Development of two physical employment standard tests for aviation rescue firefighters with different ecological validity

Abstract

Background

Aviation rescue firefighting (ARFF) is a specialised occupation with unique physical demands that occur infrequently but require high readiness.

Objective

This study aimed to quantify ARFF job demands and develop defensible physical employment standard (PES) tests for incumbent firefighters.

Methods

Through a multi-phase approach, including trade task workshops (TTWs), trade task field observations (TTFOs), a trade task confirmation workshop (TTCW), and test development/validation, two PES tests were created: an operational equipment-based test and a hybrid test combining operational and gym equipment. Phase 1 involved 20 ARFF (sex: m = 17, f = 3; age: 39 ± 7 years; height: 1.80 ± 0.09 m; mass: 86 ± 13 kg) testing initial versions. Phase 2 involved 42 ARFF (sex: m = 39, f = 3; height: 1.81 ± 0.08 m; mass: 85 ± 12 kg) refining a hybrid version.

Results

A good agreement was shown between tests and live scenarios in distance travelled (454.7 ± 24.5 m vs. 478.4 ± 37.3 m vs. 534.7 ± 111.8 m for gym, operational, and scenario, respectively), intensity (65 ± 10.5 m/min vs. 66.7 ± 9.2 m/min vs. 24.9 ± 4.5 m/min), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE; 60 ± 20 vs. 54 ± 21 vs. 56 ± 23). Oxygen consumption and heart rate metrics further validated physiological equivalence.

Conclusions

The hybrid test was recommended for its balance of ecological validity and administrative ease, with time-based standards for each segment. These tests provide scientifically rigorous, non-discriminatory tools for assessing ARFF physical competency, enhancing occupational safety and performance.

Keywords

aviation rescue firefighting physical employment standards job task analysis occupational physiology

Introduction

Aviation rescue firefighters (ARFF) play a critical role in ensuring safety at airports, responding to emergencies such as aircraft incidents, emergency medical care (e.g., first aid response), motor vehicle incidents, and perimeter threats outside the airport (unauthorised access or incidents that compromise the airside environment). In Australia, ARFF operations handle approximately 7000 incident responses annually across 27 airports.¹ These services are categorised from 6 (minimal provisions) to 10 (maximal provisions) based on aircraft size, with strict response time requirements e.g., reaching incidents within three minutes.² Unlike structural or wildland firefighting, ARFF incidents are rare, but the physical demands are intense and unpredictable, necessitating a high level of physical preparedness.

Physical employment standards (PES) are essential for occupations with high physical requirements, ensuring personnel can perform safely and effectively.^3,4 PES must be defensible, non-discriminatory, and job-relevant, derived from rigorous job task analysis (JTA) that breaks down roles into component tasks and quantifies their demands.⁵ For ARFF, challenges include unique equipment (e.g., hoses, breathing apparatus) and environmental factors (e.g., tarmac surfaces, confined spaces).

Previous research on firefighting PES has focused on structural or wildland roles, often emphasising aerobic capacity, strength, and endurance.^6,7 For example, Skinner, Newton⁸ investigated ARFF physical fitness and found that aerobic and anaerobic capacities, as well as body composition, were the strongest predictors of simulated ARFF emergency protocol performance, while muscular strength and endurance were less critical for overall simulation but important for isolated tasks. Similarly, studies on general firefighting have highlighted the importance of V˙O_2max and muscular endurance in tasks like hose drags (manual advancement of a charged or uncharged hoseline) and victim rescues.^9–11 However, ARFF-specific demands, such as hose drags on varied surfaces and rapid equipment handling, remain underexplored. A review of firefighter recruitment testing standards across Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom revealed that most services use a combination of general fitness tests (e.g., beep test for aerobic fitness) and job-related physical aptitude tests (PAT) involving ladder tasks, carrying/dragging, stair climbing, confined spaces, hose skills, pulling, and tool operation to ensure recruits meet minimum physical demands.^12–14

The development of PES for ARFF is particularly important given the occupation's unique context. ARFF personnel must comply with high performance indicators, including incident response times within the airport's “movement” area.¹ The rarity of incidents means maintaining readiness through regular assessment is vital to prevent deconditioning and ensure safety. Prior work on ARFF fitness, such as Skinner, Newton,⁸ emphasised body composition, aerobic, and anaerobic fitness as key to performance, recommending their inclusion in recruitment and simulation protocols. This aligns with broader firefighting literature, where physiological demands during simulated tasks have been shown to correlate with real-world performance.^15–17 For instance, Gumieniak, Gledhill¹⁴ validated the WFX-FIT for wildland firefighters by assessing reliability and physiological demands, finding high test-retest reliability and appropriate representation of job demands.

This study developed PES tests for incumbent ARFF, prioritising ecological validity; the degree to which tests mimic real-world tasks.³ The project followed a four-step process: (1) Trade Task Workshops (TTWs) to identify tasks; (2) Trade Task Field Observations (TTFO) to quantify demands; (3) Trade Task Confirmation Workshop (TTCW) to validate findings; and (4) test development and validation. Two tests were developed: one using operational equipment for high ecological validity and a hybrid version for practicality. We hypothesised that both would elicit physiological responses comparable to live scenarios, with the hybrid being logistically easier to administer.

Methods

Project overview

The overall aim was to objectively devise valid job-relevant PES for ARFF personnel. This necessitated a thorough JTA involving breaking down the job requirements into component tasks and analysing their specific parameters.³ The project was split into four stages: (1) Trade Task Workshops (TTWs) to identify tasks; (2) Trade Task Field Observations (TTFO) to quantify demands; (3) Trade Task Confirmation Workshop (TTCW), and (4) development/validation of physical tests.

Ethical considerations and informed consent

Ethical approval was obtained from Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 52021967829436). All participants provided informed consent.

Trade task workshops

The TTWs involved semi-structured focus groups with subject matter experts (ARFF of varying ranks and experience) across eight sites. Workshops identified physically demanding tasks, their frequency, criticality, and parameters. Tasks were categorised (daily to annual) and prioritised for further analysis. A total of 35 ARFF participated, providing a comprehensive list of core job tasks.

Trade task field observations

The TTFOs quantified demands through simulated scenarios at two different airports, with discrete skills testing at a third location. Twenty-nine ARFF participated (Location 1: n = 12; Location 2: n = 11; Location 3: n = 6); (sex: m = 27, f = 2; age: 39 ± 8; height: 1.80 m ± 0.1; mass: 88.9 kg ± 15.9).

Participants completed a battery of physical assessments. A Multi-Stage Fitness Test was undertaken to estimate maximal oxygen uptake V˙O_2max¹⁸; 20-m shuttle runs at progressively increasing speeds dictated by audio signals until volitional exhaustion or failure to reach the line on two consecutive occasions. The final successfully completed shuttle was recorded and used to estimate V˙O_2max_{.¹⁹ Lower-body relative maximal strength (N/kg) and neuromuscular qualities were assessed using a force platform system (VALD ForceDecks; FDLite V.1, VALD Performance, AUS). A countermovement jump was used to determine lower-body neuromuscular qualities. Participants were instructed to jump as high as possible in one continuous motion. Three maximum effort jumps were collected, with the maximum jump height recorded as the highest value. Participants' lower-body relative maximal strength was measured via the isometric mid-thigh pull, performed as a maximal isometric contraction against an immovable bar with knee angles of 125–145° and hip angles of 140–150°,²⁰ while standing on the force platform. Participants were instructed to exert maximal force against the bar for 3–5 s. Upper-body relative maximal strength was evaluated using a standardised isometric push-up test protocol,²¹ performed on the force platform to quantify force output.}

During discrete skills and scenarios, ARFF participants wore firefighting PPE, including a jacket, pants, boots, gloves, and Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA, consisting of a high-pressure cylinder, regulator, harness, and facepiece to deliver breathable air). SCBA was only worn for participants when undertaking the BA breach team position during scenario assessments.

Discrete skills

A series of hose-drag tasks were completed using hoses of different diameters (38 mm, 50 mm, and 64 mm) and varying lengths (one- and two-length configurations i.e., 30- and 60-m total length, respectively). Two length configurations (50/38 mm) were connected using a standardised fire hose coupling. These drags were performed across multiple surface types, including tarmac and gravel, to reflect the range of environments encountered during operational ARFF responses. Personnel were instructed to conduct each drag as they would on an incident ground, ensuring that movements, handling techniques, and effort were representative of real-world practice. The selection of hose drag variations was informed by a survey of ARFF personnel (n = 74), which identified the most relevant and frequently performed operational hose movements.

In addition to hose drags, ladder pulls were completed, with firefighters pulling ladders down from the top of the fire truck. Both small (5.4 m) and large (7.3 m) ladders were used, with six repetitions performed for each ladder size. These ladder pulls were designed to replicate standard ARFF tasks involving the retrieval and deployment of on-truck equipment.

Scenarios

Scenarios undertaken were co-developed using expertise from ARFF to ensure operational relevance and agreed upon by personnel. The aviation firefighting scenario simulated a response to an aircraft engine fire and was completed under both hot (live fire) and cold (no fire) conditions. Participants were assigned operational roles that reflected real-world aviation firefighting roles, including Fire Commander (FC), Station Officer/Entry Control Officer (SO/ECO), Driver, Operator, Breathing Apparatus (BA) Team Leader, and BA Branch (Table 1). These roles were rotated between participants to reflect the range of duties typically performed during an aircraft fire.

Table 1.

Operational responsibilities of ARFF roles during aviation and structural fire scenarios.

ARFF role	Operational responsibilities
ARFF role	Aviation Fire Scenario	Structural Fire Scenario
Fire Commander (FC)	Overall incident command, strategic oversight, coordination of crew and tactics	Overall incident command, scene control, coordination of suppression and search
Station Officer / Entry Control Officer (SO/ECO)	Entry control, personnel accountability, BA monitoring	Entry control, personnel accountability, BA monitoring
Firefighter – Driver (DR)	Operates appliance; deploys 50 mm branch; later deploys internal attack line (64 mm / 38 mm); supports water supply	Operates appliance; deploys internal attack line (64 mm / 38 mm); establishes and manages hydrant replenishment line
Firefighter – Operator (OP)	Deploys 50 mm water branch; later deploys backup line (64 mm / 38 mm)	Deploys 50 mm branch; deploys backup line (64 mm / 38 mm)
BA Team Leader (BA-TL)	Don BA; lead dual external attack; acquire DCP line; lead internal fire suppression	Don BA; lead internal fire attack and fire suppression
BA Branch (BA-Branch)	Don BA; support dual external attack; manage water branch during suppression	Don BA; support internal fire attack and suppression

BA, breathing apparatus; DCP, dry chemical powder.

The scenario commenced with a briefing delivered by the FC, who outlined the operational objectives and expected tactics. During the scenario, firefighters performed key operational tasks such as deploying 50-mm (one-length configuration) and 64/38-mm (two-length configuration) hose lines, establishing water supply lines, and executing coordinated dual-attack strategies on the simulated engine fire. These actions were repeated across locations to ensure consistency while preserving operational realism.

Measurements

During the trade task field observations, a comprehensive set of physiological and performance measures was collected to quantify the physical demands of the simulated scenarios and discrete skills.

Heart rate was continuously monitored using a Polar H10 Heart Rate Sensor (Polar Electro Oy, Finland). Data were recorded in beats per minute (b·min⁻¹) and expressed as a percentage of maximum heart rate (%HRmax). Internal load was further quantified using Edwards’ Training Impulse (TRIMP) method. Oxygen consumption was measured using a portable metabolic system (COSMED K5; COSMED, Rome, Italy) and recorded in millilitres per kilogram per minute (mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) and as a percentage of maximal oxygen uptake (%V˙O_₂max). The COSMED K5 was calibrated prior to each trial according to the manufacturer's guidelines, including flowmeter, scrubber, reference gas, and delay time calibration procedures (data were collected using breath-by-breath mode). Activity profiles were captured using a global navigation satellite system (10 Hz GNSS Device, STATSports, Newry, Ireland) to quantify total distance covered (m) and movement intensity (m·min⁻¹). Force production during hose drag and ladder pull tasks was measured in kilograms using a strain gauge (EXSURGO GStrength, Sterling, VA), which was attached to the hoseline via a branch nozzle (FB10X) or secured to the ladder. Task completion time was recorded in seconds for each activity. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were obtained using the BORG CR-100 scale²² to quantify subjective effort.

Trade task confirmation workshop

The TTCW was held to present results from the trade task observations, along with discrete task testing results, to current ARFF representatives. The workshop's purpose was to confirm that the observed and measured tasks were operationally valid and accurately reflected real ARFF job demands. Feedback from these subject matter experts was essential to ensure the data could appropriately guide the development of trade-specific physical criterion tasks. Overall, participants agreed that the findings aligned with real-world requirements and were suitable for progressing to test development.

Open-discussion feedback helped refine testing protocols. Participants unanimously supported hose drags and scenario-based tasks as essential components of the physical standards. They noted that hose flaking patterns could alter difficulty and that certain scenario setups, such as truck placement, should reflect real emergencies.

Development and validation of PES tests

Initial development

Twenty ARFF (sex: m = 17, f = 3; age: 39 (7) years; height: 1.80 (0.09) m; mass: 86 (13) kg) tested two versions: Operational (using operational equipment) and Gym (weight plates, sled drags, sandbags). Both were about ∼420 m, simulating the measured aviation scenarios (range 249.3 m (BA team branch role) – 534.7 m (driver role)). Each was performed twice at operational pace.

Refinement

Forty-two ARFF (sex: m = 39, f = 3; age: 39 (7) years; height: 1.80 (0.08) m; mass: 85 (12) kg) tested a hybrid version (a combination of operational and gym equipment), incorporating feedback to replace sled drags for improved ecological validity and buy-in. Test protocols, below, are for this refinement stage only.

Test protocols

Operational Test: The test consisted of a continuous circuit performed at a walking pace, with no planned breaks and recovery achieved through walking transitions. Cones were spaced 7.5 m apart, and tasks were completed using a standard plyometric box (30”×24”×20”; place at the 24” height) or fire truck (used to house equipment for the testing protocol), a rolled 64-mm hose, a charged 38-mm hose (30 m) arranged in a W/U configuration, and a charged 50-mm hose (30 m) in a figure-8 configuration (see Figure 1).

Participants completed repeated bouts of (1) lifting and carrying a rolled 64-mm hose over 15 m, (2) operationally styled 50-mm hose drags (30 m), and (3) repositioning bights of a charged 38-mm hose following prescribed W↔U patterns. A hose line bight is a U-shaped pattern created in a fire hose to allow firefighters to handle, carry, or manage lengths of hose efficiently. All equipment handling was required to mimic operational practice (e.g., controlled placement of the 64-mm hose, limited bight selection during 50-mm drags). The sequence involved multiple repetitions of each task interspersed with short recovery walks. A detailed protocol, including exact task order and repetitions, is provided in the Supplementary Material.

Hybrid Test: The hybrid test followed a continuous walking circuit with cones spaced 7.5 m apart. No running or planned rest was permitted, and recovery occurred during walking transitions. Tasks were completed using a plyometric box, a 20-kg weight plate, a 20-kg sandbag, and a charged 50-mm hose (30 m); see Figure 2.

Participants performed repeated sets of (1) lifting and carrying a 20-kg weight plate, (2) operationally representative 50-mm hose drags (30 m) with specified bight handling, and (3) carrying a 20-kg sandbag in a cradled position with strict rules against dropping. All implements had to be placed down under control (e.g., lunge placement for the sandbag). These tasks were repeated in a structured sequence, interspersed with short recovery walks to maintain continuous movement. Full procedural details, including task order and repetitions, are provided in the Supplementary Material. No SCBA was used to reduce logistical burden but demands matched TTFOs.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each task result, to characterise operational task demands and evaluate physiological alignment between PES tests and scenarios. Mean, range, minimum, and maximum values were calculated to quantify the magnitude and distribution of results. The technical error of measurement (TEM) was calculated between trial one and two of each task²³ and presented as ±90% confidence interval (CI); to assess the variability of between repeated measurements in completed test protocols (see Equation 1). No inferential statistical comparisons were conducted, as the study was designed to support test development and criterion-referenced validation rather than determine the magnitude of difference between testing items.

AbsoluteTEM = \sqrt{\frac{\sum d_{i}^{2}}{2 n}}

Equation 1. Absolute technical error measurement equation used to calculate between repeated protocol measurements.

Results

The multi-phase approach yielded comprehensive insights into the physical demands of ARFF and the validation of PES tests. The TTWs and TTFOs provided the basis for determining task demands, while the TTCW ensured operational relevance and assisted with buy-in. Initial and refined testing phases demonstrated that both the Operational and Hybrid PES tests effectively simulated real-world scenarios, with high reliability and physiological equivalence.

Trade task workshops and trade task field observations

The TTWs, involving experienced ARFF across various airport categories, identified key high-demand tasks such as hose deployments, equipment carries, and ladder operations. These tasks were prioritised based on frequency, criticality, and physical intensity, aligning with prior firefighting literature that emphasises hose handling and victim rescues as core demands.^8,14 The TTFOs quantitatively measured these tasks through simulated scenarios, revealing that aviation incidents imposed significant demands on personnel, with average distances of 534.7 ± 111.8 m and intensities of 24.9 ± 4.5 m/min. Subjective rating of perceived exertion (RPE: 56 ± 23) and physiological metrics (%V˙O2max average: 44.7 ± 6.9; max, 77.6 ± 6.5) indicated heavy workload, comparable to structural firefighting studies.^6,17

Hose drags resulted in forces of 18.7–52.3 kg, increasing with hose diameter and varying by surface (higher on tarmac), consistent with surface-dependent resistance reported in occupational physiology.³ Ladder pulls for the larger 7.3 m ladder required greater force and duration than the 5.4 m variant (average: 14.6 vs 4.2 kg, maximum 79.9 vs 29.7 kg, respectively), highlighting equipment-specific demands. The Driver role emerged as the most physically and physiologically taxing, with the highest distances and HR responses, respectively, underscoring role-specific fitness needs.²⁴

Trade task workshop confirmation outcomes

Key results reviewed in the TTWC included characteristics of the 29 ARFF participants, whose years of service varied by site, but whose height and body mass were similar, as well as detailed outcomes from the hose drag tasks. Common hose configurations (single and two-length combinations across 38–64 mm diameters) were documented, with gravel generally producing higher perceived exertion (average RPE across diameters: 53 ± 10 vs. 47 ± 11) and, in some cases, higher forces than tarmac (64 mm max force: 96.1 ± 20.1 kg vs. 85.0 ± 18.8 kg). The largest-diameter hose increased task duration (64 mm: 40.9 ± 14.2 s; 50 mm: 23.8 ± 9.8 s; 38 mm: 26.9 ± 3.3 s). Ladder pulls were also examined, with findings indicating that the 7.3 m ladder required slightly greater effort than the 5.4 m ladder, though these tasks contributed minimally to overall workload patterns. Scenario data highlighted the Driver role as the most demanding, covering the greatest distances and reaching the highest heart rate (average = 70.5%HRmax, maximum = 87.8%HRmax) and oxygen consumption values (average = 42.9%V˙O2_max, maximum ⁼ 77.6%V˙O2_max), reinforcing the intermittent, high-intensity nature of ARFF work.

Task characterisation confirmed the intermittent nature of ARFF duties, with feedback from the TTCW confirming the tasks’ representativeness. These findings extend previous urban firefighting analyses¹³ to ARFF, emphasising rapid, high-intensity efforts over prolonged endurance.

Initial PES test validation

The gym-based test elicited responses of 454.4 ± 24.5 m distance (range: 402–495.5 m), 65 ± 10.5 m/min intensity (range: 36.0–82.5 m/min), RPE 60 ± 20 (range: 29–110), and %V˙O2max (average) 64.4 ± 8.5; (max) 79.4 ± 7.7, with a mean duration of 6:59 ± 1:37 (range: 5:23–12:33). The operational test showed similar demands: 478.4 ± 37.3 m (range: 432.5–552 m), 66.1 ± 9.2 m/min (range: 52.3–87.0 m/min), RPE 54 ± 21 (range: 25–87.5), %V˙O2max (average) 65.4 ± 8.2/(max) 83.9 ± 7.2, duration 7:06 ± 0:56 (range: 6:03–10:16). Both closely matched live scenarios (Table 2), with intensities reflecting heavy exercise domains,²⁵ validating their ecological relevance. Detailed task durations showed variability (Table 2), likely due to individual fitness differences, as seen in prior studies.⁸ SME feedback revealed sled drags inadequately simulated hoses, prompting the hybrid design to enhance validity while maintaining practicality.³

Table 2.

Measurement outcomes of PES tests and scenarios. Results are presented as mean ± SD (min-max range).

Measure	Gym-based test	Operational test	Scenario
Distance Travelled (m)	454.4 ± 24.5 (402–495.5)	478.4 ± 37.3 (432.5–552)	534.7 ± 111.8 (369–698)
Intensity (m/min)	65.0 ± 10.5 (36.0–82.5)	66.1 ± 9.2 (52.3–87.0)	24.9 ± 4.5 (18.5–31.8)
RPE	60 ± 20 (29–110)	54 ± 21 (25–87.5)	56 ± 23 (25–90)
%V˙O₂max (average)	64.4 ± 8.5 (44–79)	65.4 ± 8.2 (47–90)	44.7 ± 6.9 (34–51)
%V˙O₂max (max)	79.4 ± 7.7 (66–94)	83.9 ± 7.2 (64–102)	77.6 ± 6.5 (69–88)
Duration (min:sec)	6:59 ± 1:37 (5:23–12:33)	7:06 ± 0:56 (6:03–10:16)	21:34 ± 3:36 (17:00–27:00)

RPE, rating of perceived exertion; %V˙O₂max, percentage maximal oxygen uptake.

Hybrid PES test refinement

The Hybrid test refinement yielded durations (min:sec) of 6:26 ± 0:40 for trial 1 and 6:17 ± 0:41 for trial 2, with RPEs of 52 ± 19 and 48 ± 19, respectively. The refined Operational test showed completion times (min:sec) of 6:36 ± 0:56 and 6:27 ± 1:07, RPEs 43 ± 16 and 43 ± 19. Task-specific times and TEM (Table 3) indicated high reliability, supporting defensibility.⁵

Table 3.

Summary of time-based and subjective exertion outcomes across Phase 2 PES validation trials. Results are presented as mean ± SD (min-max range).

Test version	Trial 1 duration (min:sec)	Trial 1 RPE	Trial 2 duration (min:sec)	Trial 2 RPE	TEM (s)
Hybrid	6:26 ± 0:40 (5:38–8:34)	52 ± 19 (24–80)	6:17 ± 0:41 (5:10–7:54)	48 ± 19 (15–80)	18.0
Operational (refined)	6:36 ± 0:56 (5:00–7:50)	43 ± 16 (17–70)	6:27 ± 1:07 (4:49–9:03)	43 ± 19 (17–75)	18.0

RPE, rating of perceived exertion; TEM, technical error of measurement.

Discussion

This study set out to develop practical, evidence-based physical employment standards for ARFF personnel, ultimately producing two scientifically robust tests through a multi-stage process of task analysis, field quantification, expert validation, and empirical evaluation. This work showed that the Driver role consistently emerged as the most physically demanding, shaping the performance benchmarks used in test design. Hose drags and ladder pulls were closely examined, with surface-dependent force requirements reinforcing the need for ecologically valid task simulations. The resulting Operational and Hybrid PES tests matched or exceeded the physiological demands of live firefighting, demonstrated high reliability with minimal trial-to-trial variation, and reflected the brief, high-intensity nature of ARFF response work. Collectively, these outcomes provide a development framework that can be readily adapted by other emergency services seeking defensible, job-relevant physical standards.

Ecological validity and test design considerations

A major goal of PES development is to balance ecological validity with practicality of administration. The initial comparison between gym-based and operational tests revealed that, although gym-based tests are convenient and logistically simple, firefighter acceptance was low due to perceived lack of realism; specifically the sled drag being used to simulate a hose drag. The replacement of sled drags with genuine hose drags in the Hybrid PES improved both task realism and participant engagement, as sled drags did not replicate the force profile of hoses despite similar average forces.

The final Operational PES offers maximal ecological validity by using actual equipment (e.g., 38–64 mm hoses, rolled hose carries). Conversely, the Hybrid PES maintains equivalent physiological demand while reducing equipment and setup requirements, making it ideal for smaller stations or training facilities with limited resources. This dual-test model enhances flexibility and ensures consistent assessment across varied ARFF sites.

Physiological demands and safety relevance

The observed metabolic intensities (∼65% V˙O₂max) align closely with values reported for other high-risk occupations such as structural firefighters and military personnel during load carriage tasks.^3,4,25 Peak V˙O₂max exceeded 80%, indicating heavy-intensity exercise comparable to live firefighting.⁶

By designing PES tasks that replicate these demands, ARFF organisations can ensure that only personnel capable of sustaining such intensities are deployed to front-line operational duties. This has direct implications for reducing injury risk, optimising response efficiency, and maintaining compliance with workplace health and safety guidelines. Comparisons with literature, such as Gumieniak, Gledhill¹⁴ for wildland firefighters, show similar emphases on aerobic demand and task-specific simulations to ensure safety.

Reliability and defensibility

A scientifically validated PES must demonstrate content validity, construct validity, and reliability to be defensible for employment or operational decisions.⁵ The present research achieved these standards using quantitative field data, expert feedback, and repeated-measure reliability testing. The low TEM confirms that both PES versions produce consistent results across repeated trials.

Furthermore, by anchoring test demands to empirically measured field demands, the PES meets the defensibility criteria for occupational standards recommended by international guidelines (e.g., 26). This is consistent with development processes for other PAT, such as the Candidate PAT (CPAT), which used job task analyses and incumbent performance to set cut-scores.¹²

Comparison with previous work

Previous studies developing firefighter fitness assessments have often relied on generic obstacle courses or fitness benchmarks that poorly represent true operational demands. In contrast, the current approach directly modelled test design on ARFF-specific tasks validated through field observation. Similar methodologies have been successfully applied in military and emergency medicine contexts, reinforcing the rigor of the current development framework.^4,7

This study extends the literature by addressing the unique operational context of aviation firefighting, where response distance, surface variability, and equipment mass differ markedly from structural firefighting. For example, Skinner, Newton⁸ found aerobic fitness critical for ARFF simulations, aligning with our findings of high V˙O₂ demands. The PES therefore represents the first known validated standard specific to this occupational domain, filling a gap noted in reviews of firefighter testing.¹³

Comparisons with wildland standards¹⁴ highlight similarities in using multi-phase validation to ensure ecological validity, but our tests incorporate ARFF-specific elements like hose configurations on tarmac. Urban fire PAT, such as firefighter PAT,²⁷ emphasise ranking, whereas our focus on minimum standards for incumbents prioritises safety over competition.

Practical implications

The implementation of the validated PES has several important implications for ARFF operations. First, it strengthens operational readiness by ensuring that all personnel maintain the minimum physical capacity necessary to work safely when undertaking their required ARFF roles. Second, it supports workforce sustainability, as routine PES assessments can help identify individuals who may benefit from targeted fitness interventions, ultimately reducing injury risk and promoting long-term career viability.

The findings also inform training and program design. The observed physiological demands, approximately 65% of V˙O₂max with perceived exertion levels between 50 and 60, highlight the need for conditioning programs that prioritise aerobic endurance, functional strength, and the ability to perform repeated short-burst efforts.

Limitations

While this study provides valuable insights into the development of physical employment standards for aviation rescue firefighters, several limitations should be considered when interpreting and generalising the findings. The participant group consisted of volunteers from a limited number of ARFF stations, which may introduce sampling bias toward individuals who are already more physically fit or motivated to take part in research. Although the live-fire scenarios incorporated actual fire, they were conducted under controlled conditions that did not replicate the full range of environmental stressors found in real-world emergencies, potentially leading to an underestimation of the highest physiological demands experienced operationally. The cross-sectional design also restricted the analysis to incumbent personnel, highlighting the need for future validation among recruits or less experienced staff. Additionally, variations in equipment and testing surfaces, such as differences between tarmac and gravel or changes in hose conditions, may affect task difficulty, reinforcing the importance of site-specific calibration to ensure consistency across sites. Future research should broaden testing across a range of environmental and demographic contexts to improve generalisability, and longitudinal studies linking PES performance to injury risk and operational outcomes would further strengthen the evidence base.

Conclusion

This research developed and validated two robust Physical Employment Standard (PES) tests, an Operational PES and a Hybrid PES. Both tests capture the physical and physiological demands of real operational tasks while remaining practical and highly reliable. The multi-stage, evidence-based process, which integrated job task analysis, field measurement, expert consultation, and scientific validation, offers a reproducible framework for developing PES in safety-critical occupations. Implementing these standards can support operational readiness, enhance safety, and provide a consistent benchmark for workforce physical capability.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-wor-10.1177_10519815261467011 - Supplemental material for Development of two physical employment standard tests for aviation rescue firefighters with different ecological validity

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-wor-10.1177_10519815261467011 for Development of two physical employment standard tests for aviation rescue firefighters with different ecological validity by Tim LA Doyle, Jodie A Wills, Rhiannon A Campbell and Brendan Parsey in WORK

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Air Services Australia; however, it did not influence the study outcomes. The authors thank the participants for their time and willingness to participate and the organisation for providing access to personnel, equipment, and infrastructure. The authors also acknowledge Drs Stuart Cormack and Paul Tofari for their valuable contributions and insights to this research.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Air Services Australia.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iDs

Tim LA Doyle

Rhiannon A Campbell

References

Air Services Australia. How We Work, https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/about-us/our-services/aviation-rescue-fire-fighting-service/ (2025, accessed 20 November 2025).

Air Services Australia. ARFF Levels of Service, https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/about-us/our-services/aviation-rescue-fire-fighting-service/arff-levels-of-service/ (2025, accessed 20 November 2025).

Payne

Harvey

. A framework for the design and development of physical employment tests and standards. Ergonomics 2010; 53: 1490–1507.

Taylor

NAS

Groeller

Sampson

, et al. Defining the physical demands of work and establishing minimum physical employment standards. Ergonomics 2016; 59: 649–663.

Rayson

. Development of physical selection procedures for the British army. Occup Med (Chic Ill) 2000; 50: 383–389.

Walker

Driller

Argus

, et al. Cold-water immersion and recovery from simulated firefighting activity. Appl Ergon 2014; 45: 647–653.

Wang

. Relationship between maximum acceptable work time and physical workload. Ergonomics 2002; 45: 280–289.

Skinner

Newton

Walker

, et al. Aviation rescue firefighters physical fitness and predictors of task performance. Ergonomics 2020; 63: 1221–1234.

Davis

Dotson

Santa Maria

. Relationship between simulated fire fighting tasks and physical performance measures. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1982; 14: 65–71.

10.

Michaelides

Parpa

Henry

, et al. Predicting performance on a firefighters ability test from fitness parameters. Res Q Exerc Sport 2008; 79: 468–475.

11.

Rhea

Alvar

Gray

. Physical fitness and job performance of firefighters. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18: 348–352.

12.

International Association of Fire Fighters. The Fire Service Joint Labor Management Wellness-Fitness Initiative: Candidate Physical Ability Test. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: International Association of Fire Fighters, 2007.

13.

Fullagar

Sampson

Mott

, et al. Employment standards for Australian urban firefighters: part 4: physical aptitude tests and standards. J Occup Environ Med 2015; 57: 1092–1097.

14.

Gumieniak

Gledhill

Jamnik

. Physical employment standard for Canadian wildland fire fighters: identifying and characterising critical initial attack response tasks. Ergonomics 2018; 61: 1292–1303.

15.

Dennison

Mullineaux

Yates

, et al. The effect of fatigue and training status on firefighter performance. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 1101–1109.

16.

Fernhall

Fahs

Horn

, et al. Acute effects of firefighting on cardiac performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 735–741.

17.

Horn

Blevins

Fernhall

, et al. Core temperature and heart rate response to repeated bouts of firefighting activities. Ergonomics 2013; 56: 1465–1473.

18.

Léger

Lambert

. A maximal multistage 20-m shuttle run test to predict VO₂max. Eur J Appl Physiol 1982; 49: 1–12.

19.

Ramsbottom

Brewer

Williams

. A progressive shuttle run test to estimate maximal oxygen uptake. Br J Sports Med 1988; 22: 141–144.

20.

Comfort

Dos’Santos

Beckham

, et al. Standardization and methodological considerations for the isometric Midthigh Pull. Strength & Conditioning Journal 2019; 41: 57–79.

21.

Chizewski

Box

Kesler

, et al. Fitness fights fires: exploring the relationship between physical fitness and firefighter ability. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 20211109.

22.

Borg

. A comparison of AME and CR100 for scaling perceived exertion. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2002; 109: 157–175.

23.

Perini

Oliveira

Ornellas

, et al. Technical error of measurement in anthropometry. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte 2005; 11: 81–85.

24.

Taylor

NAS

Fullagar

HHK

Sampson

, et al. Employment standards for Australian urban firefighters: part 2: the physiological demands and the criterion tasks. J Occup Environ Med 2015; 57: 1072–1082.

25.

Barr

Gregson

Reilly

. The thermal ergonomics of firefighting reviewed. Appl Ergon 2010; 41: 161–172.

26.

ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Wolters Kluwer, 2021.

27.

Petersen

Dreger

. Development of a pre-employment physical fitness standard for Canadian Forces (CF) and Department of National Defense firefighters. 2006.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.21 MB