to expand on the justification of the “current” idea of making someone non-deployable if they fail the test, and kicking them out of the AFSC for multiple failures. First this is not a new idea, but rather official policy that has been in-place for the Pararescue career field since 1947 and the Combat Control career field since 1988. Justification putting policy in-place connected to regardless of rank and duty position all PJs will be mission-ready and mission-available. Secondary justification was after injury or lengthy illness preventing being mission-ready and mission available there must be a fitness standard to determine fitness to be put into requalification training to be back in mission-ready and mission available status.
Performance of tasks competently and effectively in the operational environment and often the training environment thus require much more motivation than needed to pass a fitness test. There is a mission need for human performance in doing tasks reliability and dependability.
For example consider the open water far out to sea night jump where there are no safety boats or ground party relaying sea state and surface winds. This is where the jumpmaster is determining whether the jump is feasible from the aircraft over the mission objective. The jumpmaster or team leader than needs to convince the aircraft commander the jump is reasonable to do and more importantly the other jumpers have to have much confidence in the jumpmaster being competent and correct in his assessment of winds and sea state. This is duress because judgement of many being correct and some of the convincing of the aircraft commander is dependent on the aircraft commander having confidence the jumpers have the fitness and training to deal with the winds and sea state.
This is even true for doing a low-and-slow from a helicopter to a life boat. I just visited with the aircraft commander (Captain then, retired Colonel now) who allowed me to do a low-and-slow from his helicopter. Most of his comments was of how scared he was of giving the ok to do the low-and-slow and how scared he was that I and the other PJ were going to drown.
