# BIDDLE EXAM



## atropine (Dec 18, 2009)

So I was at the trainging tower and a female firefighter made a comment that the Biddle exam only exist to keep women from getting hired with other fire departments. Yes it is way harder than the CPAT, but if you train you can pass. what do you guys think?


----------



## CAO (Dec 18, 2009)

I admit to being new enough to not know much about the exams, but what was her argument exactly?


----------



## VentMedic (Dec 18, 2009)

I think atropine is just worried about getting on with a FD.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Dec 18, 2009)

The first time I ever took the Biddle I couldn't even finish it, and there were women taking it along with me who not only finished it but passed it...which as you can imagine did wonders for my self-esteem. :glare: I passed it the second time through though.

So, I don't think there's any reason why a woman wouldn't be able to pass the Biddle after having trained for it.


----------



## Aidey (Dec 19, 2009)

The only issues I have with PATs is when the ability to perform a skill is directly related to the participants weight. This doesn't just affect women, but it can affect them disproportionately. 

For example, requiring someone to hoist 175 lbs of hose up a hose tower. If the tester only weights 140 it's not gonna happen without adding additional mechanical advantage or being anchored. 

I know that for a small person the charged hose and the rescue dummy can weigh more than the tester. However, their light weight doesn't prevent them from being able to perform the skill because these tests are strength based. 

When trying to hoist something that weighs more than you do it doesn't matter how strong you are, gravity wins.


----------



## grich242 (Dec 23, 2009)

The problem with watered down physical tests are that they allow people (men and women) through that are unable to do the job. After passing an easy test used by multiple departments we hired someone who could not lift the jaws, pull a header or get up onto the rear bumper of the engine. that person lasted less than a week and wasted everyone's time and the department's money.If you train hard for it you'll pass it.


----------



## alphatrauma (Dec 25, 2009)

atropine said:


> ...the Biddle exam only exist to keep women from getting hired with other fire departments.



I have a huge problem with statements like this. If you are not fit/up to the challenge (including but not limited to women), go find a desk job. This goes for fire, EMS or whatever


----------



## Level1pedstech (Dec 26, 2009)

The CPAT is now widely used by US departments and was designed to allow those who would not be up to the biddle standard to advance in the testing process. There are departments and EMS agencies that run a similar test but are not certified to be a CPAT test site so they will just call it a PAT, the events and time allowed are similar and like the CPAT designed so my twelve year old daughter could do it with a minute and change to spare. This target group included men,women and any combination of the two not up to what for years was the minimum physical standard required to preform the job of firefighter. The problem is that many of these testers could barely make it through this watered down wet noodle wimp fest in the time allowed.  They were allowed to move on and some would receive conditional offers and an invite to the academy. Once in the tower it was noticeable to all that these weaker members of the class were not going to make it and soon were wash outs. A candidate with a wash out in his or her file will find it difficult at best to get another department to give them a chance.


----------



## triemal04 (Dec 26, 2009)

Level1pedstech said:


> The CPAT is now widely used by US departments and was designed to allow those who would not be up to the biddle standard to advance in the testing process. There are departments and EMS agencies that run a similar test but are not certified to be a CPAT test site so they will just call it a PAT, the events and time allowed are similar and like the CPAT designed so my twelve year old daughter could do it with a minute and change to spare. This target group included men,women and any combination of the two not up to what for years was the minimum physical standard required to preform the job of firefighter. The problem is that many of these testers could barely make it through this watered down wet noodle wimp fest in the time allowed.  They were allowed to move on and some would receive conditional offers and an invite to the academy. Once in the tower it was noticeable to all that these weaker members of the class were not going to make it and soon were wash outs. A candidate with a wash out in his or her file will find it difficult at best to get another department to give them a chance.


Bingo.  Despite being designed to be lawsuit-proof, the people who made it were smart enough and savvy enough to realize that it is not an accurate way to determine if someone has the appropriate level of fitness; it's why the "c" stands for CANDIDATE; it's only an entry-level test.  Like others I've seen a large number of people take and pass the CPAT who were not realistically up to the physical challenges.  It's unfortunate that people wash out because of this, but in the hyper-lawsuit prone and PC-loving times we live in, is it any wonder that a test like this had to be made?


Aidey said:


> The only issues I have with PATs is when the ability to perform a skill is directly related to the participants weight. This doesn't just affect women, but it can affect them disproportionately.


But what if what they are testing a realistic job expectation?  Firefighting (and many other jobs) is very physically demanding; not everyone can meet the standards.  But to allow people to perform the job when they are not actually capable of doing so is asking for grief.


----------



## Aidey (Dec 27, 2009)

Fitness levels have nothing to do with fighting physics. 

Are we going to start having height and weight regulations too? If someone is physically fit enough to pass every fire fighter fitness test out there, but they can't hoist 200lbs of hose at once because they only weigh 140 do you really think that should disqualify them from the job? 

And I mean hoist, like in a hose tower, not haul, carry, roll or anything else. Specifically hoisting.


----------



## Level1pedstech (Dec 27, 2009)

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the hoisting 200 lbs, are you talking about pulling 200 lbs up the tower via a block. I cant think of to many times when you would need to lift 200 lbs up the tower hand over hand but I would love to have the arms to do it. Can you clarify? I know a girl who had to retake the test for AMR because although she was very athletic and in great shape she had problems with forearm strength. The simple answer to your question is yes if a candidate cant preform all the duties the job requires they need to step aside and make room for those who can..

 Many departments are revisiting the weight issue and are cracking down on older guys who are not as diligent with their training as they were at the start of their careers. A guy may have put on some pounds over the years and although he can still do his job it does not set the greatest example for the younger guys who train hard everyday to stay in top physical condition. With heart attacks being the number one killer of firefighters I don't think its asking to much to maintain a peak level of physical condition. I do believe this is the exception and not a widespread problem. I know many firemen in their fifties that will run circles around some of these new boots.

 The bottom line is that the standards were not lowered because of a shortage of qualified applicants, they were lowered after cries and moans from the groups that felt they were underrepresented. Its true these groups are underrepresented in the fire service but its for good reason, making things "easier' to allow people that feel they are just as deserving of the job as the guy who has spent years getting and staying in peak physical condition is wrong. With most PATs just being the minimum required we are doing a great disservice to these "affected" groups by allowing them to believe that if they can do the 10 minute CPAT then they are ready to preform on the fire ground under what can and often are far more strenuous and physically challenging conditions.


----------



## Aidey (Dec 27, 2009)

Ok, so in a hose tower there is usually a single pulley at the top. If you have 200lbs of hose attached to one side of the rope, and a 140lb person attached to the other, which is going to go up, and which is going to stay down? Unless the person is anchored to the floor they will never be able to lift that hose all the way up because it out weighs them. 

No amount of strength can over come the weight inequality in that situation.


----------



## 46Young (Dec 28, 2009)

Regardless of the weight of the hose, you're pulling one side of the rope, rope that's affixed to a pulley. If you have sufficient strength, you'll be able to move the load, either by hand over hand or by doing it two handed and getting your abs/hips involved. It's your pulling/grip strength that prevents the load from going backward. If you're weak, it'll move backward. If you have an iron grip, you'll keep the load stationary until you can grab higher for the next pull.

It's your strength that keeps the load from slipping, not your weight. Your application of force makes up for the lack of BW. It's not like the lat pulldown station from the gym.

As far as height and weight, I don't necessarily agree. However, testing stations, that are intended to replicate actual job tasks, should not be altered for someone of small stature. Firefighting is a team effort, but that doesn't mean that some members need to perform certain tasks just because someone else is physically unable to. Having to pull someone's slack on the fireground will slow things down, and may very well cause injury or death. Death. Every FF needs to be interchangeable in regards to basic fireground tasks, not a mix and match where everyone just does what they can and others scramble to fill in where some can't.


----------



## Level1pedstech (Dec 28, 2009)

46Young said:


> Regardless of the weight of the hose, you're pulling one side of the rope, rope that's affixed to a pulley. If you have sufficient strength, you'll be able to move the load, either by hand over hand or by doing it two handed and getting your abs/hips involved. It's your pulling/grip strength that prevents the load from going backward. If you're weak, it'll move backward. If you have an iron grip, you'll keep the load stationary until you can grab higher for the next pull.
> 
> It's your strength that keeps the load from slipping, not your weight. Your application of force makes up for the lack of BW. It's not like the lat pulldown station from the gym.
> 
> As far as height and weight, I don't necessarily agree. However, testing stations, that are intended to replicate actual job tasks, should not be altered for someone of small stature. Firefighting is a team effort, but that doesn't mean that some members need to perform certain tasks just because someone else is physically unable to. Having to pull someone's slack on the fireground will slow things down, and may very well cause injury or death. Death. Every FF needs to be interchangeable in regards to basic fireground tasks, not a mix and match where everyone just does what they can and others scramble to fill in where some can't.



 I wanted to give a solid answer on the lifting question but my complete lack of education when it comes to physics left me scratching my wooden head. Thank you for providing our friend with a simple yet satisfactory answer.


----------



## 46Young (Dec 28, 2009)

Level1pedstech said:


> I wanted to give a solid answer on the lifting question but my complete lack of education when it comes to physics left me scratching my wooden head. Thank you for providing our friend with a simple yet satisfactory answer.



I'm no physics whiz either, just trying to phrase what I've observed personally. I've seen a few females in my class weighing 110-120# hoist more than BW in the hose tower.

All testing tasks ought to be just as difficult if not more so than actual fireground tasks. For this one, I could see direct benefit in advancing a hose line inside (grip/coordinated pulling strength), or hositing a downed FF from down below using rope during the Columbus Drill, where you're on air in a hostile environment and need to be overprepared physically to function. 

Another scenario involving height/reach - if you're only a crew of three on the engine, and you roll up on a house fire with trapped occupants, you'll need to be the one to pull and raise the 24' ladder for a VES, since the next unit is minutes away. The officer needs to do a lap, and the driver is busy hooking up or working the pump panel. Now say that the ladder is mounted on the side. If you're too short or weak to take it off, let alone throw it (quickly) by yourself, people die.

Speaking of height/weight, one of my classmates, a female, jacked, competes in bodybuilding competitions, can knock out 50 pushups without issue, squat and deadlift a ton, but gasses on the Keiser sled with maybe 50+ shots, where the best in our class were doing it in 12-16. Grip seems to be the thing that gets many females. It's easy enough to train for, though. Any of this stuff is. Just put in the work rather than seek to lower the bar.

For example, for the hose tower, do rope pullups, weighted pullups, machine pullovers, prone planks, renegade rows, sledge shots on a tire, and deadlifts. For the Keiser, get good at DB/KB swings and snatches. For throwing ladders, do the clean & press, olympic style front squats, bulgarian split squats (one leg up on a bench behind you) overhead BB walks, and single arm DB carries.


----------



## 46Young (Dec 28, 2009)

Here's some other ideas:

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_...performance/6week_back_specialization_program


----------

