TSAC-F common mistakes
TSAC-F · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering energy-system questions by picking the system that 'sounds' most intense for the task rather than matching the task's duration and intensity - e.g., labeling a 2-minute fireground work bout as purely phosphagen, or calling a 45-second casualty drag 'aerobic.'
Candidates memorize the three system names and their fuel sources but never build a duration-intensity anchor, so under time pressure they reach for whichever term feels most athletic.
What to do instead
Build a one-page decision table with hard cut points (roughly 0–10 s phosphagen, 10 s–2 min fast glycolysis, beyond 2 min oxidative, with overlap acknowledged) and rehearse it against 10 tactical tasks - hose advance, stair climb with high-rise pack, suspect control, wall breach - naming the dominant system and justifying it in one sentence.
Describing movement phases with the wrong terminology - calling the lowering phase of a back squat 'concentric,' or identifying the antagonist as the prime mover during a push-up - in a question that hinges on that distinction.
Everyday gym language ('up phase,' 'the muscle working') is imprecise, and candidates never convert it into anatomical terms, so they answer from habit rather than analysis.
What to do instead
Write out the squat, deadlift, push-up, and pull-up phase by phase: joint actions, muscle actions (concentric/eccentric/isometric), and prime mover versus antagonist. Do it from blank paper twice a week until it is automatic.
Reversing or misstating the direction of the force–velocity and length–tension relationships - for example claiming force output is greatest at the fastest shortening velocity, or that a muscle generates peak tension at its shortest length.
These are usually studied as pictures rather than rules, so the curve's shape is remembered but which axis drives which outcome is not.
What to do instead
Reduce each relationship to a single spoken rule plus a tactical example: 'As shortening velocity rises, force falls - this is why a heavy sled push is slow and a light one is fast.' State the rule aloud before answering any question that mentions velocity, joint angle, or muscle length.
Jumping straight into exercise selection for a program-design vignette without first naming the job tasks, physical demands, and injury risks of the unit described.
Candidates have seen many generic strength templates and default to reproducing one; the vignette's occupational details feel like background rather than the input that determines the answer.
What to do instead
For every program-design practice question, write a mandatory three-line needs analysis before looking at the options - critical job tasks, bioenergetic and biomechanical demands, common injury sites - then eliminate any option that contradicts a line.
Confusing acute program variables with periodization models - calling a change in rest interval or load a 'periodization scheme,' or mislabeling block, linear, and undulating models by which variable changes and when.
Both topics use the same vocabulary of volume and intensity, and candidates learn the terms in one block without separating 'what you manipulate within a session' from 'how you sequence training over months.'
What to do instead
Make a two-column table: acute variables (choice, order, load, volume, rest, frequency, velocity) on one side, periodization models on the other, with a note on what shifts in each model. Answer any question by first deciding which column it belongs to.
Computing prescribed loads from the wrong reference point - taking a percentage of a rep-max rather than a true 1RM, or applying a percentage to a lift the tested 1RM does not belong to - and selecting the resulting number without sanity-checking it.
Calculation items appear mid-exam under time pressure, and candidates shortcut the arithmetic while misreading which value the stem supplied.
What to do instead
Drill 10 load-calculation items per study session, always writing the equation and the units before touching the answer choices, then checking the result against a rough benchmark (a 5RM load is roughly 87% of 1RM) to catch order-of-magnitude errors.
Giving spotting and breathing guidance that is generically 'safe' but wrong for the specific lift - e.g., stationing a spotter behind a lifter performing a deadlift, or instructing an inhale during the most demanding portion of a maximal lift.
Candidates apply a single 'have a spotter, breathe out' rule to all exercises instead of matching the safety procedure to the movement pattern and the load.
What to do instead
Build a lift-by-lift card for the core tactical lifts covering spotter position or 'no spotter indicated,' breathing and bracing timing, and the most common technique fault. Review it before any exercise-technique block and recite it for the specific lift named in the stem.
Selecting exercises that are technically correct for the target quality but impossible in the unit's setting - prescribing Olympic lifts or a full barbell rack to a crew with no platform, no bumpers, and a shared apparatus bay.
Textbook exercise selection is taught in ideal facility terms, and candidates do not habitually filter choices through real constraints.
What to do instead
Before choosing any exercise, run a four-item constraint check: available equipment, usable space, duty schedule and time on shift, and current injury profile. Eliminate any option that fails one item, even if it is the theoretically superior choice.
Treating pre-participation screening as a formality - failing to flag when medical clearance is required, or applying BMI and body-composition cutoffs uncritically to a heavily muscled tactical population.
Candidates skim the screening content because it feels administrative, and BMI is remembered as a simple number rather than a measure with known limitations.
What to do instead
Memorize the screening decision path as a flow rather than a list (known disease or symptoms, risk factors, clearance needed or not), and attach one sentence to BMI noting it misclassifies muscular individuals - then read every wellness stem for the words 'highly trained' or 'muscular build.'
Answering performance-decrement or wellness vignettes with a training-only solution - adding volume, changing the split, or altering intensity - when the stem describes poor sleep, inadequate fueling, or accumulated occupational stress.
Candidates over-practice program design and under-practice the wellness domain, so every scenario gets reinterpreted as a programming problem.
What to do instead
For each wellness vignette, force three answers before choosing: one training adjustment, one nutrition or hydration action, and one sleep or stress-management action. If the stem's clues point to recovery rather than capacity, the training-lever option is the distractor.