Topic: BFT for CIC Officers.

[quadrapiper]

The vast majority are paid 25 days per year on Class A, 30 for corps/squadron COs, plus any courses. Cadet Summer Training Centre staff are on Class B, as are headquarters and school staff.

From the other side of the fence, I'm always a bit put out at the lack of some sort of fitness assessment for CIC, even something that only confirms one's ability to conduct the same activities as the "average" cadet, as far as (depending on element) sailing and field training, and (in common) recreational sports and drill. Set CF standards entirely aside: I have a very hard time with CIC pers who can't meet the same standards we're expecting brand new 12 year olds to handle.

[PViddy]

I was told, when i was on my last RCIS course last year, that the new standard is 1 period of PT for every 2 days of course training for officers currently enrolled.  Now, laughable still for most, it's still a slow step in the right direction and; my only hope is this will increase in the future.

cheers

PV

[Pugsley]

From the other side of the fence, I'm always a bit put out at the lack of some sort of fitness assessment for CIC

  I fully agree with the motion of physical standards.  Those who always have it easy because they're not physically able to be in the field I find disturbing.  One thing to keep in mind though is not that the Corps officers are not the ones who have set the standard.  So for those who are not fond of these officers because of the standards that are set forward.  Take into account that the corps officers are doing the job they are tasked to as best they can with the resources that are available to them.  If the standards are the issue, it is best directed to those who set those standards.

[Snakedoc]

It's true most CIC types aren't up to soldiers standards of fitness, but,  their not soldiers.

Is this a true statement?  Arn't all members of the CF technically sailors, soldiers, and airmen/airwomen regardless of trade/officer classification?  Agreed that a different standard may be held for certain members of the CF but to say they arn't soldiers would be an untrue statement as they are reported as such in official figures such as to the UN or NATO etc. and are also held to the same responsibilities (such as unlimited liability, held to the CSD etc.) as other soldiers.

[ArmySailor]

  I fully agree with the motion of physical standards.  Those who always have it easy because they're not physically able to be in the field I find disturbing.  One thing to keep in mind though is not that the Corps officers are not the ones who have set the standard.  So for those who are not fond of these officers because of the standards that are set forward.  Take into account that the corps officers are doing the job they are tasked to as best they can with the resources that are available to them.  If the standards are the issue, it is best directed to those who set those standards.

yeah - and the young 'fit' ones end up doing most of the active work ....all....the....time....

I had an exercise planned last year that involved a long hike backpacking into a campsite. It was frowned upon by some officers becaucse they weren't fit enough to do it  I ain't the fittest officer, but I do encorporate daily physical fitness where I can, and I'm a few pushups away from passing the express test (my weakness! gah). Regardless of fitness standards or looking thin or whatever, everyone should be doing something - whether walking, or jogging, or swimming, or ..... - for their personal health and wellbeing. I am not the fittest person in the world (far from it) nor am I the post child for thinness - but I am fit enough to perform my job, and perform it well.

For the record - until I injured my ankle, BFT prep was encorporated into my physical fitness routine.... now its all about getting the strength back to do it and so far....so good.

It would be great to have the same standards as the PRes - I'll do the fitness test (and CFAT).......in exchange or the same benefits .............(before anyone jumps in - I like my job working with Cadets too much to leave it at this point.)

My little ramblings

Now........if we want to discuss how to better encorporate physical fitness for all officers and cadets, not just dodgeball every few months.......

[Jarnhamar]

Is this a true statement?  Arn't all members of the CF technically sailors, soldiers, and airmen/airwomen regardless of trade/officer classification?  Agreed that a different standard may be held for certain members of the CF but to say they arn't soldiers would be an untrue statement as they are reported as such in official figures such as to the UN or NATO etc. and are also held to the same responsibilities (such as unlimited liability, held to the CSD etc.) as other soldiers.

Good question.  I don't think CIC are soldiers.  I can't see them being deployed in to any warzone or fighting in any sort of capacity. Medics still carry weapons and I've been told of a padre getting the boot for refusing to go through CBRN training.   I'm not sure if CIC officers do CBRN training.  Are CIC officers deployable overseas?

By all means I'm not trying to sleight the CIC corps, I could very well be wrong and they could be considered/called soldiers  I just didn't believe they were since they recieve next to no type of soldier training, even less I would say than a padre (Who are in unique positions but again still deployable)

[dogger1936]

Being a "soldier" is a vague term. CIC are commissioned under a sub componet of the reserves. A real live commission like a reserve or regular force officer. Are they members of the canadian forces? Yes. Are they soldiers IMHO? No. And most CIC officers I've met would agree to that.

Contrary to what I keep hearing 90% of CIC officers I've met have zero military experience outside of CIC courses. Many are mom and dad's; uni students, school principles; CEO's of civilian companies etc.

Will they ever deploy as a CIC? No. Will they ever understand what soldiering is? No.

To compare regular and reserve soldiers to CIC is akin to comparing the Salvation army to the knights templars. While connections can be made; there is very little in common.

[dogger1936]

Devils advocate here:

As for CIC doing a BFT I wonder what happens when a CIC officer decides to do a BFT and drops with a heart attack, destroys a ankle or a knee etc? What is in place to ensure this sub componet's fitness level is sufficient to complete a Army fitness test? A CIC officer showing up to do a BFT who approved it? Is he carrying a weapon and mags that he has zero qualification to carry? In a program trying it's very best to ensure children are not seen as soldiers ( privates are now lance corporals as Soldat in french is somehow offensive...I could rant on about how much I think Soldat/soldier shouldnt be a bad thing...heck I'm a soldier whats wrong with that??) Should a CIC member be wearing a tatical vest? A vest designed to carry our things to kill people?

[Jarnhamar]

Good question Dogger, the same can kind of be applied to the reserves.
The regular force, in theory, do 6 weeks of BFT work up.  Even if that isn't the case they do PT a few times a week which atleast gets them somewhat prepared for it.

9 times out of 10 when we do our BFT in the reserves guys just throw a ruck on their back and claw and bite their way through it.  Our members aren't brought in and paid to do any sort of work up training.  What happens if a Class A guy tries it and goes down with an injury.  I'd imagine CIC in the same boat.

[dogger1936]

Good question Dogger, the same can kind of be applied to the reserves.
The regular force, in theory, do 6 weeks of BFT work up.  Even if that isn't the case they do PT a few times a week which atleast gets them somewhat prepared for it.

9 times out of 10 when we do our BFT in the reserves guys just throw a ruck on their back and claw and bite their way through it.  Our members aren't brought in and paid to do any sort of work up training.  What happens if a Class A guy tries it and goes down with an injury.  I'd imagine CIC in the same boat.

A class reserve force members are REQUIRED to complete the BFT (or express) CIC officers have zero requirement to do so. So why would they be covered if injured?

And I will be looking into a CIC officer carrying a fully auto weapon that he has had no training on. Regardless that there was no ammo. Theres a reason a tacvest/rifle isnt issued to CIC officers. They have no need or requirement to wear/use it.

If that CIC officer went down and got injured I could see a "**** show" happening and who ever allowed him to come out and play army in a load of charges.

[Jarnhamar]

A class reserve force members are REQUIRED to complete the BFT (or express)

But is the CF required to support class A members in order to facilitae them passing the BFT or express test? ie paying them to come in for half days to do BFT work up training.

[dogger1936]

But is the CF required to support class A members in order to facilitae them passing the BFT or express test? ie paying them to come in for half days to do BFT work up training.

Thats a totally differnt topic!

Fact is regardless of how a reserve member gets ready and what protocols are in place to ensure a safe BFT for class A ; it is a requirement of them.

It is NOT a requirement for CIC to do a BFT, and I'm willing to bet carrying a C-7 tacvest etc is verboten as well. If a class A member has a heart attack and dies on a BFT...he is covered. If a CIC officer blows out a ankle why would he be covered? Did he ask permission from his regional headquarters to carry fully auto weapons tacvest and participate?

From my view point now I don't think the unit should have allowed him to participate at the level they did. And I am willing to be his regional Det had ZERO idea it happened.

I'd love to hear from the original poster.

[Jarnhamar]

I used to volunteer with the cadets as an adult supervisor or whatever. One sunday afternoon with nothing else to do in connaught I took 3 sections of cadets gave them radios and taught them different section movement formations moving up and down some fields there.  It culminated in a platoon attack with snowballs where they (quite effectively) used fire and movement throwing snowballs. Covering moving, all the fun stuff.  They had a great time and loved it. Someone drove by saw it and apparently freaked out. When we got back from the weekend I found myself no longer supervising cadets. I guess they really take that stuff seriously

I don't think there will ever be a requirement for cadets to do a 'battle' fitness test.  It would be a good idea to emphasize physical fitness (lead by example) considering the level of obesity in kids today.  I think at the end of the day there are just some CIC members who if made to do any sort of physical test would fail and the CIC movement loosing them isn't worth trying to make them pass a fitness test which their job doesn't exactly require them to do.

[JMesh]

I think at the end of the day there are just some CIC members who if made to do any sort of physical test would fail and the CIC movement loosing them isn't worth trying to make them pass a fitness test which their job doesn't exactly require them to do.

Emphasis mine.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. As a CIC Officer, I am expected to lead my cadets. Physical fitness is one of the aims of the cadet program. How can I expect them to aim for high physical fitness if I won't do the same myself? Leadership by example is often important, and never moreso than when you are dealing with 12-18 year olds (particularly given that they can just up and leave if they don't like it).

Furthermore, as an officer in the CF, I am a representative of the CF wherever I am in uniform. This is particularly important in rural areas, where we are often the only representatives of the CF for quite a distance. If I am not in decent shape, I give a bad look to CF members everywhere. When we put on the uniform, Joe Public doesn't generally know the difference between me and an RegF mbr with 20 years experience and a few tours under their belt.

Also, I have encountered members who were not physically fit enough to do their jobs. The people like this in our side of the house are a prime example of why physical fitness testing to some standard (even if lower than the MPFS, though that should be achievable outside of those with MELs) should be occuring for us (I know these people exist in other sub-components/components but they already have this testing in place - doing something about it is up to their superiors IAW DAODs 5023-2 & 5019-4).

[Strike]

Dogger -- Re: the tac vest being used to carry things that kill people, then by your argument Padres shouldn't carry that either.

As for the weapon, ever thought he may have been carrying the hard rubber fake?

The OP went out and did the BFT to help strengthen his attachment to his affiliated Reg F unit.  I suspect to participate, said unit would have had to make sure he was properly kitted out and the appropriate waivers were signed.  You're posting as if he just showed up and said, "I'm gonna go do the BFT with you guys, kay?"  Probably nowhere close the what actually transpired.

[dogger1936]

Dogger -- Re: the tac vest being used to carry things that kill people, then by your argument Padres shouldn't carry that either.

As for the weapon, ever thought he may have been carrying the hard rubber fake?

The OP went out and did the BFT to help strengthen his attachment to his affiliated Reg F unit.  I suspect to participate, said unit would have had to make sure he was properly kitted out and the appropriate waivers were signed.  You're posting as if he just showed up and said, "I'm gonna go do the BFT with you guys, kay?"  Probably nowhere close the what actually transpired.

Strike- Padres can deploy to combat zones; Cadet officers cannot. Padres can be attached to untis that deploy and train to fight. CIC cannot. 

-He didnt mention a rubber rifle.

- He didnt say it was cleared just that he arranged it with his affiliated unit. I HOPE he was approved to do this; otherwise it brings a lot of questions into play as I staed above.

Strike if you assume I`m just the type of guy who looks at the negative in things your mistaken. Building ties with an affiliated unti is excellent and can really aid a cadet corp. Its something I truly encourage. HOWEVER I know enough about the program to know that if this wasnt waivered to heck and back there could be some serious issues.

I`d love to see CIC doing BFT and basic etc. However the fact is it isnt a requirement; its a youth program. And if this young keen CIC officer got injured or was out carrying a C7 around and no one inside his regional command knew...there could be a giant shitstorm if he was injured.

Maybe the original poster can clarify things a little. However I ask instead of listening to the original poster; you young CIC officers should ask for direction if you plan on heading off to regiment x to fall into a BFT.

Edit to add: Padres wear Tacvests when deployed if required. As they need to be able to protect themselves.  CIC will never deploy or train to defend against attack or to kill. So no my argument would not include padres.

[SupersonicMax]

I don't understand what a TacVest or even a C7 for that matter has anything to do with insurance.  Yes, the TacVest is made to carry weapons, but if it doesn't what's the big deal?  Yes the C7 can fire rounds, but if it doesn't contain a bolt, it can't. We fly cadets every year in a F-18 (that can drop bombs, fire missiles and even shoot a 20mm gun) and they have to wear a vest that can carry a 9mm and 2 mags (essentially our TacVest if we buy the farm and eject over bad guy land), sitting on an ejection seat.  Oh the horror.

[Jarnhamar]

Emphasis mine.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. As a CIC Officer, I am expected to lead my cadets. Physical fitness is one of the aims of the cadet program. How can I expect them to aim for high physical fitness if I won't do the same myself? Leadership by example is often important, and never moreso than when you are dealing with 12-18 year olds (particularly given that they can just up and leave if they don't like it).

Furthermore, as an officer in the CF, I am a representative of the CF wherever I am in uniform. This is particularly important in rural areas, where we are often the only representatives of the CF for quite a distance. If I am not in decent shape, I give a bad look to CF members everywhere. When we put on the uniform, Joe Public doesn't generally know the difference between me and an RegF mbr with 20 years experience and a few tours under their belt.

Also, I have encountered members who were not physically fit enough to do their jobs. The people like this in our side of the house are a prime example of why physical fitness testing to some standard (even if lower than the MPFS, though that should be achievable outside of those with MELs) should be occurring for us (I know these people exist in other sub-components/components but they already have this testing in place - doing something about it is up to their superiors IAW DAODs 5023-2 & 5019-4).

You're right. You lead by example and these young kids see you and emulate you.  In theory it works, in practice if you held CIC officers to a fitness standard MANY would either not pass it or would quit.  There are some very physically fit CIC types and also some very out of shape ones. If you turfed the ones who couldn't pass fitness tests the cadet movement would grind to a halt, regiments would fold due to lack of leadership. Kids would leave.  It's just not something that's practical to enforce.

It's like the reserves in a way. In theory the CDS should be able to say regiments #1,2,3 and 5 pack your gear you're deploying.   You might get a section of guys, or maybe a couple of sections, but a lot of people are gonna say 'ya right, good luck with that'.
People who aren't physically fit, people who have tons of administrative issues and people who just wanna work 4 weeknights a month.

If I was running a BFT and a CIC officer wanted to jump in and do it I'd let him or her. I'd give them a tacvest, helmet and rifle sans bolt and magazines and wish them luck. I'd also use common sense and if the CIC was clearly out of shape I would refuse them and have them do some work up training first, the same as I did for a clerk at my unit who's out of shape and fell out of a 400 meter walk.  Had him do some training on his own, sign off that he did training on his own then he was allowed to do the BFT, which he passed.

My concern for him was that with zero work up training if he thundered in on the BFT he'd turn around and try and get monetary compensation/work at the regiment for getting injured on the BFT with no work up.  It's a pretty shady area from what i can tell.

[RussBar119]

Dogger,

To answer your questions. I obtained written permission from my CO and the CO of the E&K. I signed a liability waiver as did ALL personal who participated. I carried a rubber c-7. I was issued the same equipment because if I had asked for special permission that would indicate that I wanted to be different, not gonna earn respect that way.

Any more questions please feel free to PM me.

Cheers.

Edit: Dogger is right, don't just "hop in" secure permission through the appropriate channels.
I never meant for this topic to become a "are cic deployable" I meant it to encourage physical fitness and standards, not to troll the pres or regs.

[Strike]

Edit to add: Padres wear Tacvests when deployed if required. As they need to be able to protect themselves.  CIC will never deploy or train to defend against attack or to kill. So no my argument would not include padres.

Huh?  How does a Tac Vest provide protection for a Padre, other than carrying First Aid equipment?

[MedCorps]

The Bioscience Officers will tell you the proper wearing of the tac vest is very important if you get in a large IED strike.  Something about providing an extra layer to aid in keeping the body armour on you during the first milliseconds of the blast. 

The tac vest can also carry things like water, snacks, flashlight, GPS, book of worship, etc for the padre.

Food for thought.

MC

[formercadet1029]

Interesting thread.

I would suspect part of the lack of a fitness requirement for the CIC basically falls back on the the ideology that many CIC officers aren't and won't ever be soldiers. Many join the CIC as a result of their own children being involved in the cadet program, they want to be involved with that on some higher level. In my opinion, anyone showing an interest at the level to become an officer at an active cadet corps should be encouraged at every level because people seem to come in and out of this system frequently. Acquiring a complete staff of competent people that will show up every week in this day and age is nothing short of a miracle. These people only get paid for 2 days a month when you look at it realistically, they really have to want to be there considering all the extra time that goes into it without any financial gain. It has to be about the kids first, or they won't last. There is a small epidemic of CIC officers that appear to be trying to make a full-time career in the CIC, that's a whole separate discussion for sure.

So saying all of that, perhaps the idea of discouraging anyone to join the CIC on any level, for any reason, may just be something they are trying to avoid at all costs just to ensure a healthy pulse in the system itself.

People in the reg force, class A or B, have a very different type of Job commitment than anyone in the CIC ever would.  CIC officers typically have jobs and careers in the civilian world.

Not apples to apples on any level.

[dogger1936]

I don't understand what a TacVest or even a C7 for that matter has anything to do with insurance.  Yes, the TacVest is made to carry weapons, but if it doesn't what's the big deal?  Yes the C7 can fire rounds, but if it doesn't contain a bolt, it can't. We fly cadets every year in a F-18 (that can drop bombs, fire missiles and even shoot a 20mm gun) and they have to wear a vest that can carry a 9mm and 2 mags (essentially our TacVest if we buy the farm and eject over bad guy land), sitting on an ejection seat.  Oh the horror.

Believe me I would love to have the "child soldiers" we once had. IE children firing FN all the time firing howitzers as they did a decade or so ago. Fact is Max that isnt going to happen.

The program is so politically correct that it has removed the rank Private/soldat as it may offend someone; or made cadets sound like child soldiers. Waivers etc are not the exception its the norm to do Anything in the program.

I'd gladly have children doing section attacks; alas the program has moved away from the CF over the past few years IRT implimenting of new courses etc.

Russ I'm glad to hear everything was approved. And I'm excited to hear such a great raport being built between you and a regiment. Thats a awesome help for your corp. BZ.

[gwp]

Contrary to what I keep hearing 90% of CIC officers I've met have zero military experience outside of CIC courses. Many are mom and dad's; uni students, school principles; CEO's of civilian companies etc.

Actually 45% of the COATS reserve subcomponent and CIC Branch have former Reg F or P Res Service. 

Furthermore, most members of the CF are mom's and dads, were or are university students, and have had civilian occupations. 

Will they ever deploy as a CIC? No. Will they ever understand what soldiering is? No.

COATS personnel may be deployed under specific circumstances with specific approvals if they have the skills required for what is understandably support roles.

To compare regular and reserve soldiers to CIC is akin to comparing the Salvation army to the knights templars. While connections can be made; there is very little in common.

A member of the CF is a member  of the CF is a member of the CF.  They all come from the same Canadian society and all have the same desire to serve their country in accordance with their vocation.

[dogger1936]

Actually 45% of the COATS reserve subcomponent and CIC Branch have former Reg F or P Res Service. 

Furthermore, most members of the CF are mom's and dads, were or are university students, and have had civilian occupations. 

COATS personnel may be deployed under specific circumstances with specific approvals if they have the skills required for what is understandably support roles.

A member of the CF is a member  of the CF is a member of the CF.  They all come from the same Canadian society and all have the same desire to serve their country in accordance with their vocation.

55% have no other CF experience. So what?

Please do tell me about CIC deployments. Do you mean to say members of the police force who donate their time to a youth organistaion; may deploy to foreign countries as part of the police force? Or for a trip in the way back when machine the Wavy Navy or something?

CF soldiers have a very differnt vocation than CIC officers. CIC officers are there to support a DND funded youth program; soldiers are employed to kill people. While comparrisions can be made on the parade square thats where the similarities stop.

There is no need for stringent CIC fitness testing. Being a percentage guy I'm certain you can desertain the percent who would not pass. And how many would be left to take care of the youth program.

Heading out on a BFT (approved of course) is a great way to build ties to regiments. That will aide the corp's with procurement of equipment and support IRT volunteers. Other than that having CIC officers do BFT's would be pointless. Hence why it isnt required now or will ever be.