Talk:Australian Army Cadets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian Army Cadets is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other editorial assistance.

Training warrant officer?[edit]

Im not aware that such a position exists, I have added OPSWO since it definately exists, if nobody can confirm TrainingWO somebody should remove it

I'm not aware that Operations Warrant Officer exists but Training Warrant Officer exists. ExtraDry 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Operations Warrant Officer (OPWO) for 1 Battalion ACU (Victoria) is Warrant Officer Class 2 Duffy, so it definitely exists. Oranges91 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the training WO as a cadet or an OOC? The TRG WO for the NSW AAC Bde is WO2 Graetz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.117.38 (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cadet TRG WO??? Never heard of an appointment like that exisiting. But in this case it is used to refer to an IOC appointed to that positionEmcee george (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

in some battalions this cadet appointment exists. In my battalion (22bn NSW), there are BN COMD (CUO), BN 2IC/Adjutant (CUO), BN RSM (WO1), BN OPSWO/TRGWO (WO2). The OPSWO/TRGWO is a CDTWO2. i dont know if this appointment exists in other battalions or brigades, my battalion has appointed one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.185.230 (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

124.189.224.26 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Oldest Cadet Unit?[edit]

I'm confident that Scotch College had the first cadet unit in Australia, formed in 1851. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Bryce (talkcontribs) 09:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Scotch College taught drill to students during the 1850s but did not have a cadet unit as such Will567

In answering to your question the oldest cadet unit is St marks college that was established in 1866. Pattav2 (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually its recognised that the Kings School in NSW had the first cadet unit, when a Drill Instructor was appointed to staff in the 1850's Emcee george (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

^all of these are partially right or completely wrong, the first cadet unit was thought of 1866 by Reverend George Mcarthur, it was then opened. The first Australian army cadet unit was established in 1866 at St Mark’s Collegiate School in NSW, this unit was then called the King’s School Cadet Corps in 1869. The first OC of this unit was William Dalmas. this became a great success and several more units opened. by 1890 the cadets corps strength was above 20,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.216.234 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oldest Community Based Unit in Australia is 204 Army Cadet Unit [Parramatta/Dundas] which was established in 1913. [WilliamG] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.86.161 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AAC Logo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:AAC Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban on use of CRP[edit]

I have removed reference on the ban on use of CRP in 2007 for the following reasons:

  • The cause of death for CDT Francis is still subject to coronial investigation so definitively labelling the cause of death as an anaphylactic reaction to the Beef Satay ration pack meal is inappropriate at this time.
  • The event is listed in the historical overview for the organisation - this event is not sufficiently significant in the overall history of the organisation to warrant inclusion in this section. There have been numbers of other deaths in the organisation, for a variety of reasons, over the years - none of which have been mentioned here. AusTerrapin (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Highest OC rank[edit]

It states that "Currently the highest rank an OOC can hold in the AAC is Colonel (AAC). There is one posting available at this rank being the Deputy Commander AAC." However, my School-based unit commander was recently promoted to Colonel. And I'm pretty sure he isn't the Deputy Commander AAC. Any ideas? Oranges91 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What unit are you at? If he wasn't the Deputy Commander AAC, are you sure hes not a Lt. Colonel? I can only think of one unit that has a Col. and that is CCCU, and that Col. is the Deputy Commander AAC. 8:58 3 March 2008 user:Imperator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperator101 (talkcontribs) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne High School Cadet Unit. He was promoted to full Colonel in August last year. And it's been confirmed since that Colonel Axup is indeed the Deputy Commander AAC Oranges91 (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AACLogo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:AACLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Editing[edit]

I have done some heavy editing to some areas of this page, as some of the information described here only applies to particular Battalions, and is not very good at giving a general picture of the whole organisation Emcee george (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Cheers, CUO McGeorge

Age limits/requirements are incorrect.[edit]

It should read between 12 and a half and 20, it was updated from the age of 19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTod94 (talkcontribs) 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect a cadet can stay in the system until THE DAY BEFORE THEY TURN TWENTY, not until they are twenty.Emcee george (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting rank above cdt without going on course.[edit]

From what it says in the article about promotion courses it says it is possible to achieve a rank of up to cdtsgt without going on a promotion course at all. Unless whoever put it there means that they can be acting lcpl (i.e is a cdt but doing jobs a cdtlcpl would do). Unless someone else can give me a better explanation on this I will change it. Pattav2 (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to achieve a rank of LCPL before course in some units which are short of NCOs. For example, in BHHSCU (22Bn NSW), no cadets attended JNCOs until they were an LCPL. Promotions there from CDT to CDTLCPL were decided by the Admin and Training Officers. In 2009, there were actually 2 CDTLCPLs promoted to CDTCPL without attending one course, and earlier this year, one of these CDTCPL's were promoted to CDTSGT without attending any courses. So it IS possible to become an NCO without going on course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.149.240 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We never said it was impossible, its just not supposed to happen, if Policy is followed properly, then cadets are not to be promoted beyond their qualification. The scenario you have presented happens all the time, but in reality, shouldnt. Emcee george (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but i'm changing it back, current 2004 POLMAN explicitly states that "A cadet may reach the rank of CDTSSGT Without having attended a promotion course", It's rare, but it happensEmcee george (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive looked through the POLMAN and cant find that particular sentence CUO. Part 3.2.1 Cadet Competencies and Progression clearly states that JLC is required for a cadet to be promoted to Corporal (Volume 2 Chapter 3) User:Will567

I did my barrier test last sunday and we had 2 lcpls from 30 ACU did the test, therefore meaning they havent done JLC. So in regards to Emcee george point it is rare but possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattav2 (talkcontribs) 02:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

True, my SLC had a SSGT on it, and my JLC had numerous CPLs and LCPLs floating around as students.Emcee george (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you should base stated policy on what your unit/brigade did in the past. Part 3.2.1 Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the AAC POLMAN 2004 - Cadet Competencies and Progression states that JLC is required for a cadet to be promoted to corporal albiet at the diescretion of the Unit OC. This is related to Delegation of Authority, ie. an OC can promote a cadet to Corporal After they have been deemed competent on JLC!!. I would propose that the section on PCC be rewritten to show this. The current section is contradictory.User:Will567 —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Well, by my reading, that says an OC can promote their cadets from Cadet to LCPL after having done Signals course. As this course now seems to be defunct across Australia now, then I think this Policy is almost redundant. And besides, it lists that a cadet must be at least 16 to become a CUO/WO, yet across Australia there are many CUO/WO who are younger than 16, so personally, until this piece of policy becomes enforced, then I don't think we should really be referencing it. 59.154.42.132 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have rewritten the intro to that paragraph to try and make it sound less contradictory, however, i'm not sure if the wording is quite right, if anyone can make it sound better, feel free.Emcee george (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Its much better now .User:Will567 —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Also the "signals course" isnt defucnt..its known as Unit of Competency 6.0 and has its own TMP which comes with the Cadet TMP —Preceding

unsigned comment added by Will567 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


I see what you mean about the signals course, i know it is still in the TMP, but in the 6+ years ive been in the AAC, ive only ever seen a signals course run once, and it wasnt for a unit of competency for JNCOEmcee george (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Most units do it non continously during Home Training Parades User:Will567 —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

There use to be promotions to LCPL from Cadet without a course, this has been removed. you have to complete your Junior Leaders Course before you can be promoted to LCPL. If there are promotions to LCPL without a course, there may be disciplinary actions to the OC of the unit for it.

Incorrect. POLMAN actually contains no provision for Promotion to LCPL. However, most unit OC's will require a cadet to complete JNCO course to be qualified for promotion. Read Para 3.21 of POLMAN Vol 2, which sets out the required courses and training for promotion.Emcee george (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Someone changed the spelling of Lieutenant, to 'Leftenant', whilst that may be how it is pronounced, that isnt how it's spelt. Check spellings before putting things in, i've been having to fix spelling mistakes all over the article. Emcee george (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to drag this issue up again, but it has reared it's ugly head, so.

Recruit is abbreviated as REC, not RCT, as RCT is the abbreviation used in the Navy.Emcee george (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The abbreviation for Recruit is actually RCT, whoever taught you that it was REC was wrong.

Incorrect. Have you ever heard of the Army Protocol Manual 2001? This sets out all the correct abbreviations across all three services. Read Para 11.9 of this manual, and you will see that you are in fact, wrong.Emcee george (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New course[edit]

Ive heard that there is now a course which goes for 4 days for cadets that are preparing for JLC in the future (as in not do the 4 days then do JLC). I think its called Cadet leader course or somethin. Can someone provide more info so we can add it into the article. Pattav2 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a small note about it, but as it isnt part of the National TMP there isnt a hell of a lot more we can really add to it, Hopefully when I march in on saturday i'll get a better idea of what it's about. Cheers. 59.154.42.132 (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean they will scrap the barrier test. Cause my guessing is that this new course could replace it as from what ive heard and from doing the barrier test myself this year, a lot of people have been failing it.Pattav2 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't replacing the barrier test, the idea is to prepare the cadets who didnt make it on to the course for the barrier test for the next round of courses. A number of rumours have sprung up about this course, and I shall address them now.

-The course does not bypass the barrier test, any cadet who completed the CLDC will still have to successfully complete the JLC barrier test in order to get on the course.

-Cadets who completed CLDC are not guaranteed a place on the next JLC, the course is only to prepare cadets to do the barrier test.

-CLDC does not entitle a cadet to a promotion, it does not deem them as 'qualified'. Emcee george (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what the point of the CLDC is? It looks like a stop gap for cadets whose units havent done the proper training so their cadets can pass a barrier test. Here in SQLD its a huge problem Will567

Thats kind of what CLDC is for. Its for cadets who have shown potential to be Junior Leaders, but arent quite up to the standard for the barrier test. It helps them get a 'leg up', so to speak on the training required to be a LCPL/CPL. Its run in line with JLC, so they have to wait 6 months for the next set of barrier tests. Whereabouts in SQLD are you from?? 59.154.42.132 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok. Im from Brisbane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will567 (talkcontribs) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, whether or not the course was successful, only time will tell when the cadets get to the next barrier test.Emcee george (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This course actually isn't that new. It has been operating for years for NSW 22Bn at various field exercises and at different units. It is called CIPC, Cadet Instructor Preparation Course, and it teaches cadets to become leaders and prepare them for becoming junior NCOs. Cadets are taught drill lessons, theory lessons (which are actually for SGTs Mod 1), SMEAC, mudmaps etc, what they need to know for JNCOs. This, as correctly stated above, does not guarantee a unit promotion nor a spot on JNCOs, but just prepares cadets to be junior leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.171.23 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, sorry, but CLDC is different to that again, that course sounds like JLC without the qualification. CLDC mainly focuses on field skills and how to work in teams and lead small groups. And theory lessons are now incorporated into the JLC TMP, so if you go on JLC, expect to do a theory lesson and drill lesson for assessments.Emcee george (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

22BN NSW Bde is running another course like that from User:114.72.171.23 on AFX. It sounds like it is similar to CLDC though as it just trains cadets to be instructors but does not guarantee rank or a spot on course. It primarily focuses on the assessments for JLC. Also Emcee george, i was on the NSW JLC for the July courses, but we never were assessed on theory lessons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vw987654321 (talkcontribs) 11:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, must be just a Victorian thing then Emcee george (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How many enlist?[edit]

This sentence:

> While cadets are encouraged to consider enlisting in the military, it is not required that they do so.

is informative, but I think would be better if it took one of the following forms:

> While cadets are encouraged to consider enlisting in the military, and about XX% do so, this is not required.

> While cadets are encouraged to consider enlisting in the military, this is not required, and only about XX% do.

(whichever seems better based on the actual proportion).

Does anyone have that statistic?

RuakhTALK 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I dont think anyone has compiled those sort of stats Emcee george (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a "Cadet Fact Study Sheet" from a few years ago that stated how many cadets joined the ADF, borken down into service and enlinsted/officer. Also the Defence Survey regularly asks current ADF members if they served in cadets. These are readily available on the net [User: Will567] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will567 (talkcontribs) 16:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, 4 out of 10 Australian Army Cadets on average join the Australian Defence Force, although only 3 out of those 4 join the Australian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.216.234 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Can you provide a reference for the claim that 3 out of 4 former cadets join the ADF?

AAC Dates[edit]

Ive noticed some people have been changing the date the AAC was established, I will now explain why it is the date it is currently as:

Whilst the AAC formed from individual school units that began in the 1860's, the AAC itself as an organisation was not raised until 1906. Emcee george (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There were alot of cadet units, separate to schools formed before 1906. as 43ACU Warradale was formed in 1900. in 1906 the cadets name was changed to Commonwealth Cadet Corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.216.234 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct there, however, they were not established under the current Cadet Corps system, and were considered part of Militia units at that point up until 1906 with the introduction of the Defence Act.Emcee george (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation for Recruit[edit]

This is getting beyond a joke. How many times must the article be changed back and forth before this stops. The Army Protocol Manual shows that the abbreviation is REC. The ADFC Rank Chart states the same. Yet people, rather dissapointingly people with senior rank in the AAC continue to dispute this based on what they were taught. It doesnt matter what you were taught, the AAC is notorious for incorrect doctrine being taught at ACU level, as senior cadets you should accept this and use the correct doctrine when it is made available to you. To see members saying that "RCT" will be continued to be used by their unit is not only dissapointing but wrong User:Will567

Amen to that, If it keeps happening ill request the page be locked, to add on to what Will567 has said, trying to use your rank to get edits passed on this page wont work... firstly, because no one cares about it over the internet... secondly, because I (I watch this page regularly) am a Battalion CUO, ergo, if you try and outrank me, you probably wont, so dont be arrogant, accept that youre wrong and learn from it. Emcee george (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Get over this. If you think it is abbreviated as REC, well then it is. But for the people who believe that it is RCT, then that's correct. Accept what you believe and stop changing it to REC. Leave it as CDTREC/CDTRCT then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.82.31 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I cant believ the last comment. Dont you read? User:Will567 —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Me neither... grow up. Youre wrong... I can prove it. I dont care what your rank is, where youre from, what youve been taught. Recruit is abbreviated REC, its written in the Army Protocol Manual, which has a table of all the correct abbreviations. Read it before spouting off and sounding like a ignoramus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee george (talkcontribs) 10:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

Barrier exams[edit]

What happened to barrier exams? I just got on the NSW AAC Bde JNCOs course in July but I apparently don't have to do a barrier exam.... are they still compulsory or is it just my unit, battalion or is it a NSW thing?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.171.23 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of anything saying that theyve been discontinued, but it wouldnt be the first time people havent had to sit a barrier test (or Diagnostic test as the correct term is), I should know, my JLC didnt have a barrier test, that was 5 years ago now though, but unless sufficient documentation comes from NHQ stating barrier tests are no longer needed, then they should still be conducted.Emcee george (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Current AAC Dress Policy[edit]

The current AAC Dress Policy WAS dated 5 June 2010, its slightly different from the one dated 11 Febuary 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will567 (talkcontribs) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote me the reference Re: flying wings please? I dont have a copy of this new dress policy, and can't find it on Cadetnet Emcee george (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my last, just found it.... its changed a lot since february Emcee george (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

AAC Dress Policy dated 5 June 2010 is no longer current, it was succeeded by AAC DRESS POLICY 18 MAR 11 FourDimensionalHyperSphere (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotion Courses edit[edit]

OK, this section is to explain why I removed the recent edits to the section on promotion courses.

The topic of getting above the rank of cadet without attending a course is extensively covered in a segment above, read that first before making any more edits.

Secondly, on promotion courses, the ADS instruct more that just sections, I'm fairly certain that most groups on promotion courses are at least Platoon Strength, and are taught as a single Platoon. Directing Staff are the adult staff who conduct the courses. any questions, feel free to leave them hereEmcee george (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Polyester uniforms removed from CSOD[edit]

There have been speculations that the polyester uniform will definitely be removed from the CSOD. This means that cadets will not be allowed to wear the polyester uniform in any occasions, which to me is outrageous.

Here's a facebook group about this: http://www.facebook.com/?sk=group_146134085449884&ap=1

"As of 1 MAR 2011, Polyester Uniforms will be removed from CSODs - the Australian Army Cadets uniform policy. Polyester uniforms have been worn by Australian Army Cadets on ceremonial occasions since they were introduced into service." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vw987654321 (talkcontribs) 10:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are people getting this CSOD rubbish from? The AAC still uses the ASOD with amendments as per the AAC POLMAN. Yes it is true, the Polyester uniform is being removed from circulation, but it is also happening for the ADF as well. Can someone show me this new policy stating this about uniforms, otherwise I will remove the edits relating to it.Emcee george (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Cadets in VIC/NSW BDE regularly refer to the current AAC Dress Policy as "CSOD". Also it can be removed from the Article as its only a proposal from the AAC Chief of Staff not Policy Will56 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will567 (talkcontribs) 09:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that cadets may often refer to the AAC dress policy as CSOD, however, that does not make it correct. However, these edits should be removed until a proper directive comes from HQ AAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee george (talkcontribs) 10:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that the correct documentation has come from HQ AAC, I have updated the relevant portions of this page. If I have missed anything, or anything needs clarification or to be re-written, let me know and i'll try and fix it. Emcee george (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dress[edit]

Are pistol belts a part of the "Field Equipment", or are they part of the webbing? Our unit issues the belts, but not the webbing. Also, should any mention be made of flashes?211.30.171.128 (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actual pistol belts are not an item that are to be issued to cadets. If you mean the comforter belts that are affixed to webbing, then they should be issued as part of the webbing sets, and not worn as individual items.

Also, what do you mean by flashes? Emcee george (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he means "Belt Individual Equipment" which is known in civilian terms as a pistol belt rather than the "Pad Belt Individual" also known as a "comforter" , odd that his unit doesn't issue webbing but I have seen SBU's issue only the belt plus water bottles, however I had thought that didn't happen anymore. Flashes are an old army term for "Insignia Shoulder Left/Right" also known as "biscuits", "Blue patches (green in the Army) etc. Also webbing is part of "Field Equipment" Will567 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

I think by flashes they meant the cadet flashes, brass badges saying "CADETS" that you affix to your ceremonial uniform on the epileque. They are not allowed to be worn anymore, except for with Polyesters. although polyesters have been removed from the AAC, they are still sometimes used. That is the only time the cadet flashes should be worn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.216.234 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Polyester uniforms, other than a few exceptions named in the AAC Dress Policy dated 18 MAR 2011, are no longer to be issued, and no longer to be worn by members of the ADFC, ergo, the shoulder titles should not be worn either.Emcee george (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[Emcee george] The above statement is incorrect, the amendment of the AAC Dress Policy in 29-APR-13 clearly states that the Polyester Uniforms can be worn by members of the AAC, but only in accordance under Annex C. Members of the Catafalque Guard, National CUO, National RSM, ACS and other members may wear Polyester Uniforms with they are in accordance with Annex C, although the Dress in not under public expense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.86.161 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

About the 'cadet flashes' The directive released on this reads Removal of “CADET” shoulder titles, replaced by use of “AUSTRALIA” shoulder titles (COMMMANDER AUSTRALIAN ARMY CADETS DIRECTIVE – AAC DRESS POLICY 18 MAR 11 2c) I would suggest that this is not widely known as most units would not have got around to ordering in the new 'flashes' FourDimensionalHyperSphere (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

SSGT Rank & unit establishments[edit]

As you may or may not be aware. COMD AAC has released a directive removing CDTSSGT and SSGT(AAC) from the rank structure of the AAC. Members who currently hold this rank will not be demoted, but will either leave the AAC as a CDTSSGT/SSGT(AAC) or get promoted to another rank as their OC deems appropriate. Secondly, the authorised establishments for units have changed, which means different numbers of ACS per cadet and the number of ranks each unit can have is now different. I have seen a copy of this directive, but do not have it with me to accurately update the page. I wil update the details once I locate the directive.

Regards, Emcee george (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OOC commission[edit]

This article points out that CUO do not hold. Commission, bu makes no mention of Officers Of Cadets.

Are they now commissioned? Or are thy civilian employees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.30 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Short answer, no, OOC's do not hold any form of commission. I will amend this section accordingly Emcee george (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Although edited, it is still misleading. OOC are not a part of the Australian Defence Force and I think this needs to be made quite clear. Stating "they are not commissioned" only has any value to those who understand the relevance of holding a commission, not to the vast majority of people.

It would be more correct to say "OOC are not members of the Australian Defence Force and only hold civilian rank within the Cadet Force". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.7 (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)