Adam Scott, MS, CSCS

We first heard about the new Battlefield Airmen Physical Fitness Test (BAPFT) back in October when an Air Force Special Operations team leader contacted us about developing training plan for his unit.

The push for a new test seems to be the result of four converging factors. First, the increased need for Special Operations soldiers. Second, the increased attrition rate of individuals during training. Third, the increase in operator injury rates due to their high OPTEMPO. And finally, acknowledging the fact that, while sufficient for health monitoring, traditional PT tests have little relationship to operational performance.

The idea has been kicking-around in the military for a number of years. The Air Force has been trying to institute a two-tiered Physical Fitness test since the early 2000s (1). The essential idea is to have a traditional physical fitness test which assesses basic health factors (tier 1 test) and a second test which assesses operational physical factors (tier 2 test) (1).

This notion isn’t restricted to the Air Force. The US Marine Corps added their Combat Fitness Test (CFT) back in 2008 (3); the US Army is preparing to institute a test for combat soldiers called the Occupational Physical Assessment Test (OPAT) (2); and the Human Performance Lab at the U.S. Naval Academy has been looking into their own two-tiered system for a number of years (4).

With the military services and civilian tactical communities placing increased emphasis on assessing “operational fitness”, more tests like the US Air Force’s BAPFT are bound to surface. And while we think that these types of tests are a step in the right direction we also want to take a hard look at the way they are designed and administered.

For the proposed USAF BAPFT we developed a two-part approached to our analysis. Our first step is to examine the selected test battery to see how it aligns with the Air Force’s own, self-identified operational demands. Next we want to explore the practicality of the test and its components to see how reasonable the test is to administer.

We decided not to address the actual standards. From what we understand they are still under development. Plus, we were not able to obtain access to the information on which the standards were based.

EARLY SNAPSHOT:

The USAF BAPFT actually breaks-down into four phases, each designed to fit a certain stage in an the operator’s carrier: Recruitment, Accession, Training and Operator. The BAPFT is also divided between the four primary BFA Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC): Combat Control (CCT-1C2XXX), Special Operations Weather (SOWT-1W0X2), Pararescue (PJ-1T2XX) and Tactical Air Control Party (TACP-1C4XX). The CCT, SOWT and PJ assessments are the same throughout each of the phases (with individual standards for each AFSC). The only major difference in the TACP assessments are the lack of a swim/fin component.

The USAF BAPFT also contains a list of what they call “Training Toolbox Tests.” While these tests are not official parts of the BAPFT the instruction recommends:

…periodic application of the “toolbox” PF test…these tests are very good supplements for use by instructors, exercise instructors, strength and conditioning coaches, BA trainers and BA operators in physical fitness programs.

TABLE 1 (below) shows each of the proposed tests events along with the toolbox items. They are broken-down by the phase in which they will be employed by BFAPT. The two columns at the right of the table contain our categorization of each event based on the body segment they assess and the type of physical attribute they address: Muscle Endurance, Strength, Aerobic Capacity (Short, Medium and Long), Anaerobic Capacity (Short, Medium and Long), Agility, Speed and Explosive Power.

TABLE 1: USAF Battlefield Airmen Physical Fitness Tests and Physical Category



Next, we were able to find a 2014/15 Air Force report (5) which identified between 40 to 50 operational demands for each of the Battlefield AFSC. Using this report we were able to develop a quantified break-down of an operator’s physical requirements based on the same seven physical categories we used to classify the test events: Muscle Endurance, Strength, Aerobic (Short, Medium and Long), Anaerobic (Short, Medium and Long), Agility, Speed and Explosive Power.

We will cover the method in the full report, but in FIGURE 1 (below) you will see an example of how the breakdown allowed us to establish a quantified view of each AFSC’s operational requirement. FIGURE 1 is an “average” of the common operational demands for CCT, SOWT, PJ and TACP. For example, 29% of the BFA’s operational demands require muscular endurance, 31% require strength…and so on.

FIGURE 1: Average Physical Requirements for the Four Battlefield Airmen AFSC

(CCT, SOWT, PJ and TACP)



Comparing the operational requirements (above) to the test batteries (below) allows us to determine whether or not the proposed tests align with the real-world requirements. FIGURE 2 (below) contains the categorized break-down of each phase of the BFAPT.

FIGURE 2: Physical Requirements for the Four BFAPTs (CCT, SOWT, PJ and TACP)



We will dig deep into these comparisons during the full report, but even a quick glance here reveals a few important differences between tests and operational requirements:

The Recruitment test seems to greatly over-value anaerobic capacity, agility and explosive power based on the true operational demands. The test also under-values the importance of the aerobic capacity.

The Accession test seems relatively well aligned with operational demands like muscle enhance and strength and speed, but also under-values the importance of aerobic capacity; giving too much attention to anaerobic abilities, agility and explosive power.

The Training and Operator tests again over-weight the importance of anaerobic fitness while under-cutting strength and aerobic capacity. However, the test does seem well aligned with the operational demands for agility and speed.

OTHER AREAS OF EXAMINATION:

In addition to assessments like those above, the full report will include:

Examination of the reliability and validity of each test

Auditing test battery cost

Observations on test battery complications and practicality

Recommendations

COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, INPUT, ADVICE FOR THE REPORT?…PLEASE E-MAIL: adam@mtntactical.com

REFERENCES:

(1) Baumgartner, Neal. AF Tier Two Physical Fitness And Standards Study. 2015. Presentation: 2015 TSAC Annual Training Conference.

(2) US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Development of the Occupational Physical Assessment Test (OPAT) for Combat Soldiers. USARIEM Technical Report T16-2. Natick, MA. OCT 2015.

(3) Department of the Navy, Headquarters United States Marine Corps. US Marine Order (MCO) 6100.13 – Marine Corps Physical Fitness Program. Published 2009.

(4) Peterson, D. Modernizing the Navy’s Physical Readiness Test: Introducing the Navy General Fitness Test and Navy Operational Fitness Test. The Sport Journal. United States Sports Academy. 2015.

(5) Physical Fitness Test and Standards for Battlefield Airmen Study: Executive Summary. Accessed 12 FEB. http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/wisr-studies/USAF%20-%20Physical%20Fitness%20Tests%20and%20Standards%20for%20Battlefield%20Airmen%20Study.pdf