The Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center put together the following information about serious incidents and fatalities that occurred while taking the Work Capacity Test, or Pack Test. Many agencies involved in wildland fire in the United States are required to administer the test to employees who respond to wildfires. There are three levels depending on the amount of physical activity required for the job. On-the-line firefighters are required to take the Arduous Level, known as the Pack Test, carrying 45 pounds for three miles in less than 45 minutes.
[pdf-embedder url=”https://wildfiretoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Work_Capacity_Test_Infographic_2021.pdf”]
Additional information is available in .pdf downloads about the following Pack Test incidents:
- Deschutes NF Work Capacity Test Incident (2015)
- New Mexico Pack Test Rhabdomyloysis (2019)
- Big Cypress Pack Test Rhabdomyloysis (2015)
- Cloquet, Minnesota Pack Test aortic aneurysm (2015)
In 2019 we conducted a poll about the Pack Test.
Poll:
Do you think the Pack Test version of the Work Capacity Test required for many wildland firefighters in the United States adequately measures the capacity of a person to work as a wildland firefighter? (the test is carrying 45 pounds for 3 miles in 45 minutes)
— Wildfire Today ? (@wildfiretoday) November 11, 2019
To see all articles on Wildfire Today tagged “Pack Test”, click here.
First, I concur with Frank’s comment about “dying” vs “being killed.” Saying “killed,” is a very poor choice of words.
Second, I’ve always thought a mandatory tiered approach leading up to the final Pack Test, would be best for all concerned, such as walking over rough terrain without a pack; then jogging; then slow hiking with a lessor pack; and finally the standard Pack Test. Yes, those interim tests and strength building take time but they allow for measured responses and for individuals who are unable to perform, to leave the testing cycle before serious problems surface.
Where I worked, some individuals, like those laying out timbers sales every day, were in much better shape to take the Pack Test than those who were not working in the woods. Assessing each individual’s “training needs” is a key first step. Taking the necessary time up front, is important.
What people fail to realize is that once a person becomes a supervisor yes they should be able to hike but they don’t have to exert the same amount of energy that a crewman carrying and operating a chainsaw or a ground pounder with a hand tool. Yes a supervisor should be able to operate a chainsaw and in my opinion have the backround of having been a FAL1. Supervising is just that, hiking around, watching the fire and watching over your crew and individual crew persons performance…. hence the word Super- Vision ! Meaning extra ordinary experience to see and foresee potential hazards as well as opportunities to attack the fire, call in and coordinate specialized equipment . The pack test and money is why we are loosing the most experienced supervisors in all the land management agencies and that’s why congress is finally looking into why people are leaving, after I left a certain hotshot crew there was not a single FAL1 chainsaw operator on the crew , why ? Because we could not keep people long enough to train for one and the second complaint I heard was that we don’t get paid enough to take in the risk and liability to take on that responsibility.
People were and still are leaving hotshot crews for cal fire, SCE and PGE.
This is really weakening the experience base of hotshot crews which are the pride and joy of any land management agency… next comes the engine crews then smokejumpers lol .
Having worked in the fire service this seems like a reasonable test range. Walking on flat ground with a 45 lb pack might not actually be as severe as the cardio required to carry gear and work a fire line in steep mountain terrain at elevation or enter a structural fire and perform work in the heat and heavy protective gear. My first thought is that at age 60, I could probable still do this after a month or so of training walks and increasing the weight. If nothing else I might investigate this personally as a simple monitor I could use to gauge my field fitness for hunting and climbing mountain peaks. I could use a neighborhood route as I age in the next 10 to 15 years no matter my time and weight carrying ability. I could seek to maintain or increase my performance and monitor the results of my training and activity with a similar test.
Certainly I could be “safer” sitting home and watching you tube but that is not how I want to live my life out to the end.
Having taken firefighter fitness tests in the past, I remember there were folks attempting those tests that should have probably been screened out before with a pretest or evaluation of some type. I was thinking during the event that the person attempting should have some accountability as their ability to take on the challenge of those jobs.
I also say that the only way to really train to walk in the mountains…..is to walk in the mountains. I remind myself of this all the time when I compromise out of the effort of driving to a place I can walk on steep trails. So much easier just put it off, but I know from experience how much it will affect my next mountain climb or hunt in remote country.
Just curious. From 2011-2019, how many people took the pack test. Knee jerk reaction, another headline with useless information to fuel the fire.
How does this test’s fatality rate compare
to other jobs with similar physical requirement tests? In other words, does the data reveal any actionable information?
It seems they died while taking the test but they were not killed by someone else or an external force. 5 people died. Not killed.
Whoever came up with the pack test clearly doesn’t understand physics,
People with longer legs have a much easier time , it’s like 411 gears in a rear end of a car or different gearing options only people with shorter legs don’t get an option. Also who came up with 45 lbs ?
I think 35 to 40 lbs is more realistic,
You don’t know how many times as a hotshot supervisor I have had to go through packs with new crew persons and take out stuff they absolutely do not need.
I’m told that MTDC was working on a way to adjust the pack test for elevation gain, but it was shelved as unnecessarily complicated, I think correctly. What would actually work pretty well is a two-tier testing system with the first tier being reasonably well correlated with job performance, easy to universally administer before hire, having sufficient range to distinguish between levels of fitness (45:00 pass/fail ain’t cuttin it) and, here’s the kicker, actually administered to everyone (BLM fitness challenge would be fine), and the second tier being hyper-specific and localized (iow: crew pack hike + line dig). Compare the dual role of the USMC PFT and CFT.
My previous comment had a first half that got lost in the sauce somehow and was directly responsive to Robert, above. Anyway, here it is, edited for clarity:
1) Long-legged people have an easier time moving around on the hill, too, as I’m reminded every time I try to keep up with our 6’4″ built-like-a-pair-of-calipers captain. Certain body types are advantageous in the performance of our job tasks, and a good test will reflect that.
2) We need to be prepared to carry considerably more than our line gear. Saw, drip torches, dolmar, jerry/banjo/cubee, hose packs, portable pumps, piss pumps, etc. Line gear should be under 45lb and probably under 40lb for all but the longest, thirstiest days, but the total weight hiked into the shift on a handcrew is seldom under 45lb.
3) The main failures of the pack test to represent job demands are a) that it takes place on a flat course and b) the pass/fail standard doesn’t recognize the superior physical performance norms that hold sway on most primary fire resources. It’s not a bad corporate wellness type test, though weight vests are expensive and logistically finicky.
It’s still a bad representation, people don’t run or hike at 4.1 mph on a fire with a saw, drip torch or Jerry can of fuel, also if your trying to get to a safety zone due to eminent danger,
You are taught to drop your line gear and take a few important things like your radio, tool and fire shelter.
Is Cal Fire a more dangerous agency to work for ? They don’t have a pack test ?
The USFS didn’t have one when I started in 1986.
“people don’t run or hike at 4.1 mph on a fire with a saw, drip torch or Jerry can of fuel”
No, they just climb 1.4k vert on a ~27% average grade in 45:00ish (numbers taken from a dozer line we prepped and burned last season), half the time in deep moondust or loose shale, for 5-7 days in a row. I don’t think a pack test is too much for someone who’s signing up to potentially do that, or worse. Do you? If anything, I think the pack test is too easy for that purpose, see my other comment for some thoughts on a testing regime that would make more sense.