CPAT testing is a JOKE

New members, introduce yourself to the rest of the online Canadian fire & rescue community.

Which test is best for physical

CPAT
7
47%
IMFRAC
1
7%
York University
7
47%
Brock University
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
Smokin_TDI
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby Smokin_TDI » Sat May 14, 2011 12:19 pm

"BluntHonest" wrote:So, am I the only who notices that the physical testing is a complete shamble. It is so apparent here in Ottawa by the recruits who have been hired over the last few years. I came through under the old IMFRAC testing which was tough and meant to rate you based on how in shape you are and how good you were at dealing with stress. I am not saying that all recruits are ... er... crappy, but there sure is a lot of them that are not in shape. Hell, they even make them do Combat Challenge style training ( which they have to pass by week 11 of drill school ). The CPAT is not even a factor as they make it kinda like getting your eye test after you have been interviewed. It is the kind of thing you want to test volunteer on not full time firefighters. I mean it is one thing to drop a physical standard to allow minorities on to the floor but to what level should we set the bar ?



What about the old guys that have trouble cramming their gut into their gear or making it up a flight of stairs at a call? It's ok because they were in wicked shape and aced some IMFRAC test when they got hired?

ndvfd_ff33
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Postby ndvfd_ff33 » Sun May 15, 2011 12:00 pm

"BluntHonest" wrote:So, am I the only who notices that the physical testing is a complete shamble. It is so apparent here in Ottawa by the recruits who have been hired over the last few years. I came through under the old IMFRAC testing which was tough and meant to rate you based on how in shape you are and how good you were at dealing with stress. I am not saying that all recruits are ... er... crappy, but there sure is a lot of them that are not in shape. Hell, they even make them do Combat Challenge style training ( which they have to pass by week 11 of drill school ). The CPAT is not even a factor as they make it kinda like getting your eye test after you have been interviewed. It is the kind of thing you want to test volunteer on not full time firefighters. I mean it is one thing to drop a physical standard to allow minorities on to the floor but to what level should we set the bar ?


You remind me of some of the old guys we have kickin around in the military. They feel the need to remind us how things were "back in the day" and that a lot of us wouldn't have made it. I, along with most others, could give a rodents rectum about how things were.

That was then. This is now and things change. Get over it.

Dreamcatcher
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby Dreamcatcher » Mon May 16, 2011 6:59 pm

Any other opinions on the way the various physical testing is run?

User avatar
SNOWDOG
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby SNOWDOG » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:08 pm

the only one i have done is Edmonton's and it sounds like it's a unique one, CPAT looks easy.

http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/emergency_services/firefighter-recruitment-physical-fitness-test.aspx

you end up with an overall score out of 100, the 1 hr break is timed and it seems like about 15min.

report1033
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby report1033 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:50 pm

I don't cruise through these forums much anymore.......and post even less. In fact I don't even know how I came across this but here I go beating the dead horse.

I don't think the CPAT is even close to a proper assessment of the physical ability needed to do this job. It is a very watered down version of tasks preformed on a fireground while not being properly weighted down or wearing the proper gear. If this test was used as a prescreen to ensure adequate fitness to preform an actual job related physical that would be different; but unfortunately many departments use this as their standard.

I believe it is unfair to the applicants to evaluate on a pass/fail basis as a candidate who puts in the effort and gets an overall better score should be rewarded. Sure everyone has strong/weak areas but over a job related test those should even out. When hiring candidates we should want the "best" and that includes being graded in fitness. I think Prince Albert and Edmonton have good physicals and Winnipeg's seems to be in the right direction as well.

I'm no athlete or fitness nut; but I've humped hose around tight cluttered floorplans, thrown enough ladders and pulled enough ceiling to know that the CPAT is not an accurate evaluation of the fitness required to be effective on the fireground.

Just my .002 cents.

User avatar
hmckay91
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby hmckay91 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:34 pm

Quite the Necro...

http://www.firehall.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31262&highlight=CPAT

And my comment regarding...

"hmckay91" wrote:OP

The Canditate Physical Ability Test (CPAT) was developed by the Fire Service Joint Labor Management Wellness-Fitness Task Force, which was comprised of representatives of the International Association of Fire Fighters(IAFF), the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), and local unions and their municipalities (10 pairs).

The test was designed as "a fair and valid evaluation tool to assist in the selection of fire fighters, and to ensure that all fire fighter candidates possess the physical ability to complete critical tasks effectively and safely."

It is true that for anyone with average fitness, coordination, dexterity, and strength, the test is easily accomplished well within the benchmark time (not surprisingly reasonably athletic people do fine at this). It is not in itself, a fitness assessment tool or a fitness test.

We get it, you don't like the CPAT and your welcome to your opinion. If you want to debate initial and ongoing fitness in firefighters give us some data/studies to work with to support your concerns, otherwise most are deferring to the IAFF/IAFC Subject Matter Experts...



Although not very tactfully stated it does seem to accurately reflect the situation. (e.g. Just binned an application based on a 2 minute conversation where the canditate expressed they "were likely overqualified..."
There's never time to do it right but always time to do it over.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests