# CSOR Question



## SheldonVerge (29 May 2011)

If I want to join CSOR do I need 20/20 vision?


----------



## medicineman (29 May 2011)

A quick look at the Recruiting page for CSOR came up with this address to direct the question to: recruitingcansofcom@forces.gc.ca.

It didn't indicate on the application form - just asked for the medical category.  Here's the unit home page: http://www.csor-rosc.forces.gc.ca/bi-rg/index-eng.asp

Cheers.

MM


----------



## MikeL (30 May 2011)

No, you do not need 20/20 vision to be in the unit.


Right off the CSOR website

For Operators


> Medical
> Minimum medical category 332225. Your vision must be correctable to V1



And Supporters


> Medical
> Special Operations Supporter applicants must meet the minimum medical category for their MOSID


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2011)

Although for clarity (thought, not vision), since you posted your question in the Recruiting Forum, be aware that you cannot join CSOR directly as a civie.


Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious, but it's a recruiting thread.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 May 2011)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> No, you do not need 20/20 vision to be in the unit.
> 
> 
> Right off the CSOR website
> ...



Much is made about the requirement for military writing to be of a high standard.  I still remember the ABCs from staff school - Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity (as well as Relevance and Logic).  The statement (which I've bolded in the above quote) as made on the CSOR site fails on clarity.  

If the required minimum medical category for vision is a "3", then why are they saying that the "category" must be changed to a "1".  The only way that one's category could be changed would be by surgical means.  Are all pers selected as CSOR operators required to have vision correction surgery? (That's a rhetorical question used for sarcasm.)  Or do they mean that vision must be correctable to 6/6 (20/20) with prescription lenses?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2011)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Much is made about the requirement for military writing to be of a high standard.  I still remember the ABCs from staff school - Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity (as well as Relevance and Logic).  The statement (which I've bolded in the above quote) as made on the CSOR site fails on clarity.
> 
> If the required minimum medical category for vision is a "3", then why are they saying that the "category" must be changed to a "1".  The only way that one's category could be changed would be by surgical means.  Are all pers selected as CSOR operators required to have vision correction surgery? (That's a rhetorical question used for sarcasm.)  Or do they mean that vision must be correctable to 6/6 (20/20) with prescription lenses?



There is no issue with CSOR's web site regarding CLARITY.  

Your post; however, is lacking in ACCURACY.

Eyewear is considered as an acceptable means to correct to V1, so V3 correctable to V1 still meets the operational requirement.  This happens with aircrew all the time, just phrased slightly differently, in that V1 requirement for pilot is included within the minimum medical category (e.g. 111121), but includes a note that V1 may be met by V2, corrected to V1.  Some corrections, like those for astigmatism may still not be acceptable to raise a V3 to a V1, so a V3 due to astigmatism could result in a candidate's inability to qualify as an operator.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## amadeus514 (30 May 2011)

what about for color vision ?


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2011)

amadeus514 said:
			
		

> what about for color vision ?



The medical standard posted includes that information.


Hint: If you can't find out information available to the public for yourself, you're probably not what CSOR is looking for...


----------



## medicineman (30 May 2011)

Blackadder has a point - by definition,  V3 has to be correctable to 6/6 6/9 (which are the minimum uncorrected V1 standards) - the statement that "must be correctable to V1" is actually superfluous.  

amadeus - you're allowed some colour vision deficiency according to the second number in that list.

MM


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Blackadder has a point - by definition,  V3 has to be correctable to 6/6 6/9 (which are the minimum uncorrected V1 standards) - the statement that "must be correctable to V1" is actually superfluous.
> 
> amadeus - you're allowed some colour vision deficiency according to the second number in that list.
> 
> MM



So it should read the same as PLT med cat, then, i.e. *1*32225?  I stand corrected, then, MM.  

BA, my apologies.  I thought both ways (the aircrew stated V-rating and CSOR note for correction) were acceptable.

Regards
G2G


----------



## medicineman (30 May 2011)

Suppose I should have added - pilots minimum are V2 now BTW...which, like V3, have to be correctable to a certain visual acuity.  However, being correctable to V1 doesn't make you V1, as the vision category is based initially on the uncorrected vision - ie, my glasses get broken or my contacts fall out, how well would I be able to function?  The corrected vision is then taken into effect (as well as the spherical equivalent of the Rx) - V2 and 3 in the definition in the CFP154 show that they have to be corrected to minimum V1 standards, whereas a V4 only needs one eye corrected to 6/6, or half of the V1 standard.  I just smile and nod and read the chart if I'm a little confused.

MM


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Suppose I should have added - pilots minimum are V2 now BTW...which, like V3, have to be correctable to a certain visual acuity...



MM...interesting.  A few eons ago, it was V1 minimum to get in, but could  degrade (gracefully, of course) to V2 correctable to V1 for MOC-qualified pilots.  

Cheers
G2G


----------

