Exercise physiologist to recommend tougher work capacity test for hot shots

Posted on Categories UncategorizedTags

The following article was contributed by Rae Brooks.

****

Hotshots could face a tougher work-capacity test in the future, including carrying a heavier pack over hilly, instead of level, terrain and performing pushups to demonstrate upper-body strength.

Dr. Joe Domitrovich, an exercise physiologist at the U.S. Forest Service’s Missoula Technology & Development Center in Missoula, Mont., will recommend this summer to the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies that the work-capacity test for hotshot crews be upgraded.

“I don’t think I’ve had a hotshot tell me that they don’t agree with a fitness requirement that’s a little more strenuous,” said Domitrovich, himself a former hotshot. “They feel it will better prepare young firefighters for what the physiological demands of the job actually are.”

The new test would require a hotshot to carry a 55-pound pack over mountainous terrain in a time calibrated according to the elevation gain. Domitrovich hasn’t yet finalized the pushup requirement, but expects it will be “in the mid-teens.”

The current arduous pack test requires firefighters to walk a three-mile flat course, carrying a 45-pound pack, in 45 minutes or less. There is no pushup requirement.

Although more than 20 incident command positions currently require the arduous category test, the recommendation for the new test will apply only to hotshots. Hotshots already rank among the fittest people in the country, placing within the top 10 to 15 percent of national fitness norms. Some female hotshots rank in the top 5 percent.

Domitrovich’s recommendation grew out of a study, which began in 2011, designed to analyze the physiological job demands of firefighting. The Forest Service’s risk management group had asked the Missoula researchers to look at the fitness demands of firefighting and perhaps recommend a new work-capacity test since the research to develop the current pack test was two decades old.

Earlier studies had only looked at the energy costs of the entire firefighting shift. With better technology, Domitrovich and his collaborators are able to track the physiological cost of individual tasks, including the morning hike into the fireline, line construction and mop up.

The researchers first contacted hotshot crews across the country to ask about the frequency and difficulty of their various tasks — including packing heavy loads, building line, and chainsawing, often performed in hot, smoky conditions. In 2011, they performed physical fitness laboratory tests at the University of Montana on hotshot crews from the Missoula area to establish baseline fitness levels.

Chest harness
The chest harness that the study subjects wore that held the receiver that collected data from the transmitter they swallowed. USFS photo.

For the past two fire seasons, researchers have been collecting data from firefighters at large fires in many states. Field staff are detailed from hotshot, helitack and rappelling crews and from various ranger districts. Before heading out for their shifts, volunteers swallow tiny single-use capsules the size of a multi-vitamin pill that measure internal body temperature. The body-temperature data is sent wirelessly to a chest harness, which has sensors to record heart rate, respiration rate and skin temperature. Domitrovich calls it “a heart-rate monitor on steroids.” Portable GPS units worn by the firefighters track speed, grade and elevation. “We can get a real good idea of what they’re doing out there,” he said.

Data has now been collected from more than 100 firefighters at fires in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington. This season, the researchers plan to work at fires in the Southwest and also collect data from initial attack crews. Logistics make collecting data from smokejumpers and rappelling crews more challenging.

“We try not to disrupt normal operations for the crew,” said Domitrovich. The volunteers report to the researchers’ trailer about 45 minutes before the crew goes to breakfast. The researchers have had no problem recruiting volunteers. “Most people want to volunteer because they see the benefit of having us out there collecting data,” said Domitrovich. “Not just for themselves, but for their wildland firefighting crew and future firefighters that maybe aren’t even on the job yet.”

Not surprisingly, the morning hike into the fireline, carrying tools and other gear, was the most demanding — and most common — firefighting task. Measured by oxygen demand, the daily hike was almost twice as tough as the arduous pack test. The souped-up heart-rate monitor and its connected technology revealed that, during the daily hike to the work site, firefighters used an average of 42.3 milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute. Aerobic demand while undergoing the arduous pack test has averaged 22.5 ml/kg/min.

The conclusion: the arduous pack test wasn’t actually arduous enough. Carrying more weight and performing the pack test in mountainous terrain would better mimic job demands.

Researchers weighed volunteers’ packs, and found they were carrying 45 or 50 pounds — regardless of body weight, height or gender — before even adding tools, extra fuel or five-gallon water cubies. “Fifty-five pounds is closer to what they’re actually carrying out there,” said Domitrovich.

Because hotshots usually work in nasty terrain, switching the pack test to mountainous terrain would also better duplicate job conditions. As a hotshot, when Domitrovich fought fire on flat terrain, he knew he was in for a fun day — “because it was an easy day,” he said.

The average elevation of proposed mountainous courses will be calculated using GPS devices. A chart will show time standards for various elevation gains. The chart was developed by Domitrovich and his colleagues by having 45 volunteers of different sizes and genders hike with a 55-pound pack in the hills around Missoula at varying speeds, grades and elevations. “As elevation gets steeper, you get more time,” he said.

Besides push-ups, the researchers considered adding sit-ups and planks to the new test. Sit-ups were rejected because they are an imperfect measure of abdominal strength. Planks, which test core strength, were deemed a duplication since carrying a 55-pound pack also requires core strength.

Domitrovich will present his recommendation this summer to the U.S. Forest Service risk management council and to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s risk management committee. If the recommendation is accepted, a date for implementation of the new test would then be determined.

****

(UPDATE from Bill, June 9, 2015: we just posted an article about the fitness test for Canadian wildland firefighters, WFX-FIT, that is very different from either the current or proposed Work Capacity Tests for U.S. firefighters described above.)

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

43 thoughts on “Exercise physiologist to recommend tougher work capacity test for hot shots”

  1. I think anyone who has been in fire for any amount of time knows of folks they have worked with that have passed the WCT, but are clearly not capable of the physical realities of the job. The physical test needs to be reworked to more accurately reflect reality. There is plenty of room for debate and discussion about how to design a test that accomplishes this, and whether or not different tests are needed for different resource types, but one factor that needs to be left out is the whole “what if it excludes people” question. The fire line demands an absolute standard. Hills don’t become less steep for shorter people than they are for taller people. Drip torches, chain saws and piss pumps don’t become lighter for women then they are for men. My respectful opinion is that this job is not for everyone, and the entire point of a physical test is to determine if an individual, regardless of height, weight, or gender can perform.

    0
    0
  2. Pushups seem likely to be lowly correlated to the upper body strength and strength endurance actually required by relevant tasks. And to reward or penalize certain body types even more than the pack test. As there are many ways to test upper body strength I wonder why of all things pushups were chosen.

    0
    0
      1. Push-ups are definitely free. But, if they don’t mimic physical stresses of the job well, may be a waste of time. If they implement the same standard rigorously for both genders, they could also run into disparate impact issues as they would fail women who might well be fit enough to meet the actual physical tasks of the job.

        0
        0
  3. “Measured by oxygen demand, the daily hike was almost twice as tough as the arduous pack test.” I see this study as a reasonable effort to simply mimic the job demands more accurately, not necessarily with a misguided focus on brawn over brain, or even on improving firefighter safety or saving lives. Although fitness levels certainly affect lives and safety on the fireline, it’s all interrelated. The issue is how to better quantify and simulate the conditions and demands of an arduous job.

    0
    0
  4. The hotshot pack test idea has been around for awhile. No matter what the opinions, there is too much bureaucracy to push this through. Solid risk management (and a lot more Fire Use) is going to save more firefighters lives than hiking faster

    0
    0
  5. The pack test may be different levels but look at any shot crew, they have higher internal standards. Those are just not standardized nationally. Perhaps they should be. The true test of fitness is can you do the job, safely, effectively, efficiently?
    If you are an engine person or helitack or heavy equipment operator, do we have a different standard for you? What about (insert random line qual here)? Or how about peoplease that have multiple skills; that could be on an engine one day, a dozer the next, and then put together a crew and lead them up the mountain on day 3. Do they now have three different fitness tests?

    0
    0
  6. If firefighter safety is the first priority then why don’t we spend more effort improving hotshot’s abilities areas such as risk management, critical thinking, and decision-making skills rather than raising the fitness level to the point that these crews can outrun fires like Yarnell, South Canyon and Mann Gulch. Ok, a little tongue and cheek, and fitness is certainly an important factor, but the concept of balance has been misplaced on this.

    0
    0
    1. Bunratty, improving “risk management, critical thinking, and decision-making skills” can only get us so far. Not all accidents are preventable. If you doubt me, ask guys who have been in burn overs or tight spots on fires like the Mackenzie Fire, the Coffee Pot Fire, Nuttals, Big Creek, and the like. It can happen to the best of us, and, when it does, sometimes our speed is the only thing we have to get us out. Some small percentage of fires blow up in ways that we cannot predict down to the minute (or even a 20 minute window). The Yarnell Hill Fire went from a ROS of apx. .75 mph to a ROS of over 10 mph in 4 minutes. Four minutes, friend. Have you ever been on a fire like that? Most of us haven’t. It is hard to do much other than run when this type of exponential explosion in fire growth happens. So you better be a fast runner, IMHO.

      0
      0
      1. The Yarnell Hill Fire ROS was estimated at 12 mph. In order to outrun a fire moving at 12 mph, you would need to run a 5 minute mile pace or less. In fire boots and clothing, in uneven terrain with unburned fuel and other obstacles, not to mention topography. Is it reasonable to think that all hotshots should and could be able to accomplish this safely? And in the case of Yarnell, where would you run like hell TO? Not toward the fire and not back up steep rocky slopes at a sub 5 minute mile pace. Relying on a superhuman ability combined with numerous unknown variables in order to outrun a fast moving fire? This itself seems to shout out for Bunratty’s critical thinking and decision making skills.

        0
        0
        1. JW – if you have ever been on a Hotshot crew or in a leadership position on a Hotshot crew, you would know that it is basically impossible to be on a crew or leading a crew for ten or more years without having a close call at some point. Unpredictable things happen on wildland fires. The LLC is doing videos on the Nuttals Fire, and they are going to make that point pretty clear – sometimes, even with the best S.A. and the best planning, things happen, and you end up in a tight position DESPITE having used really good decision-making or critical thinking. If you are not aware of this fact, then you have not been on a Hotshot crew or leading a crew for more than a decade. The guys who have been doing this for a very long time know that sometimes, despite all best efforts and stellar thinking, you can end up in a tight position.

          0
          0
          1. Peter, I understand your point. I guess this begs the question: What if you are complying with the 10 and 18, but your adjoining forces or overhead ARE NOT? How do you mitigate what your adjoining forces or overhead may do or not do that compromises your safety? If someone lights a fire below you without knowledge of your position above and without communicating with you, and running like hell is your only option because of ROS, then I guess you better run like hell and hope you are fit enough to outpace the fire. I just don’t think that any wildland firefighter should be trained in this strategy as a desperate measure without including a very comprehensive analysis and concerted effort to mitigate the very problem we’re alluding to: #7 Maintain prompt communications with your forces, your supervisor, and adjoining forces. This should apply to all firefighters on the ground. In a perfect world. Mr. Bunratty’s risk management is a complicated topic.

            0
            0
          2. Holly, when things are going bad on a fire -on a transition fire, in particular – it can be impossible to satisfy #7. The tacs aren’t good enough. Having LCES and staying with the 10 and the 18 is good, but it is not sufficient. Bad things can still happen. You don’t need a crew burning below you to have a bad thing happen. Fire is not a certain entity that behaves in a 100% predictable way.

            0
            0
  7. One could maybe specify a base range for elevation gain (say 500-1000 ft.), and have compensating time penalties for flatvilles, and time allowances for steepvilles as a first approach… Like the altitude compensations. And maybe realistically more of the supervisors/support folks beyond the crew level just need Field- (25 lb.) level performance.

    0
    0
  8. Good to hear. Might weed out the ones that should not be on shot crews. Maybe even weed out entire shot crews. This also should be implemented for all primary fire personnel. It’s a very physically demanding job. The pack test now is a joke.

    0
    0
  9. At what point is a standard no longer a standard? My point is that if you carried this thought through, it might lead us to the point where we determine that each position needs a fitness test specific to the position. That could become a nightmare to administer. I think the focus needs to be on figuring out what base level of fitness is needed for a wildland firefighter and how to accurately test for it (everywhere, not just at a remote, mountainous guard station). It needs to be based on current science and experience. Then build into the policies/recommendations the flexibility for a individual unit/crew to require higher standards (see below, it seem like that already exists in the current language). My concern is the step that would follow this one. How long until “super arduous” is filtered out to other/all firefighters and how many solid firefighters will be excluded because they can’t hike like a hotshot? I have no illusions that I have the same fitness level as a hotshot, but for my position, I can hold my own. Absolutely could be better but I think most people could say the same thing.

    Then throw another curve ball into it that the current language essentially says the “authority having jurisdiction” determines what “arduous” means for their staff. In theory, could a single pushup meet the requirement of “a measurable fitness level?” On the other hand, could this potential new test also meet the current language?

    BTW, I live in Nebraska . . . just down the road from Flatville. 😉

    0
    0
  10. Shane, agreed. I was involved in Dr. Brian Sharkey’s trials in 1995 that came up with the current WCT. My hotshot crew did a variety of tests, and one was 3 miles with 1000 feet of elevation gain at 55 pounds, sounds just like the one suggested in the article. I must say it was a WAY better test than doing it on a flat track, in terms of reality on the fire line. Some thoughts and issues:

    *Where do crews in Nebraska or Flatville, XX find a place to do the test close by?
    *Harder to monitor and have the EMT/Ambulance close by in case of problems
    *Jumpers already do tests and PT as a requirement that’s way beyond already
    *Rappel and Helitack…some have tougher programs, but most aren’t close to what Jumpers or Hotshots do, it’s all over the board. The standard isn’t as hard. *People who are dedicated workout junkies take it upon themselves and will stay in shape, a lot of fire fighters don’t, especially the folks who mainly are in the office all year, and come out as a TFLD or DIVS. If they aren’t the workout junkies, they might pass the WCT in April but it’s a different game climbing up the fire line in July. A lot of the WCT and fire line fatalities (by heart attacks) have been folks in this category.
    *People with the experience (and hence older age) to qualify as DIVS are often, well, older. This can be a catch 22. One post above mentioned IHC Supt’s that have vast experience and worn out knees. Trust me I can relate. But I think you still gotta have the physical ability to be out there just like the 19 year old on the crew. As a CRWB or Supt maybe your knowledge outweighs having to get up the hill as fast as the rest of the crew, but you still gotta be able get up there.

    For what it’s worth, in my humble opinion, DIVS that stay in the truck and don’t hike their division should not be DIVS. I’ve seen too much of that

    0
    0
  11. More mumbo jumbo, regs and government c.y.a.
    There was time when hotshot crews (and district fire) could hire the people they wanted – people they knew were fit and could do the job.
    Now there is centralized hiring, social engineering and “hiring managers” like “Shane” (no offense, there is one for every district) selecting people sight unseen.
    If hotshot crew fitness is such a concern, how about letting the superintendents hire directly. Then work them out through pt’s, hiking, building line, etc and most importantly give them the ability to remove those who can’t measure up.

    0
    0
  12. BC’s standard for all the crews(unit crew, rap, Helitack ect) is the WFX fit test. You can google it. I believe it’s used for all provinces, however our standard and a few others are a lower time. We also use the beep test for the interview portion for new recruits.

    The WFX test has caused a decent number of people to be weeded out unfortunately, as it is longer and more difficult than previous tests. And I you have bad knees, the steep ramp that you go over like 50 times will cause you trouble. That said, I prefer this test and if you are in shape it’s quite achievable.

    That said It is MUCH more difficult than the hike test.

    0
    0
      1. No problem,
        Thanks for the article, I enjoy your website. Interesting to read about the different ways we all fight fire.
        Hopefully everyone can adapt to the new standards here in Canada. It’s a tough test for light guy like me. It’s upsetting to see folks fail a test with so much experience, but many times it’s due to a lack of training pre season. When you see how steep that ramp is for the WFX test, it makes you pray your knees stay healthy throughout your career!

        0
        0
  13. A simple question as an old Fire Fighter what are you caring on a day to day basis on you back that weighs 45 to 50 pounds. I doubt we carried more than 25 pounds in the 60’s and 70’s exception for Sawyers. Mostly water food file extra gloves head light fire shelter maybe a coat, enough for a 16 to 24 hour shift. I know every one is also now caring a Sig of Chainsaw gas.
    Just curious as to what is being carried today. The Lighter the load the less the stress on the body. I saw a lot of fire in the 60’s and 70’s on HS Crews we never carried any where near 40 pounds and saw 24 hour shifts and spike camps.

    0
    0
    1. Really?? “Fifty-five pounds is closer to what they’re actually carrying out there,” said Domitrovich. What the hell ever happened to “Safety First”?? If you have hotshots out there carrying 55 pounds around the Supt. needs to be fired!

      0
      0
      1. And then there’s the gas & oil soaked Nomex shirts that the same Supes allow to be worn all season long ….. Safety First? Actions have always spoken louder than words!

        0
        0
      2. While I appreciate the shouts from the cheap seats, please use caution when calling for someone’s removal. I don’t mind criticism, but can do without pitchforks and torches. We work hard to keep the weight off the guys, but the reality is that with water, fuel, and the ever present possibility of long shifts gear gets loaded heavy.

        0
        0
  14. As a hiring manager that has to sort through 300+ candidates for GS-3 and 4 positions, without ever meeting these folks. I would like some avenue to know that they can physically do the job. After they get on board and pass whatever test, we can talk about working smarter, but most times there is no way around hiking that hill. Also lets be honest, we all know those people. The one’s we wonder how we are going to get them out if they go down on the hike into the fire or burn.

    0
    0
  15. Interesting conversation, especially in light of the next article about how the pack test just killed another person in the last week or so. I’m not sure any short-term fitness test can accurately measure one’s ability to work 12-16 hours of sustained exertion. I’m not sure also, how valid it is to have the same fitness test for every position. Currently a TFLD or ICT3 takes the same work capacity test as a hotshot, but I think anyone who has been there would attest that the sustained exertion required of those positions is significantly different.

    0
    0
  16. Although I agree with the comment of work smart not hard the current arduous test is a joke. In the past I’ve been on type 2IA crews and have seen people who obviously passed the pack test, but when it came to the real exertion needed on fire they could not hack it. Yes the pack test is harder for people with short legs but working on fire is tougher for people with short legs, no way around that.

    0
    0
  17. Out of curiosity, and of course not trying to start a fight, but does anyone know how the Aussies and Canadians handle qualifying folks for firefighting duties?

    Do they have any similar “arduous” and “super arduous” standards?

    0
    0
    1. Yep… in Canada we used to use the arduous pack test as well for all government staff. (Actually, when I first started we did the beep test, a hose drag and upright rows). However, a few years ago it was deemed an ineffective measurement of fitness so a new standard was developed. The Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) developed a standard with different levels (WFX-Fit). It involves carrying a weighted pack over a steep ramp repeatedly (50 times I think?) then they drop the pack and do a weighted hose drag. Quite a bit harder than the old pack and pump/hose tests though there have been a few career ending injuries on the ramp.

      I wonder why there needs to be a “more representative” test for hotshots. Are they finding a lot of “unfit” hotshots making their way in to the program? Just curious.

      0
      0
    2. The vast majority of Aussie firefighters are Volunteers, and there is no “national” standard since each State is a seperate entity. There are a few organized crews (like the Olinda Hotshots in Victoria), and they have specific training and fitness standards.

      0
      0
  18. I disagree… work smarter, not harder. Know how to pace yourself, stay hydrated and take breaks as needed. No need to work yourself to death in nasty heat… go in for the long haul… no need to be a hero

    0
    0
      1. one thing to add to your great post…..keep an eye out for your brother/sister in the heat…supposed to be 100 today here in Idaho…..make sure each of you goes home……

        0
        0
    1. I agree , i have been a hotshot for 21 years now and this is a terrible idea, as it is i see that short people and females have to work significantly harder over the same distance which would be ok except i think they should get more time. And what is going to become of all the supts and captains that are the core leadership of the crews ? Some of us are over 50 with worn out knees and backs but still have the corporate knowledge and experience to run crews safely and effectively. Will there be a pay increase for these extra demands ?
      I dont think so, just keep piling in more training and crap people have to do and pretty soon… A job we all know is dangerous enough wont even be fun anymore.

      0
      0
      1. I have to respectfully disagree. Being a short person, I find the pack test to be far more difficult than hiking on slopes. I’ve watched very out of shape people with long legs finish the pack test ahead of me, then left them in the dust hiking up a steep fireline. As others have stated, the pack test (while better than the step test) is not a very good gauge of a firefighters physical fitness.

        0
        0
        1. I concur. As a woman hiker and former climber, carrying a heavy pack was much more an issue than climbing fast off trail through brush. we should value the seniors who have years of experience… not shove them off to the side for younger (inexperienced) fire fighters, but also not penalize them for the stress test performance measures that we need to have for new people entering the field. There is a similar ‘issue’ in surgical medicine…. some features of performance tend to decline as we age, but the experience helps compensate in so many other wise ways. I strongly support rigourous capacity testing… actually as a means of documenting the comensurate pay that should come with this type of work. And I don’t think the extra pay for those who meet these higher standards should come from our career elders who have wisdom, provide inspiration, and have the “3D” vision to anticipate our future threats and needs. BOTH are needed.

          0
          0
          1. I agree! I am a small woman and 45 lbs is almost 50% of my body weight ! I can hike 10-12 hours almost non stop and leave other behind. I do stream surveys all day long and cover 30-50 acres depending on steep slopes in a day. The 45 lbs kills me. It feels like it is crushing my vertebrae. It would be easier if you could run or even better if they realized that bigger peoe with more muscle have more strength. My pack on fire is way lighter and I think the WCT as it is now is not safe!

            0
            0
      2. Who cares if short people and females need to work harder. If they can’t do the job then they should not be doing it. Why have someone on the crew that will slow the whole crew down? And now way should they get more time to do the test.

        0
        0
      3. I agree with Robert. I did it for 15 years and it was tough toward the end. We still did the job but I am a shorter person. You cannot get rid of the older more experienced overhead. I always felt that the pack test was too straight across the board without consideration to height and weight. My thoughts were always “thats the best test they could come up with?”. They should start with a stress test first and then come up with other tests.

        0
        0
  19. Great to see. Hopefully some of this will also come to the rest of primary fire folks. The pack test is barely a test of firelline readiness.

    0
    0

Comments are closed.