Talk:Royal Canadian Air Cadets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Royal Canadian Air Cadets has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit:
    • Make the tables look nicer Sancho McCann 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Make the images more uniform... they're all different sizes and alignments right now.
    Tried fiddling with the images; the two at the top, though set to the same (220px) value, come out at different widths - as for the rest of the article, I think left-align would be best... will fix the wings, while I'm thinking of it. An effort to upload any DND-provided pics of Air Cadets (or, better yet, your own - GNUFL and all that) illustrative of any activities mentioned in the text would be great. Quadra 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Trim down current images or add new images as discussed near the bottom of the talk page.
    Sancho McCann 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) *Do something with the list of summer training centres.
  • Expand:

    *Start a history section Sancho McCann 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

    *Add short (couple of sentences) descriptions for summer courses Sancho McCann 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] COLONEL R.J.A. PERRON

I believe the whole section about the Colonel, Director Cadets, has been entirely lifted from the National Defence website, even though source has been provided...this technically constitutes plagiarism, no? Luke 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section as a copyright violation from: Department of National Defence See Source Page Flying Canuck 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warrants are not Sr NCOs

I changed the rank table to separate the Warrant Officers from the F/Sgts and Sgts. Warrant Officers are NOT NCOs. WO1s, WOIIs, F/Sgts and Sgts are all Sr Non-commissioned members but Sgts and Flight Sergeants are the only ones of the four that are also NCOs.

Where is the reference that refers to any cadet as an NCO (Non-commissioned Officer)? (PS. Please sign your comments by using four tildes ~~~~ Sancho McCann 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The National Defence Act categorizes members of the Canadian Forces that are not commissioned officers as Non Commissioned Members. I will update this terminology in this article. Sancho McCann 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
But cadets are not members of the Canadian Forces. 216.23.136.226 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, correct... I forget what sentence I was originally referring to. I think the article used to say something like, "cadets, like members of the Canadian Forces are called non-commissioned officers", but both errors in this statement have since been corrected it seems. Sancho McCann 04:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually QR and O CF defines NCO as those of Cpl and Sgt rank and NCM as anyone not an officer. There is no differentiation in the Cadet Program as there are no longer cadet officer ranks. Cadets are cadets. 24.108.176.42 04:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NCM is a phrase peculiar to the post-unification CF, and refers to everyone but commissioned officers. For the purposes of splitting up ranks lacking the Queen's commission, the appropriate terms for Army and Air purposes (whether CF or Cadet) are Warrant Officers (Chief Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer, Warrant Officer - WOI and WOII), NCOs (Sergeants, Master Corporals, and Corporals in the CF, although Cpl is often termed as a Junior NCO - Flight Sergeant, Sergeant, and Corporal) and Other Ranks (Privates, Recruits/Leading Air Cadet, Air Cadet).
The navy, lacking the strong warrant officer presence of the army, splits between Chief Petty Officers ("Chiefs"), Petty Officers ("POs") and Other Ranks - "men," while historically suitable, has, for obvious reasons, fallen out of use. Navy warrants were, originally, closer the officer side, and were either near-civilian specialists (surgeons, pursers), or near-officer ranks/appointments: gunners, bosuns, and (sailing) masters. Today's CF has no naval warrants, although I believe the RN has retained them.
Insofar as this applies to Wikipedia articles, the term "NCM" seems to be avoided altogether when discussing cadets, whilst the older terms (Warrants, NCOs, and Other Ranks) are used as appropriate.
24.108.176.42, cadets, in a well-run unit, fill the roles of their CF counterparts - the terminology definitely applies.

Quadra 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Aims correct

In the three aims area it said air, sea and land while the air cadets (The topic of the page) only develop an interest in the air element of the CF. The sea cadets handle sea element and army cadets land element. At the time of this edit the cadets page is down so I do not have the exact wording so, I will wait until the page is back up and I can get it from the book.

CATO 54-01 gives the aims of the RCAC : a. to develop in youth the attributes of good citizenship and leadership; b. to promote physical fitness; and c. to stimulate the interest of youth in the Air element of the Canadian Forces. I would have thought this would be more appropriate for this page than the aims of the organisation as a whole. 216.23.136.226 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes little sense to choose the reference that suits a point of view. QR and O Cadets is the senior document to CATO. At the same time QR and O as is pointed out says cadets shall not be promoted but appointed ... at the same time the Air Cadet Rank CATO uses promoted and suggests QR and O is to be amended. Go figure???

On the other hand, it doesn't matter whether a child is in sea, army or air cadets one aspect of the aim of the program is to bring attention to all elements of the CF while participating in a focused elemental program. Air Cadets and Army Cadets visit HMC ships. 24.108.176.42

[edit] Summer Camp Chart

We should work to create a simple chart that outlines the requirements and a short description of each summer course. Gliding and Flying are currently discussed in paragraph form, but I could see this getting a little out of hand as more courses are added. Sancho McCann 08:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if anyone could get all the crests together for the "camps," that might add some colour to the page; see Royal Canadian Sea Cadets for an example.Quadra 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Our summer camp chart still needs some work. I moved all of the badges into the chart, but the badges are different sizes. We also need a short description for each of them. This is an area that anyone could help out on. What do you think about stating the length of the course, a brief statement of outcome for a cadet that is on the course, and perhaps some prerequisites? Sancho McCann 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts - not wanting to step on feet!

Another note: have a look at the Sea wiki page - would a comparable treatment of the ranks be of interest? Also, HMCS Quadra, has, at least for the past six years, never had an Air Cadet presence, excepting glider and power pilots coming over to use the confidence course.Quadra 17:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so... Right now, each of the upper level Air Cadet ranks has its own wiki page! I'm sure these are not notable individually, but notable only because they are related to the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. I'd like to merge them with this page very soon. I really like the RCSC page and would actually like to have this page evolve to something close to it. Sancho McCann 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And no worries about stepping on feet :) Let's make these pages great. Sancho McCann 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Cadet Banner

I've been trying to find out information about the RCAC banner and am having no luck. How did you find out what it looks like? Any suggestions about where to start? Sancho McCann 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been number of revisions to the section on the Air Cadet Banner revolving around it being paraded at the SL Grad Parades (plural). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there just one, single, SL course in Canada out of Cold Lake?CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material for public consumption

Cadet ranks should have the modifier cadet in them in accordance with QR and O (Cadets) (a separate document regarding the Cadet program not CF QR and O) The is one aim of the Cadet program..wtih three parts..it ends to instil in youth an interest in the sea, land and air activities of the Canadian Forces ... it applies to all cadets sea, army, and air and is not element specific. The League and the CF spend considerable time discussing terminology and consistency would serve everyone best. Somehow someone put a photo of a missile in place of the C/Sgt rank ... I removed it and will leave it to you to replace. Sorry if I messed with the graphics coding. It would be best to leave out any reference to an additional rank (C/F/Cpl or whatever). No announcement has been made and certainly, Wikipedia is not authorized to speak on behalf of the cadet organization in advance of any formal announcement. The issue is still a rumour until and if it is announced. Cheers. 24.108.176.42 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Have you thought of getting an account? I agree that the additional rank should not be included yet as there are no references to support it yet. From looking at the file history for the missle picture, I think the Sgt rank picture actually linked to a picture of a missle that was called the Sergeant ... wierd. We'll need to find a new picture. Sancho McCann 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Flight Corporal rank has been announced internally, though not yet officially introduced, via Commanding Officer's conferences and the like, and is the subject of intense discussion on www.cadet-world.com/cwforums, an entirely unofficial site for members of various cadet programs operated by Cadet Instructor Cadre on their own time, including officers currently serving with DCdts in Ottawa and various regional headquarters. Quadra 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I've cleaned up the image problems... FCpl should stay - we're Wikipedia, not a DND press release. Ditto for "Cadet" everything; not only is it not reflective of common practice, but it looks incredibly bad to repeat the same word more than is needful. Quadra 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can include the Flight Corporal rank unless we can give a reference so that somebody else can verify our statements (see WP:V). I'll try to find something. Sancho McCann 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get a citeable e-mail from one of the headquarters officers on Cadet World. Quadra 21:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Each of you. Quadra and Sancho have a lot to offer fixing these pages and making them reflect well on the Cadet Organization. You have the technical skills. It is also worth considering that members of the CF are constrained in their ability to produce material for the public on any CF or Government program. DAOD 2008, and Q R and O apply. Therefore precision is paramount rather than perception, guess work, or rumour. It would be counterproductive through your well meaning and important effort to cause a CATO or Routine Order to be constructed and issued thereby amplifying those regulations and further restricting participating in this process by members of the organization unless authorized. That is a serious consideration.

With regard to "cadet" rank ... this is an encyclopedia, and using cadet, while repetataive it is the correct nomenclature for cadets of all elements in both french and english. 131.137.245.199 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this... we leave the "Cadet" in the ranks section of this article, but mention that in practice, cadets are often simply referred to as their rank without the "cadet" prefix. We could reference the Level 1 training handbook for this. Sancho McCann 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quota vs Vacancies

Does this fit in? It seems very detail-ish that even people within the organization often don't know. I think this distracts from the flow of the page and doesn't add much to our description of the RCAC. It would be like an article on Company X including a chart of number of management positions. What do you think about removing it? Sancho McCann 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It probably doesn't add much and doesn't mean much to anyone unless they are in the program. An alternative may be a link to the CATO, but the same comment applies ... what does it mean unless you are an Air Cadet Sgt, and want to know your chances of FSgt?? 131.137.245.199 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Organisation"

This is entirely a semantic question - any better title than "Organisation" for the cadet outfits? (ie, RCAirC Organisation) "Service" sounds better, but doesn't really work grammatically in that context, and besides might not be the best term (that's a different discussion altogether!). "Movement" sounds like something one sees the base doctor about... maybe lower-case "organisation" would be best? Quadra 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like lower-case "organisation". Sancho McCann 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I found this backgrounder from the Canadian Forces regarding the "Canadian Cadet Organizations". The term "Canadian Cadet Organizations" is used consistently throughout the document. What do you think about changing our wording? Sancho McCann 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability and Reliable Sources

There has been some discussion on this page and several edits/reverts related to a Flight Corporal rank. It was mentioned above that "precision is paramount rather than perception, guess work, or rumour". This is captured well in Wikipedia's policies on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS). These policies remove ambiguity about what is appropriate material to appear in a Wikipedia article. The phrase that I think expresses the idea the best is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Please read these policies if you're concerned that an edit that you have made has been reverted or corrected inappropriately, and continue to help us make this a great page. Sancho McCann 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aims and motto deserving of subsections?

Do you think the aims and the motto should be in subsections or in paragraphs in the intro? (The aims are currently written in two places: a paragraph in the intro, and repeated in a stand-alone section.) Sancho McCann 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Stand alone -- multiple editors have created redundancy 131.137.245.199 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For now, for continuity with the other CanCadet pages, have placed aims in a para, along with the motto. Quadra 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours versus Flags

The Flags of the RCAC sections needs a major rewrite. There are many statements are either not true or personal opinion. 1)The sqn banner may also include an embroidered squadron crest rather than the RCAC crest. 2)QR and O (Cadets) specifically states that the flags used by air cadets may not be referred to as Colours. You can't have a Colour Party without colours so they are Flag Parties not Colour Parties; 3)Flags parties don't "typically" carry 3 flags. Only the units that don't obey the regulations. The Manual of Drill and Ceremonial only indicates the carrying of 1 or 2 colours or flags.CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 03:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RCAirC squadrons do typically disregard the 201 and carry three flags - poke about on their official photo galleries if you wish! As far as the embroidered squadron crest, please check your source on that one; Canadian and British air unit crests don't, to the best of my knowledge, find their way onto official flags. Could be wrong, though - haven't ever seen an Air Force squadron's stand of colours.

Every single CF Sqn's banner has their crest embroidered on it. An example is here: http://www.snowbirds.dnd.ca/site/_assets/grfx/history/431sqd_colors.jpg Air Cadets Sqn's are similarly allowed. When my squadron had their crest approved, the Air Cadet League arranged for us to get a new squadron banner with the crest on it rather than the air cadet crest.CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Colour parties... it's a long-winded debate in the making. RCSC tends to call their sheet-on-a-stick carriers colour parties due to Naval custom (colours, to us damp ones, means any ship's nationally-identifying bit of cloth, not a consecrated item - and, in the freaky habit of the naval service, this terminology continues on land), entirely separate from the Army traditions from which the RCAF (now Air Element) sprung, whilst Army and Air cadet units seem to divide into two camps. One is that the 201 calls the formation a colour party, so whatever they're carrying, be it consecrated under the Sovereign's own eye, or be it a DND-stamped pillowcase, they're a colour party. The other view is that, as the embroidered sheet on a stick isn't a colour, the formation is a flag party. From an entirely personal POV, I'd say the 201 would be the deciding and senior document - the CF "colour party" might include no item that is actually a colour - banners, ensigns, command flags, the Canadian Flag; all these are carried by "colour parties." Anyway, enough rambling. Point here is that the terms are debatable - therefore, we mention the debate, or at least the possibility of debate (the difference between the 201 and the CATO). Quadra 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The 201 is not the senior document as it is a MANUAL not orders. In both the Cadet Admin and Trg ORDERS and Queen's Regulations and ORDERS (cadets), it is mentioned that the flags are not to be referred to as colours. Also, carrying the Canadian Flag along with the ensign and sqn banner does not seem to be authorized by the CATO covering the use of cadet flags (CATO 12-05). Finally, the 201 gives directions for both colour and flag parties. All these together should mean that there is no need for a debate. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The three-flag party isn't authorized - but it is incredibly common: thus, it'll stay. I'll double-check the 201 re: terminology for the formation (never heard of a CF flag party in that context). As for the not referred to as colours, the question there is what, precisely, "refer" means - whether something like "Pvt Jones, grab the squadron flags," vs. "squadron colours," or if it's a blanket deletion of "colours" from the cadet vocabulary.


[edit] Bayonets

Anyone got a decent reference as to why the RCAirC ban on bayonets? The current air force, the old RCAF, and both the historical and the current RAF, use them... a good explanation, for personal interest, would be nice; however, for the article, a referenced work would be even better. Quadra 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bayonets are not used, because many mistakes have been made with them. Quite a few good cadets forgot to attach them correctly and had them go flying of while doing rifle drill. Dreamy 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That isn't the reason. Army cadets and Sea are authorized and for the same reason why they can fire the C-7 and air cadets can't. Swords, rifles and bayonets have been traditionally used by those elements in war where the primary weapon of the air force is aircraft. It is part of an attempt to clearly mark the differences between the three elements. That is the explanation given to me by a former Regional Cadet Officer but there doesn't seem to be written reference for it. It should be noted that air cadets CAN use them when at a sea or army cadet summer training centre to allow Air Cadets to fully participate in the training and accept parade appointments at these CSTCs where the performance of drill with bayonets is required.CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aims

Language indicating the elementally-focused nature of the CF-related training would be desirable; can one of the would-be (or actual!) PAFFOs come up with something suitable? Thanks! Quadra 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link added

Added link to the Civil Air Patrol for comparison purposes, because they fill the same function. If it was inappropriate, remove and no hard feelings.

Bizznot 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As an idea, a category "Air Cadet Organisations" would be nice... much like the infobox found at the bottom of Royal Canadian Sea Cadets. Quadra 16:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just my prejudice but I'd like to get the link to the Cadet Wikia removed. I looked it over and it's so full of errors and one person's vision of what the CCM should be that it's next to useless. There isn't a single reference used in any any article I looked at. If our goal is accuracy, I don't think sending people to that site is accomplishing it. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge green thing

I noticed the page still has the "This article or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." template on it. I have taken it off as the changes seem to have slowed down and it appears to be pretty stable. If anyone objects, please put it back. :) --Flying Canuck 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Just a note about external links: I have removed the link to cadet world per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #10 and #2. --Flying Canuck 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badge

Anon user, can you please cite your source for the wording you insist on inserting into the "Badge" section? This may be technical heraldic language, but it isn't necessary to write Wikipedia in this fashion - the main aim is to make articles that easily communicate information, for the ease of the reader. It certainly doesn't make any sense to me. For instance, the description:

  • "a circle surrounded by a wreath of maple leaves on eagle volant affronte the head to the sinister. The whole ensigned by the Royal crown proper - fashioned as a St. Edward's Crown (to symbolise the Canadian Monarch as the Cadets' source of authority) below upon a scroll ROYAL CANADIAN AIR CADETS in french and english"

says to me

  • "a circle surrounded by a wreath of maple leaves on top of an eagle flying in front with the head to the left. The whole is topped (?) by the royal crown, but very importantly, the St. Edward's Crown (to symbolize the Sovereign's authority), underneath but on top of a scroll yelling ROYAL CANADIAN AIR CADETS in english, but the words in french are the same."

The description seems to contradict itself in at least three places, in both french and english. Of course, maybe I'm simply completely illiterate in heraldic language - so again, can you provide your source? --G2bambino 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Of course,

131.137.245.199 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the feathered creature is a falcon; the Air Force's bird is an eagle. Quadra 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is the same feathered creature (an eagle) that is featured all all commonwealth air service badges. source: Wing Commander F.H. Hitchins, Air Historian Check out the AFOA of Canada site.
  • The Heraldic poster had put forward the "official Heraldic description of the Air Cadet Badge as approved by the Canadian Heraldic Authority ... somewhat wordy and archaic in language where or means gold, and verte is green etc. Bambino has caught the essence of it. 24.108.176.42 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard formatting for cadet pages, CIC, etc...

Will be tossing up reformatted (no real content changes, just organization, appearance) pages for all three cadet elements, as well as the CIC and any sub-pages (i.e. Cadets Canada) off of my user page, for consideration. If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to pass 'em along! I'll post the links once I'm done. Quadra 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could find a better term than BASICS for the general descriptions of the RC(Air)C program. OVERVIEW instead? CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
'Overview' would work. Sancho McCann 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Switched back to list of summer camps for now

I removed the table of summer courses. It just looked so unwieldly. The problem was that many of the rows were taking up much more vertical space than necessary, partly due to differing image heights, and partly due to having one of the boxes in a row have text, while the other boxes were empty. A good example of a table that doesn't have these problems is the table of Boy Scout Merit badges. To get to this state, we'll need to trim down all of the badges to equal sized squares, then we can use small thumbnails so that the table won't take up much more room than the list does right now. You can go back in the history to find the links to the current images of the summer course badges, or you could scan/photocopy some of your own and update the images of the summer course badges. I've left a link in the article to the Canadian Forces symbol poster. Sancho McCann 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supported in the local community

This statement seems a little to restrictive as compared with what the Air Cadet League's responsibilities are as outlined in the memorandum of understanding (see references). Many provincial responsibilities have listed as requiring the planning, assistance, and support of the Air Cadet League. Perhaps we can change it from "supported in the local community by the Air Cadet League..." to "supported by the Air Cadet League...". Sancho McCann 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph form for Summer Training section

I shortened the summer training section into paragraph form. It seemed like a little too much weight was given to such specific details about summer training courses in an article that is about Air Cadets in general. Perhaps more detail can be given at Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadet_Training Quadra had started, but hasn't been developed much further. I think that is the place to go into more detail if desired. Sancho 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rank Table

The NEW rank table looks exactly the same as the one present before the re-write but it does look nice. I changed the pre-requisites for LAC as the CATO was changed to only requiring 5 months time in almost 2 years ago. You could probably add the pre-requisites for FCpl into the table as they have been promulgated in the recently amended CATO 55-04. Too bad they still haven't told us what the rank will actually look like CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I trimmed the table is because one of the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a good article? is "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details". I thought that the table went into a bit too much detail. Does a general reader need to know prerequisites for ranks? Or are the names, badges, and relative ordering of the ranks sufficient? Sancho 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If that info isn't anywhere else on Wikipedia, it might be worthy of inclusion - especially as, if expanded, the level training can be covered in relation to the various ranks. Clear as mud? Quadra 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not too bad. I remember about half a year ago, this article even included quotas for numbers of ranks dependent on squadron size... so in comparison, the article has become much more relevant to a general reader. I don't think though that we should include the detailed rank prerequisite information because it isn't anywhere else on Wikipedia; we need a better reason for including it like... is it encyclopedic? does it deserve as much weight as it is given with respect to the other information in the article? Especially because it is in a table, it's the one thing that stands out in this page (aside from the pictures). Any more thoughts? Sancho 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French equivilents for rank

I've seen no precedent for including French translations in an English Wikipedia article. Should we remove these translations? I don't think they're needed in an English language encyclopedia. There is a French Wikipedia in which we could include a translated version of this article. Sancho 16:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Review:
  • Is as follows:
Well, it seems that this article is definately clearly defined and easily understandable. It is obvious that time, effort, and care was used in creating such a fine article. If it were up to me I would definately rate this article as good.
Comments:
  • Is as follows:
Keep up the good contributing and this article will absolutely make a GREAT FA!
Reviewed by:
Dreamy 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! Thought that I had clearly answered that! : It should be a good article. Dreamy 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I agree with Daniel Case. Dreamy 22:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Since this review was not clear about whether it passed or not, and the editor who left it hasn't responded to my queries about it, I have reviewed it myself and put it on hold.

It is an excellent article that meets the criteria in many ways. However, the sourcing takes a break for two sections ("summer training centres" and "Flying"). This needs to be rectified sooner rather than later, as this article is the oldest in the GA candidate pool. If anyone makes these changes, let me know and I will pass it ASAP. Daniel Case 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I improved slightly the summer training centres section. I will work more on the Flying section later today. Sancho 18:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Good work on summer training. But we need the flying section sourced. Soon. Daniel Case 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
All concerns addressed. It passes (Should do something about that whitespace at the end of the flying section, though ... or maybe it's just my computer). Is this not one of the longest GA nomination periods ever? Daniel Case 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not your computer. There is a lot of whitespace... this is one problem that I don't know how to solve. Things seemed really jumbled without the whitespace, but the way it is now, it doesn't look nice either. I agree, such a long nomination period! It motivates me to help out with other nominations now though :-) Maybe shorten some wait nomination periods for other articles. Thanks for jumping in and helping out. Sancho 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squadron?

Um... Okay. Why are we using squadron all the time. I happen to know that they are not all "squadrons", but some are so large that they are "wings". This means that they have at least two squadrons in them. An example is 632 Wing. It is part of the Air Cadet movement. Dreamy 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was using squadron because it is the unit of organization described in the QR&O(Cadets) and CATO 11-10. There is no formal unit called a wing. Even if you look through the website that you linked to, the word "squadron" is mentioned throughout: "Squadron Staff", "Welcome to 632 Phoenix-Telesat Squadron", "Squadron Cadet Commanders". The parade formation, however, can be arranged in a wing, as seems to be the case at 632 Squadron. They have a "Wing Commander" parade position and two "Squadron Commander" parade positions. I know of several other squadrons that have (or have had previously) their parade arranged in a wing formation, or more accurately, "wing in column of squadrons" formation. If we were to include the reference to wing, it should be only in the description of parade formats I think, but that might be better left for another article such as Parade (military) (which coincidentally looks like it still has much room for improvement/expansion). Then we could link to that article by saying something like, "squadrons parades each training night in one of several formations, depending on their size". What do you think? Sancho 05:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I was only curious. But I think that your explanation is good enough. Dreamy 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Maybe we could use "units" instead? ens 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Level badges

I was wondering why the level badges seem to be black... Are there any other images usable? ens 21:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The lighting wasn't very good, I will try again. Dreamy 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
How is it now? Dreamy 23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Training Level section still needs some work:

  • The badges are referred to in CATOs as "Squadron Proficiency Level Badges" not level badges or qualification badges.
  • There is actually no need to list the prerequisites for the badges in the table. A mention in the main article that the cadets who complete a training level are eligible to wear the appropriate proficiency level badge on the lower left sleeve of their tunic. To say that the pre-requisite for getting the Level 3 badge is completing level 3 is redundant.
  • It should be mentioned that WOs do not wear proficiency level badges. The CATO says it best "In view of their rank, Warrant Officers First Class (WO1) and Second Class (WO2) shall not wear Squadron Proficiency Level Badges"
  • Again, there is no clear reference for separating cadets into Junior and Senior Levels. CATOs and other supporting documents frequently conflict. There just should be 1 table, 5 columns wide simply showing the badges. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Hi, I removed the picture of the march past because although the image description page claims fair-use, no fair use rationale is given. I don't believe one is forthcoming for this image since it is replaceable. It should be possible to obtain a free image depicting what this image currently does (even if one isn't available right now). This is why I don't think we can use it on Wikipedia. Contrast the lack of rationale at Image:222_RCAirCS_March_Past.JPG with the provided rationale at Image:Aircadet.jpg#Fair_use_rationale. (I tried to add a fair use rational to the march past image, but couldn't get around the replaceability issue.)

Other images that should be replaced with free alternatives include the rank badges and flying wings (like the level badges). However, the level badges currently have contradictory licencing statements on their image description pages that I think could easily be fixed. (Dreamafter, have you made any progress with that?) Sancho 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you fixed those level badge descriptions :-) Thanks! Sancho 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm also currently attempting to get some nice photos of march pasts off of flickr. Just waiting to hear back if one of the flickr users is willing to release some pictures under the GFDL. Sancho 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I got one... it's posted now. It would be better if we got one without a copyright mark on it though. Sancho 06:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to get one of my Squadron, to see if thats okay. Dreamy 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't get one of my squadron, so I edited the old one. How is it? Dreamy \*/!$! 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
We have to restore the old image... according to the GFDL, any copyright notices affixed to the media may not be removed in derivations. :-( I already thought of that. Sancho 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok, well than do it. Dreamy \*/!$! 22:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Links/IACE

Added a link to the Civil Air Patrol and JROTC pages, for reference purposes as much as anything. Also, nothing about the International Air Cadet Exchange, IACE

There's a mention of the IACE in the summer training section. Sancho 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camps

It is mentioned once that there are camps that fall under "Familiarization Summer Course", but it is not elaborated on, why not? Dreamy \*/!$! 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Appointments

Note that music appointments such as drum major have specific prerequisites that are laid out in CATO 55-04 Annex E paras 10-13. There is NO rank or music level prerequisites to be appointed to Drummy or Pipey - only that the CO choses you. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be a CO and I don't choose those positions, I may have a say in it, but it is not entirely my choice. My Band Director and TrgO have a lot of voice and say in that. I am generally only told about who will get the position, when they(my officers) are ready to present it. Dreamy \*/!$! 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Yes I realise that the prequisites were wrong, I did not have time to fix them as my computer died earlier. Dreamy \*/!$! 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to get into a one-ups-manship situation but I've been both a CO AND a BandO a couple of times and you are mistaken. The BandO or TrgO makes a RECOMMENDATION to the CO which the CO can accept or decline. CATOs say that it is at the CO's discretion so that's what the article should say.CU L8R AV8R ... J-P 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
All right fine, than I guess I've been too lax. It's just that I let my BandO and my TrgO make the decision. I am the Drill Team Officer, not band. Dreamy \*/!$! 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rank badge locations

Any reason why WO badges are apparently worn on the "sleeve" whereas all the others (that say where they're worn) are worn on the "arm" ? It jumped out at me when I looked through the page. 216.23.136.226 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what is trying to be conveyed here is that: sleeve indicates lower portion of the arm in the wrist area and arm is referring to the upper elbow area. Luke! 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
They have all been altered. Dreamy § 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Leading Air Cadet

I agree. There were originally articles on each rank that were previously merged to this page. That was about a year ago I think. There is so little on each rank, and they really aren't notable on their own. There's no problem including them in this Royal Canadian Air Cadets article. Sancho 07:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Support <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As it is the 01 Dec, I will merge what ever information wasn't included in this article, and have it deleted. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 02:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Royal Canadian Air Cadet Training

Should we consider merging/deleting the separate RCAC Training article? It is incomplete and doesn't look like it has been touched for months. It adds nothing new that isn't covered (better) in this article. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to this article? If you are, then I say we should delete it as it really doesn't add anything. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the one I was talking about, yes.CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PO vs PO/EO

Sorry, I reverted the edit in training back to PO from PO/EO. The Performance Objective is the entire subject and Enabling Objective is the individual lessons within the PO. For example, Level 2 drill is all within PO 401 but "Execute sizing in one, two and three ranks." is the second lesson within PO 401 so it is written as PO/EO 401.02 Check the CTPs for confirmation. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense... Alright then. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photo tech

wasn't the photo teck course scrapped? when i was on tech in 2006 they were saying that it was the last year for it, however it is still on the chart. so is it still offered or isn't it? i have since aged out and don't have anyway of knowing forsure Redekopmark (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This chart only reflects the courses that are listed under CATO 54-20. See CATO 52-20 Annex O for the reference to the photography course. Sancho 07:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted last edit

I removed some sentences that referred to the material learned on basic as being required knowledge for level two training, a couple that referred to the Introduction to Aviation Course as if it was the Glider Scholarship Course (saying that the cadets soloed on the Introduction to Aviation Course, for example), and abbreviations that were added after each course was mentioned (ITAC, for example). I removed the sentences because they weren't supported by the references, and removed the abbreviations because (as per Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations, we shouldn't use unwarranted abbreviations. These abbreviations weren't helpful because they are never used more than once in the article and I think they distract unnecessarily from the flow. Sancho 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts and citing websites

This article is very well cited, but most of the fact tags are setup like this:

<ref name="Course Training Plans">{{cite web
 | title = National Defence Cadet Website: Air Cadet Course Training Standards and Plans
 | url = http://www.cadets.ca/support/trg-instr/3_e.asp
 | date = 2004-07-20
 | publisher = [[Department of National Defence (Canada)]]
 | accessdate = 2007-04-12 }}</ref>

It should be setup like this:

<ref name="Course Training Plans">{{cite web | title = National Defence Cadet Website: Air Cadet Course Training 
Standards and Plans | url = http://www.cadets.ca/support/trg-instr/3_e.asp | date = 2004-07-20 | publisher = 
[[Department of National Defence (Canada)]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 }}</ref>

Yes, I know that it is a little harder to find what your looking for, but it removes a lot of space in the article. If there are no objections in the next twelve hours, I will go through the article and change all of the refs so that there are no giant spaces like the first example. ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all my fault :-P ... I was working on this in my earlier days as an editor here. Feel free to make the changes. Sounds like something for a script. I'd help you out, but I'm a bit busy today. Sancho 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable former Air Cadets

The reference cited for this section does not distinguish between elements. Was Marc Garneau an Air Cadet or a Sea Cadet? He was after all a Naval Officer in the Reg Force and an Honourary Captain of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets. McMuff 14:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)