# Possible Error ???



## Magic (13 May 2009)

I now believe there was an error in my ROTP file. I haven't been called with any news as of yet regarding my status in ROTP since the first round. 

I call quite frequently to check on the status of my file and get the same response every time, "we have no word yet". 

So today, I called and spoke with a Captain at the RC about my file and why I haven't heard anything yet. He told me my file is not competitive with a "73%" academic average. I was shocked since my actual average is 84% with all the important prerequisites in the Maths and Science completed with top marks. I even have a offer of admission to Western for their CAMP aviation program. 

Makes no sense to me. He said it may be possible that the person who input my marks made a mistake which reflected really bad in my file (academically). The Captain is doing a check as to what may be going on.

Am I realistically screwed since all the major selections with offers are done? 

Any wise advice would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you,


----------



## Magic (13 May 2009)

I forgot to add. I am medically fit for aircrew.


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2009)

Magic said:
			
		

> I forgot to add. I am medically fit for aircrew.



What does this have to do with a possible error in the marks in your file ?


----------



## JBoyd (13 May 2009)

What are you applying for? By your fit for aircrew statement and the mention of an aviation program I will guess that you are applying for Pilot. 

If so, there is a few threads that have mentioned that Pilot is closed due to a backlog


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2009)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> What are you applying for? By your fit for aircrew statement and the mention of an aviation program I will guess that you are applying for Pilot.
> 
> If so, there is a few threads that have mentioned that Pilot is closed due to a backlog



Still has nothing to do with an error in his grade average. They told him 73....he says 84.......not related to "fit aircrew".

I'm just trying to understand the problem.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 May 2009)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> What are you applying for? By your fit for aircrew statement and the mention of an aviation program I will guess that you are applying for Pilot.
> 
> If so, there is a few threads that have mentioned that Pilot is closed due to a backlog



Closed for DEO, not ROTP


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Magic, you need to talk to the CFRC and find out what is going on. No-one here has your file and we cannot determine what is happening with your case.


----------



## chris_log (13 May 2009)

When you go to the recruiting center make sure you bring an official school transcript with you, so if there was an error with your marks you have the official proof of your actual grades.


----------



## JBoyd (13 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Closed for DEO, not ROTP


My mistake


----------



## Magic (14 May 2009)

Oh I went yesterday. I showed my transcripts with proof of my marks. I even showed the Captain my acceptance to Western for the CAMP program. 

The reason I mentioned Air Crew is to show I passed the Trenton/Medical for aircrew and I am merit listed for Anav and/or Pilot.

It is really discouraging if all this time the board looked at the false marks and weighed that in their decision for selection. From what I heard academics is a major one. A Captain from my RC is personally reviewing my file. But, I fear it might be to late. 

If there was a mistake of this nature, what are my options? Do I just have to take it and re-apply ?


----------



## px90 (14 May 2009)

I'm sure there is someone somewhere along the line who can explain how they calculate it, whether it is all three years or just your best two etc... I know when I first went to University entrance scholarships were based on your overall average i thought i had a 95+ , when i went in they told me I had an 89 when they showed me the sheet they had several courses slashed out and didn't count them towards my average, only the courses they were looking for counted. Just one possible explanation your average might differ from what you think it is.


----------



## Magic (14 May 2009)

Well here is the details. 

About two years ago I walked in the RC looking for a officer spot via ROTP. They looked at my transcripts and told me I need all "U" level courses to apply. I did the college course route. It was virtually like applying to any university they told me. Since I graduated in 2004 from high school it was impossible to get those "U" level courses at a high school. 

Basically for the next year I busted my balls and got all my 5 "U" level credits required to apply and be a strong academic applicant. Here are my mark breakdown which count. I am in Ontario and all are grade 12, by the way.

"U" level English - 85%
"U" level Physics - 87%
"U" level Advanced Functions - 82%
"U" level Calculus - 92%
"U" level CHemistry - 85%
"M" Level Accounting - 70% <--- Old high school mark  

Those marks are not bad, If you calculate it, 83.5% average including the 70% that brings it down a bit.

The funny part is, when I first applied the lady told me I wasn't good enough to even apply. So I worked hard, got my credits and this happens. 

Like I said, I am still waiting on exactly word on the situation. However, seem odd to say the least.


----------



## Magic (14 May 2009)

I understand errors may happen if that is the case. I just wonder what impact this error had on my file.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 May 2009)

Human error maybe?

Bob Smith, John Doe, Denis Richard.....

Guess how many there are.

Sit down with someone and get the hard facts.  Take down names, dates and timings of all that you speak to, in front of them, to help you remember for future reference.

Locked, until you can give us an update.  (Just PM one of the staff)

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## Magic (23 Jun 2009)

This is what happened..... 

You may be aware of my earlier thread in the ROTP section named "Possible Error." So I received word on what the possible problem was/is, which was just discovered now. From what I understood, my Air Factor is 2 since I was not successful for Pilot but passed my ACSO exam and medical in Toronto awarding me my V2 in January 09. ACSO was my latter choice beside Pilot. 

From what I understand, someone was careless and did not realize my V2 factor while processing my file and proceeded to send my file for Pilot selection anyways. So I never had a chance from the start. My Final to-date U level grade 12 marks average is 86.5% so I was well within the competitive range academically. Since I was also told my average was 73% when I inquired about my file, prompting this investigation. I have no idea if that plays any role in the selection board since my transcripts were faxed over, so I was told. I also have a confirmed acceptance to The University of Western for their Commercial Aviation Program. This is obvious proof that a 73% average is impossible. They told me if the this error was found, say in, March I would have been included. 


I do not want to come sounding like a soar loser, so to speak. I am just curious if I received a fair shot since I applied well in advanced and was included in all the selection boards.

I appreciate your patience in reading my post. My assumption is this year is a write off for me since offers have been made and there are no more selection boards being held which would give me one last shot.

Your honesty would be much appreciated in my situation.


----------



## benny88 (23 Jun 2009)

V2 is acceptable for Pilot.


----------



## Otis (23 Jun 2009)

benny88 said:
			
		

> V2 is acceptable for Pilot.



Ummm???

From CFP154 Annex E, Minimum Medical Standards for Officers:

MINIMUM MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR OFFICERS
MOC OCCUPATION *V* CV H G O A MOSID
32 Pilot *1* 2 2 2 2 1 00183

(V being Visual Acuity - CV being Colour Vision)

http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/health-sante/pd/CFP-PFC-154/AN-E-eng.asp


----------



## benny88 (23 Jun 2009)

From  Vision requirements for Pilots have changed  




CANFORGEN 128/07 CAS 033 251550Z JUL 07
CHANGES TO AIRCREW SELECTION STANDARDS
UNCLASSIFIED


REFERENCES: A. RODS APSC JULY 2005 
B. 1150-29 (AIR MED ADVISOR) 28 NOV 05 
C. 1150-1 (SSO AV MED) 10 JAN 07 
D. 6600-1 (AMA) 18 JUN 07 
E. A-MD-154-000/FP-000 (CFP 154) ANNEX A 



THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO COMMUNICATE RECENT CHANGES MADE TO AIRCREW SELECTION STANDARDS 


AT REF B, CAS ENDORSED THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AEROMEDICAL POLICY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE (APSC) (REF A) TO APPROVE THE PILOT ANTHROPOMETRIC SELECTION TOOL (PAST) AS THE NEW METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE PILOT CANDIDATE ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS. THIS REMOVED MANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR FEMALE APPLICANTS, THAT EXISTED WITH THE OLD ANTHROPOMETRIC STANDARDS. THIS METHODOLOGY HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE JAN 2006 WITH VERY POSITIVE RESULTS 


AT REF D, CAS ENDORSED NEW AIRCREW ENTRY VISION STANDARDS. THE NEW VISION STANDARDS FOR ENTRY INTO THE PILOT, NAVIGATOR, AEROSPACE ENVIRONMENT CONTROLLER AND FLIGHT ENGINEER OCCUPATIONS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED. UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS, APPLICANTS WHO WEAR GLASSES OR CONTACT LENSES TO PROVIDE MODEST CORRECTION TO THEIR VISION ARE NOW ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION. PREVIOUSLY, APPLICANTS WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE UNCORRECTED VISION. PERSONNEL WITH CORRECTIVE (LASER) EYE SURGERY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ENTRY INTO THE CF PILOT OCCUPATION 


THOSE WHO HAVE APPLIED IN THE PAST BUT DID NOT MEET THE PREVIOUS VISION STANDARD ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT THEIR PERSONNEL SELECTION OFFICER AND INQUIRE WHETHER THEY NOW QUALIFY TO RE-APPLY TO BECOME AIRCREW 


QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER CAN BE DIRECTED TO CAS MED ADVISOR CAPT (N) COURCHESNE AT               613 995-4742        OR LCOL BAIN HEAD OF AEROSPACE AND UNDERSEA MEDICAL SECTION AT CFEME AT               416 635-2024


----------



## Otis (23 Jun 2009)

Admittedly benny88, I am neither a Medical Professional nor an Admin type, but if I read your message correctly, it simply states that CORRECTED vision is acceptable ... it does not state a V factor ...

So, I stand by my earlier statement ... V1 is required, whether corrected or not. 

Please correct me if I am wrong and give me a reference that proves it so that I can correct our paperwork here in Recruiting.


----------



## benny88 (23 Jun 2009)

Otis, I'm neither of those things as well, and I don't have DIN access, but a read through that thread should provide you with the official docs. If it doesn't, a search on this site for "Pilot V2" turned up a lot of relevant hits and I'm sure the official stuff is in there as well.

Cheers


----------



## Otis (23 Jun 2009)

OK, rather than mess around looking for references, I went to the official source (I walked over to the Medical office and asked!)

The FINAL WORD from the Medical Professionals:

V2 IS acceptable for Air Crew trades, INCLUDING Pilot.

The policy changed 6 months ago (approx.) and the CFP154 official publication has not yet been updated.

Extra Info: Laser Surgery HAS been approved for pilots, however - for pilots, there is a SIX month wait after surgery prior to eligibility (as opposed to three months for all other trades)

(See, despite what my wife says, I CAN admit when I'm mistaken - especially when it's the official publications that are lying to me!) 

BZ Benny88!


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jun 2009)

Just a question to all of you:  Why are we carrying on this discusion in the RMC, CMR, ROTP thread, when it has already been discussed under the "Lasik", "Laser Eye Surgery" and "Pilot Vision Requirement" threads?


----------



## Otis (23 Jun 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a question to all of you:  Why are we carrying on this discusion in the RMC, CMR, ROTP thread, when it has already been discussed under the "Lasik", "Laser Eye Surgery" and "Pilot Vision Requirement" threads?



Ummm ... [looking guilty] ... because we were just trying to help and answer a question and the DS staff didn't move the thread after the original question? [hoping that's a good enough answer but flinching and ducking anyway ... just like I do with my wife]


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jun 2009)

;D

Just the further we move along, the more redundant it gets.


----------

