# Major Changes to CATO 55-04



## lone bugler (24 Jun 2008)

This should be showing up on the cadet.ca if not soon, no effective date was mentioned so as far as i know it's effective today

A new order of dress - C-8 - mess dress! White shirt and bow tie and now authorized!

OG-107 (those of you who dunno, It's the olive drab combats) has been transferred to the CCO and is now considered a cadet uniform. Staff and course cadets on certain courses will get them temp issued.

CADPAT is specifically mentioned as not being authorized for cadets at all. Civvie versions of combats and CadetPAT are mentioned as being authorized for wear in the field but rank slip-ons, berets, etc are forbidden while wearing it.

A mention of which eyelet on the boot to which the bottom of the trousers comes is codified (3rd eyelet - but is that from the bottom or top? Probably bottom as 3rd from the top would result in the King of all Flood Pants).


----------



## Excolis (24 Jun 2008)

was white shirt and bow tie not the mess dress all along?


----------



## Neill McKay (24 Jun 2008)

armoured soon said:
			
		

> was white shirt and bow tie not the mess dress all along?



It's been widely done, but was not authorized.


----------



## cdn031 (25 Jun 2008)

1) C-8 - mess dress! White shirt and bow tie and now authorized! (been done forever)
2) OG-107 Staff and course cadets on certain courses will get them temp issued. (been done forever)
3) CADPAT is specifically mentioned as not being authorized for cadets at all. (still a silly idea but I'll stop there)
 4) A mention of which eyelet on the boot to which the bottom of the trousers comes is codified

Some days ya gotta wonder how people spend their time. This codifies what has already been in practice for quite some time (with the possible exception of 4) which is detail to the level of silly 'cause some of my kids grow at an alarming rate so they wil almost always be "out of spec"

My point being that how many person hours were spent revising this when I can name many more deserving projects... Evidence of the greater state of decay in the CCO. With Operational tempo at it's highest level in the last 50 years in the CF, the CCO is left with risk adverse regulars that spend their days codifying the obvious... Its a shame.

Of course, I could just be grumpy today... ;D


----------



## Neill McKay (25 Jun 2008)

GridNorth said:
			
		

> My point being that how many person hours were spent revising this when I can name many more deserving projects...



That's a fair comment, but we can't have people inventing their own dress regs either.  I think the choice was to either codify the current practice if it had been deemed acceptable by those in authority or stomp it out if it hadn't.


----------



## Darkage (25 Jun 2008)

When they say that the CADPAT is not to be worn by cadets, does that includes CIC?


----------



## Neill McKay (25 Jun 2008)

Darkage said:
			
		

> When they say that the CADPAT is not to be worn by cadets, does that includes CIC?



No, CIC officers are not cadets and are not governed by the air cadet dress regulations.


----------



## gun runner (31 Jul 2008)

CIC officers are just that.. reserve officers and therefore are mandated to wear the uniform of the forces at that time. Which is the CADPAT combat uniform. Am I correct in this observation? Cadets are civilians and therefore not mandated to wear any field uniform except surplus equipment commercially available, and that also comes with its own restrictions. (combat knives, webbing restrictions,etc..)


----------



## Jabrwock (6 Aug 2008)

lone bugler said:
			
		

> CadetPAT are mentioned as being authorized for wear in the field but rank slip-ons, berets, etc are forbidden while wearing it.


Just to note, this is for Air Cadets only (and likely Sea). Army cadets are *required* to wear rank slip-ons, berets, etc, while wearing CadetPAT or OG107 in the field (but they are not required to purchase or be issued said clothing). CATO 46-01 will be updated soon, at the moment there's just a memo from the SSO (dated Oct 2007).

Seems silly that one branch gets to wear it "officially", and the others don't. But that's bureaucracy for you. 

And yes, CIC is a branch of the armed forces (quasi-reservists), so they can wear DEU 1A, 3, and 4. Cadets are a "youth group" supported by Cadets Canada, their respective League, and the DoD, so they don't get the same gear the armed forces do (which is why even cadet "parade" uniform is different). I imagine when CADPAT gets replaced, it will become "authorized" for cadets to wear it after a few years.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Aug 2008)

DOD is an american term, ours is DND


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Aug 2008)

Jabrwock said:
			
		

> And yes, CIC is a branch of the armed forces (quasi-reservists),



CIC officers are reservists.  There's no "quasi" about it.



> Cadets are a "youth group" supported by Cadets Canada, their respective League, and the DoD,



The cadet movement is a partnership between DND and the Leagues (Navy League, Army Cadet League, and Air Cadet League).  There is no third partner, nor is "Cadets Canada" an organization.  (It's a marketing brand.)


----------



## gun runner (6 Aug 2008)

As for the CADPAT uniforms coming acailable for purchase in a few years,I am sorry to say that will not happen. These uniforms are destroyed at the local levels as per order of the DND. This is so that the actual patterns cannot be copied. (There is something about the material that renders the soldier invisible to infrared light.) Sorry that is a bit off topic. Ubique


----------



## Jabrwock (7 Aug 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> CIC officers are reservists.  There's no "quasi" about it.


Fine, "non-primary reservist" then. 



			
				gun runner said:
			
		

> As for the CADPAT uniforms... (There is something about the material that renders the soldier invisible to infrared light.) Sorry that is a bit off topic. Ubique


Nowhere near invisible. Just resistant to being detected by near infrared image intensification devices (night-vision).

The pattern itself is copyright, but authorized for manufacture through certain dealers, as long as it's not printed on the special cloth (which is patented), and doesn't match current clothing cuts. But I see no reason why that restriction would stay in effect after the military designs the next generation of ops wear.


----------



## gun runner (11 Aug 2008)

I thank-you for the information...I hate it when I cant get the full reason behind something and look a fool for it. You are quite correct that the material is only for night vision equip. purposes, that I didnt know. Again thank-you. Ubique


----------



## canauck (11 Aug 2008)

The specific pattern on CADPAT is also a registered trademark of the DND (the digitial pattern is why).


----------



## Burrows (12 Aug 2008)

canauck said:
			
		

> The specific pattern on CADPAT is also a registered trademark of the DND (the digitial pattern is why).


Which wouldn't affect the DND allowing cadets to use it in the slightest.


----------



## gwp (12 Aug 2008)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> Which wouldn't affect the DND allowing cadets to use it in the slightest.


The simple fact that everyone here knows is that cadets are not members of the Canadian Forces.  The Chain of Command has decided after due consideration as directed that cadets shall not wear Canadian Forces uniforms ... and will be identified as cadets when wearing obsolete pattern CF dress, field dress or army cadet cadetpat.  That is the direction.  It is a matter of personal safety for the cadets and public perception.

One may only speculate about what happens to cadpat when it becomes obsolete so that aspect is irrelevant to the discussion.  The decision will be made by someone who today is a 2Lt or A/S/Lt when they are a senior, flag, or general officer 30 years from now. 

As for field dress for cadets ... in the so called "good olde days" it consisted of black or beige coveralls.


----------



## Burrows (12 Aug 2008)

Cadets aren't members of the CF.  The gem of obviousness shines today.

If you look at the post I replied to, you will notice why I said what I said.

To clarify, which is evidently needed - the fact that the DND owns a patent for CADPAT logically has no bearing on them deciding if cadets can or can't wear the stuff.  Something like the IR resistance of it is an arguement that makes sense. 

As far as safety of the cadets - nobody who is going to direct their violent actions against a troop will give two farts on what they're wearing. Unless of course we're worried about them getting run over by cars because that green just camoflauges so darn well with the sidewalk.  Lets just make the cadets wear pink hit-me vests.  That will make them REAL safe.

Why don't we go back to the "good olde days" then and issue a field uniform or at least make a standard.  Until that much is done,  what will you tell little Timmy who purchased his CADPAT in the interim when DCdts couldn't make a decision?  Are you going to let him trade in his CADPAT for something acceptable?  Or do you plan on telling him tough cookies and leaving him with a uniform in his closet that he can't use?  I maintain that until you issue a field uniform or remunerate the cadets who have purchased what you now consider taboo, you can not attempt to regulate things beyond what might infringe on another human rights.  Doing so is morally wrong.


----------



## Jabrwock (12 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> It is a matter of personal safety for the cadets and public perception.


I don't believe for a minute it has anything to do with personal safety. It's a PR issue. Cadets is a youth group sponsored by the CF, but is not part of the CF. Therefore they wish to establish that divide, and so cadets don't get current CF gear unless on very specific training courses (like para).



			
				gwp said:
			
		

> As for field dress for cadets ... in the so called "good olde days" it consisted of black or beige coveralls.


I believe we still have some of those in the back of stores. 

I wonder if the Air Cadet League has any plans to create their own version of the "field dress" for air, ala CadetPAT that is authorized for army cadets? Army isn't the only one that does field ex's.



			
				Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> I maintain that until you issue a field uniform or remunerate the cadets who have purchased what you now consider taboo, you can not attempt to regulate things beyond what might infringe on another human rights.  Doing so is morally wrong.


Technically the cadets shouldn't have been able to purchase "real" CADPAT, at least not in a cut/style that matches DEUs. If they did, it was in violation of quite a few regs that have been around prior to 55-04 coming out. And as for non-DEU styles, there the regs seem to be a bit vague. Is CADPAT the pattern, or the pattern & cut? If it's the whole thing, then we have a problem. But if it's just the pattern (IE CADPAT-style pants from an authorized reseller, aka the "civie combats"), then as long as it's not worn with cadet insignia, then it appears to be ok.

Considering that the CATOs don't require ANY purchase of clothing (especially for field gear), I fail to see how someone's choice of purchase outside the program becomes a "human right" just because the program forbids it's use.


----------



## Burrows (12 Aug 2008)

Jabrwock said:
			
		

> Considering that the CATOs don't require ANY purchase of clothing (especially for field gear), I fail to see how someone's choice of purchase outside the program becomes a "human right" just because the program forbids it's use.


  I meant it like this:  The program is well within the moral highground to forbid the cadets wearing of t-shirts with racist slogans for example.  It becomes morally wrong for the program to forbid wearing of ALL CADPAT material when there has been an extensive period in which cadets could have purchased a CADPAT(-esque) uniform.  The surplus stores stand ready to wallet-rape people like cadets by using this restriction to jack up the prices on their old and tattered OD.  

If DCdts wants to turn around and tell cadets that the clothes they purchased are no longer allowed to be worn despite the lack of offending anyone it becomes an issue.  They should at the very least ensure that every cadet has "field acceptable" clothing in trade in for what is now, no longer allowed.  

I'd like to apologize for being a bit abraisive in my previous post.  Many of those whom used to be my cadets were told buying CADPAT was a good idea and we're left high and dry.

CADETPAT was sponsored by the Army Cadet League and is grotesquely overpriced for a denim suit.  More importantly - it is not "field passable" and holds more water than a camel.


----------



## Jabrwock (12 Aug 2008)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> It becomes morally wrong for the program to forbid wearing of ALL CADPAT material when there has been an extensive period in which cadets could have purchased a CADPAT(-esque) uniform.


It doesn't seem to forbid CADPAT material though. Just "official" CADPAT gear (which was/is illegal to purchase anyway), and wearing of insignia/headdress with "unofficial" (CADPAT-esque) gear. 


> CADETPAT was sponsored by the Army Cadet League and is grotesquely overpriced for a denim suit.  More importantly - it is not "field passable" and holds more water than a camel.


Is it denim? We're looking into getting our parent committee to purchase sets for MCpl and up, and "loan" them out, so the seniors don't have to shell out tons of money.


----------



## gun runner (12 Aug 2008)

Again, my thanks for the info. Ubique


----------



## Burrows (13 Aug 2008)

Jabrwock said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem to forbid CADPAT material though. Just "official" CADPAT gear (which was/is illegal to purchase anyway), and wearing of insignia/headdress with "unofficial" (CADPAT-esque) gear. Is it denim? We're looking into getting our parent committee to purchase sets for MCpl and up, and "loan" them out, so the seniors don't have to shell out tons of money.


Close enough to.  One of my cadets got them wet on Saturday morning and they failed to dry by sunday afternoon.

The material is also heavy and brittle - think of how jeans crease compared to how combats do.


----------



## gun runner (13 Aug 2008)

When I was a cadet in the 80's we wore old vietnam era combats in the field and the officers couldnt have cared more.. we wore no rank badges or identifying patches(service) and were just out there to have fun.Now there is this great hoopla about what the kids are wearing in the bush..is this a field FTX, or summer camp, or what? In my day we had our parents buy our field kit at a surplus store and were happy to find it wrapped up at Christmas. All of a sudden the CF comes out with a brand shiny new uniform and all the kids want to have that when they go into the bush..great! As long as it isnt DND issue gear, let em. This stuff is commercially available in stores and it does but doesnt look like the CF stuff, any one who knows will attest to that. That is a sign of the times I guess. Ubique


----------



## danchapps (13 Aug 2008)

Start of "old man" rant ***When I was in Cadets the only field uniform we had was, well, none. We were allowed to wear OD if we had purchased some. We were even allowed to wear our rank slip ons (if we were the instructing cadets). Now this was about 10 years ago. I agree that cadets shouldn't wear CADPAT. I don't think it's really needed for what they are doing. I mean how concealed does a cadet have to be to learn how to survive? I mean if I was out there, and I didn't learn what was instructed about survival, and I needed to be found, the last thing I'd want is to blend in to everything around me. It's much different now that I'm Army, it's part of my job to not be seen, but really, CADPAT for cadets is just not needed.*** End of "old man" rant

I appreciate the effort that the youngin's are putting into the training these days, but a line needs to be drawn, and it has been. C'est la vie, non?


----------



## Burrows (13 Aug 2008)

Nobody is arguing for the cadets to be given CADPAT.  The DND took their time to make a final decision and the fallout is now that cadets are unable to find field uniforms that work properly or aren't 100 bucks for tattered OD.


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Aug 2008)

Just to add my 2 cents worth (because I can   ), I've read this whole thread and found it a little confusing. I have a somewhat unique perspective, as I am a volunteer instructor with my son's corp as well as a reg force supply tech. Here is what I can add for you:

1.  Cadpat (the real stuff) is ONLY available through DND and is not only "copyrighted" but is also classified material. This means that in order to hold it legally you must at least have a DND clearance (which is done for all reg, res and sup-res members) This leaves out cadets. DND no longer has a "cash sales" or DVO, ergo purchasing of any field kit is pretty much impossible. 

2.  DND directly supports the sup-res (CIC) through scales of issue. CIC's can obtain any kit they are entitled to by logging onto Logistick Unicorp and using their points or approaching their supporting base's Clothing Stores (by appointment if necessary) and signing for items needed (as long as the entitlement exists in their applicable scale of issue) We do not accept CATO references, AIG messages or letters from mom. Period. If you are not entitled to it and I catch you wearing it you will return it or your IA (clothing account) will be suspended until sorted out.

3.  DND does NOT support cadets with uniforms through clothing stores. Nor can a cadet log onto Logistick Unicorp and get their own uniforms - that is the full responsibility of the corp / sqn's supply section. There is no such uniform as field uniforms - this is a local policy set by CO's or their applicable det comd.

4.  CIC's (in some cases) are now entitled to cadpat on TEMP LOAN for certain courses. This would encompass Air and Army only and consists of shirt, pants only. Boots have yet to be authorized and the raingear will be completely off limits for a long time. No cadpat outerwear is to be issued as well (jacket, parka, windants, coveralls) We are to find the IECS cousins in the system - which is proving to be quite difficult as it is no longer manufactured...

So as you can see, we operate within DND policy at all times. It's all about the law (classified materials) and structure (Scales of Issue). I am really trying to get all the cadet supply sections to liaise with me (within my area of support) for a little education, but out of 38 cadet units, I have had 3 replies - including my own!!


----------



## gwp (13 Aug 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I've read this whole thread and found it a little confusing.


It is confusing because there are two discussions in one Forum.  One about cadets and one about members of the Canadian Forces (CIC) One is the CF ... one is not.  It is also confusing because of the many misconceptions.  



> 2.  DND directly supports the sup-res (CIC) through scales of issue.


The Cadet Instructor Cadre is not the Supplementary Reserve. 



> CIC's can obtain any kit they are entitled to by logging onto Logistick Unicorp and using their points or approaching their supporting base's Clothing Stores (by appointment if necessary) and signing for items needed (as long as the entitlement exists in their applicable scale of issue) .


As it should be ... but lack of information by others sometimes disadvantages the bonefide member of the CF who happens to be a cadet instructor. 



> 4.  CIC's (in some cases) are now entitled to cadpat on TEMP LOAN for certain courses. This would encompass Air and Army only and consists of shirt, pants only. Boots have yet to be authorized and the raingear will be completely off limits for a long time. No cadpat outerwear is to be issued as well (jacket, parka, windants, coveralls) We are to find the IECS cousins in the system - which is proving to be quite difficult as it is no longer manufactured...



Army and Air element officers of the CF CIC have a scale of issue for CADPAT (Long term) regardless of where they are serving LHQ, CSTC, RCSU or on course.  Sea element pers are entitled to Naval Combat Dress and will be afforded Temporary Loan of CADPAT when doing field work on course or employed in a land element circumstance (just as for the PRes and RegF).  Scales are D1101, D1102, D1103, D1301 and the last specific to type of employment CSTC or otherwise. 



> So as you can see, *we operate within DND policy at all times*. It's all about the law (classified materials) and structure (Scales of Issue).


I expect you do.  There are those that operate on the artificial pecking order rather than equal support and will push around the CF CIC pers .. because they can.  Seen it happen and squared it off.   

Thank you for your support and spreading the word amongst your colleagues about the good stuff that the CF CIC people do. 



> I am really trying to get all the cadet supply sections to liaise with me (within my area of support) for a little education, but out of 38 cadet units, I have had 3 replies - including my own!!


That is just dumb on their part.  If there is no response, they deserve the service they get.  Unfortunatly that lack of communication will generate a silly discussion which puts more preasure on you to be more proactive.


----------



## Jabrwock (13 Aug 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> 4.  CIC's (in some cases) are now entitled to cadpat on TEMP LOAN for certain courses. This would encompass Air and Army only and consists of shirt, pants only. Boots have yet to be authorized and the raingear will be completely off limits for a long time. No cadpat outerwear is to be issued as well (jacket, parka, windants, coveralls) We are to find the IECS cousins in the system - which is proving to be quite difficult as it is no longer manufactured...


That's pretty much what I got on my initial kit issue (well, some of it, the rest is on order). CADPAT shirt/pants, and fleecy underwear. The rest were all OD (well except for the boots, 'natch). Have to wait a while before donning them though, they were completely out of CIC-land badges.

Ooo, nice, just checked Logistik, they're finally shipping my stuff out. Guess I'll have my gear ready for the start of the year after all. 

Anyway, back on topic, it seems odd that they insist on distinguishing cadets from CF, and then turn around and on the one hand authorize old-CF gear for use, but forbid certain cadet branches from wearing slip-ons or other accoutrement that clearly identifies someone wearing such gear as cadets...

And hopefully when 46-01 is updated (the army cadet equiv to 55-04), they sort out whether the ACL's CadetPAT rank badges are "authorized" or not (bloody expensive though they are, a rank badge is as expensive as the hat!). I've seen discussions that only the gold on drk green slip-ons (for army cadets anyway) are allowed on CadetPAT and ODs, and that OD rank badges, even ones with CADET instead of CANADA, are not allowed.


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> The Cadet Instructor Cadre is not the Supplementary Reserve.



My bad - _Sub_-Res



			
				gwp said:
			
		

> Army and Air element officers of the CF CIC have a scale of issue for CADPAT (Long term) regardless of where they are serving LHQ, CSTC, RCSU or on course.  Sea element pers are entitled to Naval Combat Dress.



Not yet they don't. Unless it's been updated within the last 3 weeks... there are notes to read at the end of each entitlement line... as well as the very beginning of the scale where it states the who, what, where, when and hows...



			
				gwp said:
			
		

> I expect you do.  There are those that operate on the artificial pecking order rather than equal support.  Thank you for your support and spreading the word amongst your colleagues.



You are quite welcome - I try!!



			
				gwp said:
			
		

> That is just dumb on their part.  If there is no response, they deserve the service they get.  Unfortunatly that lack of communication will generate a silly discussion which puts more preasure on you to be more proactive.



How true.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Aug 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> My bad - _Sub_-Res



There is no such thing as the "Sub-Res".  The CIC is a subcomponent of the reserve force.  Other subcomponents include the Primary Reserve, Supplementary Reserve, and the Canadian Rangers.


----------



## Jabrwock (13 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> Army and Air element officers of the CF CIC have a scale of issue for CADPAT (Long term) regardless of where they are serving LHQ, CSTC, RCSU or on course.  Sea element pers are entitled to Naval Combat Dress and will be afforded Temporary Loan of CADPAT when doing field work on course or employed in a land element circumstance (just as for the PRes and RegF).  Scales are D1101, D1102, D1103, D1301 and Dthe last specific to type of employment CSTC or otherwise.





			
				BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Not yet they don't. Unless it's been updated within the last 3 weeks... there are notes to read at the end of each entitlement line... as well as the very beginning of the scale where it states the who, what, where, when and hows...


Latest D1301 I've seen is modded 2006. It says the Ops scale is applicable to Army CIC, but Air and Navy only while assigned to an Army CSTC. But this is no longer the case in practice (I've seen Air CIC in OD/CADPAT), so I imagine the paperwork is merely out of date, or my RCSU just formally requests that Air get issued the same scale regardless of where they are.


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Aug 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as the "Sub-Res".  The CIC is a subcomponent of the reserve force.  Other subcomponents include the Primary Reserve, Supplementary Reserve, and the Canadian Rangers.



Right. Sub-Res => "_Sub_component".  Just because you've never heard of a term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I still made my point.


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Aug 2008)

Jabrwock said:
			
		

> Latest D1301 I've seen is modded 2006. It says the Ops scale is applicable to Army CIC, but Air and Navy only while assigned to an Army CSTC. But this is no longer the case in practice (I've seen Air CIC in OD/CADPAT), so I imagine the paperwork is merely out of date, or my RCSU just formally requests that Air get issued the same scale regardless of where they are.



There is another scale (you are correct about the D01-301) a bit more specific. I'm not at work until Monday and for the life of me I can't remember the scale #. There is a bit of controversy surrounding the CIC's and their actual entitlement to CADPAT. I contacted the scale OPI and have it in writing that your initial statement is what stands. That being said, I can't force other Clothing Stores to adhere to the rules - it's up to them. It makes my job a lot more difficult when a CIC (or any member of the CF, whatever component) come in and says "They let me have in (insert base here)" when I won't because it's against the rules i'm the biggest jerk in the forces!! The paperwork is not out of date - the knowledge is.


----------



## Jabrwock (13 Aug 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> That being said, I can't force other Clothing Stores to adhere to the rules - it's up to them. It makes my job a lot more difficult when a CIC (or any member of the CF, whatever component) come in and says "They let me have in (insert base here)" when I won't because it's against the rules i'm the biggest jerk in the forces!! The paperwork is not out of date - the knowledge is.


Been there (was briefly QM when I was in cadets). If they've got a problem with it, they should accept what they get, and take it up the chain instead! And I don't mean just getting a higher up to phone up the Q to yell at them about it. It never ceases to amaze me how many people like to think they can push around supply by dropping names, or comparing to other places. Not a good idea to get pissy at the person in charge of making sure you get your gear!  

That said, it would be nice if the scales were easier to get a hold of for non-supply staff (or at least easier to find). Might help to stifle a few of the complaints, if they went in knowing what they're officially supposed to get. Plus maybe knowing what mechanism (ie forms, requests, etc) that are needed to get non-standard stuff issued, if there's some stuff they're not entitled to. Then it just becomes a matter of bringing in a nice hot cup of Timmies and maybe some cookies to butter up the staff into issuing you extras. (I kid!  ;D) Never hurts to be polite.


----------



## danchapps (13 Aug 2008)

Jabrwock said:
			
		

> Been there (was briefly QM when I was in cadets). If they've got a problem with it, they should accept what they get, and take it up the chain instead! And I don't mean just getting a higher up to phone up the Q to yell at them about it. It never ceases to amaze me how many people like to think they can push around supply by dropping names, or comparing to other places. Not a good idea to get pissy at the person in charge of making sure you get your gear!
> 
> That said, it would be nice if the scales were easier to get a hold of for non-supply staff (or at least easier to find). Might help to stifle a few of the complaints, if they went in knowing what they're officially supposed to get. Plus maybe knowing what mechanism (ie forms, requests, etc) that are needed to get non-standard stuff issued, if there's some stuff they're not entitled to. Then it just becomes a matter of bringing in a nice hot cup of Timmies and maybe some cookies to butter up the staff into issuing you extras. (I kid!  ;D) Never hurts to be polite.



I know first hand there is a huge difference being in Cadet QM and Clot. (People get angrier at the folks in Clot than you would ever see in Cadet QM.) That being said, yes, coffee is goooood . However, that being said, with regards to entitlements, there is only so much we can do. Need socks before the 1 year is up, no problem. Need a flack vest, well, that is a problem. We can try and get folks what the need, but there is only so much. We can pass it up our COC, but that only helps so much. Plus, you have no idea how many people I saw come into Clot looking for stuff they didn't need. Blows my mind sometimes. I for one outfitted many CIC officers with their initial kitting, Air Cadet officers included (CADPAT included). I give them what I can, if there is something "newer" then I try to give them that, I was a cadet once myself and I still get that little smile when I see them out in force. It was a big part of my life growing up, so I understand where the officers are coming from.




Edit: I love coffee, mine is 2 cream only (sugar is bad for you in large quantities you know). If you are ever in Edmonton  (too bad I'm not in Clot anymore, no more free coffee offers)


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Aug 2008)

Jabrwock said:
			
		

> That said, it would be nice if the scales were easier to get a hold of for non-supply staff (or at least easier to find). Might help to stifle a few of the complaints, if they went in knowing what they're officially supposed to get. Plus maybe knowing what mechanism (ie forms, requests, etc) that are needed to get non-standard stuff issued, if there's some stuff they're not entitled to. Then it just becomes a matter of bringing in a nice hot cup of Timmies and maybe some cookies to butter up the staff into issuing you extras. (I kid!  ;D) Never hurts to be polite.



I like coffee!!  If you want a copy of any scale of issue, call your Cust Svcs section, Clot - or me!!


----------



## cdn031 (3 Nov 2008)

Seems to me that the essence of all of this field uniform fun lies in a state of denial - Yes we want to dis-associate our Army Cadets from the Canadian Forces, (We do - don't We???) but no one has looked at this from the public's lens.   Newsflash folks: Joe Public, even Little Cadet Johnie's Mom, can't tell the difference between CadPat, CadetPat, OG107 and "Phantasian Paratrooper Gear"!

Meanwhile, We have some pretty cold, wet kids out there and no way to dress them properly...Yes, we could charge them a bunch of money for CadetPat - or just let them wear jeans and sweatshirts... (witness a recent Garrison Exercise in Ontario where the young men & women looked like refugees from a "Band Camp" rather than ArmyCadets.) but we need to fix the problem in a realistic whay that ALSO addresses why they joined Army Cadets in the first place...

OG107 is rare, expensive  and threadbare, CadetPat seems like second-rate MARPAT xeroxing...  What is interesting is the "adaptations" that are happening in the field. We have an Ontario corps that has gotten there hands on very cheap but high quality tri colour desert  US Army threads - and word is that Western Army Cadet corps are bringing in British DPM by the container load... Nature adapts...


----------



## gwp (4 Nov 2008)

GridNorth said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the essence of all of this field uniform fun lies in a state of denial - Yes we want to dis-associate our Army Cadets from the Canadian Forces, (We do - don't We???) but no one has looked at this from the public's lens.   Newsflash folks: Joe Public, even Little Cadet Johnie's Mom, can't tell the difference between CadPat, CadetPat, OG107 and "Phantasian Paratrooper Gear"!
> 
> Meanwhile, We have some pretty cold, wet kids out there and no way to dress them properly...Yes, we could charge them a bunch of money for CadetPat - or just let them wear jeans and sweatshirts... (witness a recent Garrison Exercise in Ontario where the young men & women looked like refugees from a "Band Camp" rather than ArmyCadets.) but we need to fix the problem in a realistic whay that ALSO addresses why they joined Army Cadets in the first place...
> 
> OG107 is rare, expensive  and threadbare, CadetPat seems like second-rate MARPAT xeroxing...  What is interesting is the "adaptations" that are happening in the field. We have an Ontario corps that has gotten there hands on very cheap but high quality tri colour desert  US Army threads - and word is that Western Army Cadet corps are bringing in British DPM by the container load... Nature adapts...


The program has been operating for over 125 years and there has never been a cadet field training uniform for local headquaters activities.  Recent conditions have made it necessary to set some standards for use of non-issue clothing. i.e. no cadet identifiers on other than OG107 and CadetPat and no CADPAT on cadets. 

There is no drive to disassociate cadets from the CF, the drive is to properly identify cadets as members of a youth organization who are not members of the CF.   At least there is a discussion about whether the system should supply a cadet Field Training Uniform.  Time will tell. 

The discussion regarding the CADPAT scale of issue for CF members of the CIC is what it is.  Get over it.  What is issued is appropriate to the employment.  If you disagree make your case through the C of C and the Branch Advisory Council


----------



## cdn031 (4 Nov 2008)

> The program has been operating for over 125 years and there has never been a cadet field training uniform for local headquarters activities.



Not quite accurate - Bush dress and Even Battle dress (Pre 78) where modeled on "Field Uniforms"



> Recent conditions have made it necessary to set some standards for use of non-issue clothing. i.e. no cadet identifiers on other than OG107 and CadetPat and no CADPAT on cadets.



Not so sure what "Recent Conditions" made it necessary. This sort of thing went on in the 80s as well the result then was to get the Cadets to sew on RCAC Round patches on their OG107. and good solution then and would be good now. 

This works Beautifully for the British Army Cadets with DPM and the Austrialian Army Cadets with AUSPAT. We appear to be the only nation attempting to isolate our Army Cadets.



> There is no drive to disassociate cadets from the CF, the drive is to properly identify cadets as members of a youth organization who are not members of the CF.



"If it walks like a duck & it talks like a duck, its likely waterfowl..."
If it was simply a matter of proper identification it could be solved easily - The roots of this are far deeper. I keep hearing people throw around the UN "Child Soldier" accord, Which is absolute nonsense if one takes the time to read the source document, which in no way applies to the CCO (Or any Cadet organization of British heritage)



> At least there is a discussion about whether the system should supply a cadet Field Training Uniform.  Time will tell.



unfortunately that discussion seems to have stalled


----------



## IntlBr (4 Nov 2008)

100% in agreement with you GridNorth.  Your assessment of the situation is bang-ong.


----------

