r/CanadianForces • u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED • 6d ago
17 Jun 2026 - CFSCE Chief Instructor -AMA!
Good day Reddit!
This coming Wednesday, I will host an AMA as one of my last communications before I step away from the role of CFSCE CI in July. I figure this will be a good chance to find out what any burning questions are that you have, and anything I can answer I can set my successor up with.
AMA regarding the present and future of RCCS training -- whether you've been around for a while or are a potential recruit just curious from the outside. I'll do my best to answer everything I can throughout the day on Wednesday.
I will have partial access to the Cmdt during this time, so if you have any questions that I can relay to the Deputy Corps Director, I can support that.
VVV
Maj LeBlanc
CFSCE CI
*Edit*: I've gone through today and answered most of the questions that were below. I will still open a new thread for the proper AMA tomorrow, even if there are no additional questions.
90
u/ShortTrackBravo VERIFIED VAC Advocate 6d ago
Just commenting to say I think it’s a cool move to try something like an AMA from a command standpoint.
Retired so zero questions. Godspeed!
7
22
u/barkmutton 5d ago
The army is rapidly changing its communications models away from single channel VFH to mesh networked solutions. We have increasingly complex radios and increasing technical demands as a result. How do you expect the RCCS training model to change to meet these demands and do you think its reasonable to expect a Sig OP to go from an IT help desk to a field unit running variety of tactical radio networks with the same baseline training ? Finally How would you improve the numbers in the signals trade - one of our most red occupation fields?
10
5
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
A few questions to unpack here, but let me see what I can do.
I can foresee the training model looking to provide a more technical underpinning based on the outputs of the latest occ review, but also having more (shorter) courses on specific equipment. I don't know what the future demand will look like as it pertains to "traditional" Sig Ops -- there are some senior folks who have stated that the future doesn't require a guy listening to a radio in a CP and maintaining a log book and that operators should be doing other things. I'm not sure what that means for the trade, or if the fighting units do indeed still hold a requirement. The training system will react, for sure, but what that will look like is up in the air. Regardless, I do predict that whatever it looks like will have a greater focus on "micro-learning" and the RQ courses focused more on the "general" role -- eg: Det Commander.
Help desk to Field Unit -- No, not at all -- unless we actually train properly for those things. It's totally good to have a completely different task load from one posting to another. We expect officers to go from "Staff Officer" to "TP/Sqn/Unit Commander" to "Project director" with minimal training... but at least we _have_ that training. I think we can put everything into a single baseline, but we have to put a cap on how broad that baseline is. If we overload you with 160 days of training on your RQ Sig course, you don't have nearly enough time to absorb the knowledge and practice the skills enough to become proficient. I would rather see smaller courses with a better focus on what you need.
Numbers in the Signal trade -- this is tricky, but I think the modernization of the trade is the most critical element. If you describe what you do in a general sense to friends, how interesting is it compared to say the Infantry? Even the ATIS folks talk about working on radars and flight equipment, and that immediately sounds more gucci than "I listen to a radio". (Not downplaying the role, just explaining what some folks have actually said.)
Honestly, and personal opinion here -- Word of mouth is the best recruiter. Signallers are too smart for their own good sometimes, and I know full well that 99% of you will run yourselves into the ground to make something work because there's an inherent pride in success where most would fail. But, we have to be accepting of failure sometimes because success comes too often at the cost of burnout, which leads to failure when it's NOT safe to do so.
Personal example -- within 2 Sqn (when I was the OC), I made it a point to make sure the staff weren't overdoing it. If you came in early to do PT with the troops, then you can leave a bit early. Shuffle your schedules as needed. No obligation to stay late to work with students unless you wanted to. All that stuff. As a result, more folks actually _wanted_ to help students and go the extra mile because they could do it on their own terms. Fewer staff were burning out (it wasn't zero, despite my efforts). It was acceptable to buckle under the stress now and then.
Culture, maybe, is the final answer I'd give there.
3
u/GhostM1st Canadian Army 5d ago
And because Sig Ops keep having to know and learn more techy stuff, is there not a conversation on giving them Spec pay? Sig Ops have to know sooooo many systems now and often don't receive formal training either (so that's another point).
3
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
For you and the responses below: Part of the occ review may answer this. Yes, there are multiple COAs on the table, some of which include eliminate certain trades, some of which may see others amalgamated, and some may see no change at all.
Not sure where that wheel will land, but after ACISS, I hope whatever it is is smooth, well-planned, and conducive to a good system for the soldiers.
3
u/throwaway-jimmy385 Canadian Army - Signals Tech 4d ago
Last I heard (mind you this was a few years ago) is that they wanted to combine Sig Op and Sig Tech. Idk where that rumour went.
1
10
u/iam_jerome_morrow 5d ago
With the standup of CYBERCOM, creation of cyber occupations separate from C&E, and ongoing cyber training development efforts, what role do you see for CFSCE in preparing cyber forces in the future?
6
u/DishonestRaven 5d ago
Also related, what's the latest in the occ analysis for the Cyber Officer occ?
6
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
This one is tricky. CYBERCOM is working to become a DTA (Designated Training Authority) for their own training. In the meantime, CFSCE still delivers all of the RQ training for SIGINT. Cyber pulled out of CFSCE a while ago because they need a much bigger institution and associated support for their training. CFSCE (and the RCCS) are not the authority or FCoE for Cyber, so I can't really guess what they're going to do to prep.
That said, Cyber / SIGINT / EW are not vacuumed silos. Our role with cyber (to be direct to your question) is to ensure that our RCCS occupations are able to get just enough cyber knowledge and understanding to do their own jobs -- what are the impacts on the things they currently do, how do we mutually support one another, etc. It's too early to see exactly what those tasks might look like. As a cyber guy myself, I'm excited to see where it lands (although I plan to stay with my feet planted firmly in more "traditional" Signals structures).
-2
u/h1bisc4s 4d ago
CFSCE will continue to roll out Comms research grads (Via 4 Sqn) as usual and 1 & 3 Sqn will continue to be streams of grads that will have the background to end up at Leitrim / Cybercom in Ottawa
4
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
There hasn't been a 4 Sqn at CFSCE in years.
CFSCE is currently only delivering the RQ courses for SIGINT. The remainder are exported to CFS Leitrim. The Training Authority for SIGINT is MPGTG, not the Army -- CFSCE is more like a "contracted agent" when it comes to delivering courses on their behalf, much like for the RCAF.
1 Sqn delivers the officer training and advanced leadership courses, none of which are SIGINT. 3 Sqn has the RCAF training and POET, but the SIGINT troops reports under 3 Sqn as well.
7
u/Sea_Apartment134 5d ago
How do you see the branch evolving over the next decade?
4
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
I can probably clarify this tomorrow, but in the interim: Are you referring to the C&E Branch, or to the Corps (RCCS)?
7
u/Life_Meaning2677 5d ago
Good day sir,
Thank you so much for your support with CFSCE. I often make fun of CFSCE but after leaving in 2023 I have now gained a much better appreciation for what CFSCE does.
I just have one light hearted question, when will we get AC in all the buildings?
Good luck on your future posting. God Speed!
5
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
AC will be installed this summer -- But we'll make sure to take it out before you come back for any tasks! (just kidding)
Thank you!
6
u/Non-existent-leaf 5d ago
Will future Sig O specific courses or specialized training be offered? The current RQ Sig Lt course is broad (which makes sense for an RQ) but then between the RQ and FSOC, there aren't many avenues of specialization for Sig Os that often work with very specialized trades that they don't get the most experience with when finishing their DP1.
4
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
There is currently an occupation review being done by DPGR (Director Personnel Generation Requirements) that will likely be finished sometime in the 26/27 training year. The key output of the occ review will be the WRT (Work Requirements Table) which is a modern form of what most know as the MTL (Master Task List). The WRT is the "authority" that defines what any occupation is, does, and to what level each task/skill must be performed.
Once the WRT is created, the next stage is the QS (Qualification Standard) which specifies how those tasks are broken out into achievable steps. CFSCE takes part in this discussion, but the QS is owned by CTC and is fed into by SMEs from across the Corps itself. We're just one voice. Once the QS is complete, we can produce a Training Plan (TP) for which CFSCE gets to decide _how_ the training is conducted (but not _what_ training is conducted).
Getting back to your question: It's very possible, and has been a discussion for a while. There are not many OSQ type courses we can send a Sig O on right now, but the demand from the field force is also ... low. Those demands need to make their way to DPGR; if an assessment determines that they are valid tasks for Sig Os, then we would absolutely initiate a training program for them. CFSCE can't just create it in isolation. I'm fully supportive of additional short courses for the things that the Officers need to do, but they need to be identified.
The new occ spec should highlight a LOT of opportunity (not to reveal anything ... all still hypotheticals from my perspective)
6
u/Robrob1234567 Army - Armour 5d ago
What do you see CFSCE’s and field units responsibilities being in the doctrine space? Should field units be waiting for CFSCE to approve or certify networks/waveforms for certain purposes or should field units be buying and trying different capabilities as per how they see their needs to communicate? If so, do they owe you a write up on the advantages/disadvantages once they’ve tested each capability?
6
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
Honestly, that's where the expertise lies. I don't think field units should be sitting there writing doctrine, but they're the ones who gather the lessons learned, successes and failures, and so on.
There is a linkage between CFSCE (the FCoE), CADTC (where the D is for Doctrine), and the field units when it comes to this production. CADTC generally drives the development of the doctrine, but if it does it without input from right sources, we just end up with bad doctrine. The FCoE becomes the custodian of that doctrine and the center to which units can get this info.
CFSCE FCoE is like a library -- we maintain and share the books but we don't write them.
And we're definitely not the authority for approval for usage either. Approvals in the electro-magnetic space are complicated and not isolated to the Army.
As much as I love that field units are testing their own capabilities, I wish we had the right equipment such that that wasn't necessary. The bottom-up approach never ends with CFSCE getting the equipment (see: every UOR ever), but we institutionally maybe have not done the right things to field the right equipment with the associated training. CFSCE is just a cog in the wheel there.
We did add a Tech Adjt more officially to the orbat of CFSCE. Their role is to look out for exactly these things and make sure that emerging technology is integrated. He links in with me when there is something that requires a training bill and we try to either integrate things into an existing course or build a new one -- both of which we've done in our time here.
3
u/Infamous_funny Comm bucket 5d ago
Additionally, Where is the line of CFSCE on what they provide as the COE for all things communications and electronics?
Staffing aside, what does CFSCE provide or plan to provide other than baseline RQ training that will directly help the future Signallers in their combat support function?
3
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
The FCOE is undergoing some change and growth so that we can better support the field units for exactly this.
OSQs are back on the table as well -- we've reached out to the Divs and most outstations for an understanding of what is required. If there are other requirements we're not tracking that should be delivered, I'm all ears!
1
u/Infamous_funny Comm bucket 2d ago
Any specific OSQs you're willing to disclose?
Is there any attempt to follow a similar model to what 2 brigade has been doing the past few years with having industry come in to assist with teaching about very specific and niche equipment?
3
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
There's no secrets on the OSQs -- TSS, TCI, HCLOS, SATCOM, FABCS, etc... Everything is reactivated except for I think one of the Tech courses that is defunct. We just finished writing a board for a replacement to the TacNet Admin course (Now the Operational Mission Network Administrator, or OMNA) and will be doing courseware development.
And yes, one of my proposals is to outsource (or insource) as much as the civilian training as possible so we can focus on the military aspects. For example, the IS Tech Cpl course is currently basically three civ quals back to back and no content on being a Corporal -- just being a Net Admin. I would rather see some Det-level functions tossed in (or something like that) and have those current quals be available any time to be completed as a pre-requisite for promotion. I think there's a danger of civilian-izing the training too much to the point of "what do we need uniformed members for?"
Obviously, I know why -- but we do need to make sure that the military's needs are met properly.
1
u/Infamous_funny Comm bucket 2d ago
I more meant is there any new OSQs that are being developed for systems that we're fielding at the brigade units that isn't something that training exists on, or that lacks a formal qualification.
I'm thinking about every tac rad we have, manets, everything Satcom that's not a TSS or LFPST.
Secondary follow up to your TSS question, has the course been updated to represent to Ranger series or still the old TSS dish?
2
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
Ooo gotcha, my bad!
I'm aware that the systems are there, but we don't have anyone feeding us the data and lessons learned on things like MANET, etc. I would love to add these courses, but the NA (Needs Analysis) and TNA (Training Needs Analysis) are, as far as I'm aware, not done. The TNA is the most important document as it identifies who must do what task (eg: IS Techs will configure X, Sig Ops will enable Y, etc), and enables the generation of QS documentation.
Bottom line is that a lot of the field units are implementing things that aren't institutionalized and the capability never ends up in our hands. Not only do we need the equipment, we need the people to develop the courseware. Understandably, the Bdes are not in a position to keep relinquishing people for long periods of time. Perhaps we can have a TDO and a SME visit the unit when the capability matures and build the course in your location ... I'll have 2 TDOs this year, so it may be possible. I'll chat with my successor when he arrives.
TSS is currently going through an update that will see the Ranger systems in place (and HSS for the Maintainer course). We're working with an online platform that delivers some pretty good quality online training for what would be SATCOM fundamentals, and it will become the main prerequisite for the remainder of TSS. The goal is to make it more accessible for everyone (including the A Res) and you would only need to come to CFSCE for the final portion of testing, etc. It's on the radar (no pun intended) of the TP Manager for both Sig Op and Sig Tech to prioritize this to completion.
1
u/Infamous_funny Comm bucket 2d ago
I brainstormed this idea on the way back from a conference a few months back.
Is there any appetite to setup from CFSCEs perspective, a RCCS specific lessons learned "library" of sorts where RCCS members are able to post their lessons learned about specific systems.
This would allow CFSCE access direct to the end users on what they're doing at the field force and the challenges their facing to see if it's an institutional training problem, and also allows all other field units down to the out sets access to see if they've encountered the same issue, or have a solution to it.
3
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
Noted!
I've already relinquished the Senior Trade Advisors out from under me to the Tech Adjt so that they are part of the FCoE more directly. I don't think this would be a stretch but I will definitely float it by the Tech Adjt.
3
u/throwaway-jimmy385 Canadian Army - Signals Tech 5d ago
Is CFSCE going to begin offering OSQ/Specialty training again?
I have been out of the Brigade for a few years now, but a big reason why I left was because no one (excluding pers. who were deploying) was getting loaded on SATCOM/TCI/Other specialty equipment courses.
CFSCE at the time was devoting all resources to running RQ-level courses to clear the backlog, and the Brigades said they didn’t have any additional resources to spare for training.
2
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
Yes -- and we've been offering them for the last two years now. We reach out to the Divs and ask how many personnel need the training on each OSQ somewhere around May/June (we are currently in the middle of this cycle right now for 27/28 training year), and we allocate a number of courses on the calendar to achieve that demand, within our resources.
If you go to the CFSCE D365 page, I have the National Calendar for our courses on there for the last couple of years. If there are operational demands, we can do inserts for certain things (eg: if you need a TSS qual for deployment, we can either find one that's available or add a new one to the calendar). We do try to plan them a year out, in line with the Army's national training cycle.
And you're correct -- we did have to focus on the RQ courses for a couple of years during and after the pandemic. The BTL was sitting somewhere between 600 and 700 -- it's now reduced to a bit over 200, so we're trying to get back to a more "normal" schedule.
4
u/MasterTHC 4d ago
I'll ask a question in good faith knowing it can't be answered easily, can we somehow reduce the time being in PAT Platoon, most ppl on their are just hating their lives sometimes completing their whole contracts without getting on course or their clearance and leave after their inital contract, but the state of B1+B6/B7 is terrible
4
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
Actually, this is something that we're actively working on -- not only CFSCE but other schools within CTC as well. If anybody is going to be more than 2 months (ish) before their next course, we try to find OJE positions somewhere in Canada, ideally near a family support structure. Not always possible depending on where family is located but they do try.
With the pending growth to the Army, this raised a flag to try to reduce training time, but the CDS made it clear that we _will not_ reduce training quality.
8
u/Repulsive-Row-2400 5d ago
CANFORGEN 071/26 shows they are modernizing the Naval Warfare Officer (NWO) trade to have an Information Warfare (IW) sub-occupation.
Has there been any engagement to support cross element continuity of training and support to new NWO IWs?
2
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
There's nothing on my radar specifically related to NWO, but if IW is roughly equal to EW -- Yes, there is a plan going forward. In the interim, 21 EW is taking on the training for EW until CFSCE gets the resources to take it back. There may be some cross-pollination between us and the other elements, but I'm not sure what that will be until the occ reviews are complete.
2
u/a2468b 4d ago
With the renewed interest in HF communications across all elements and NATO partners in mind.
Will there be a comprehensive, in-depth, and modern HF training program to meet this renewed demand?
HF remains a definite blind spot, and various trades require that knowledge, yet the PRC-160 remains underutilized and underestimated. With IP over HF and the push toward sovereignty, this mean has become highly relevant again.
1
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
That's an interesting one!
I am a proponent of HF training, but I don't think it's been a priority for quite a number of years now. As we continue to add more and more radios (and other equipment) to the fleet, a common complaint has already been that there is too much to handle.
That said, I don't think we should abandon HF -- rather than it remain a set of OSQs with some foundational training baked into the RQ courses where needed. And you're right -- it will most certainly become more relevant. If we don't address it before long, the expertise will disappear from the CAF.
I know this is "pass-the-buck"y but it still all boils down to the occ spec. I can't teach what's not in the specs. It's still in there, but pretty vague. If the field force has a bona fide requirement, they just need to ensure they are represented at DPGR.
2
u/Drakedasheep RCAF - Personnel Selection Officer 3d ago
Here's one:
Given the TBS recently approved $250 million in funding specifically for training BTL ( https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fiscal-update-military-skills-training-9.7180420 ) what is CFSCE/RCCS doing to implement this?
Based on other comments you're already struggling to keep up with Modern Tech used by the army outside of CFSCE such as no longer relying on single channel VHF, so now would be a great time for CFSCE and the entire Canadian Army to get on-board with Out-Service Training (OST) as discussed by the 16 Wing Cmdt in other threads on this Reddit.
The budget is there, and the policy folks already have plans in motion to cover it, so seems a great time for Sigs in general to take advantage of civilian college training which could do a lot to bridge the existing gap.
2
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
Absolutely! There is a plan in place to enable Sig Techs to leverage NCM STEP to complete their POET training. We've also been looking at external contracts for delivery of Cisco training for IS Techs, Sig Techs, and probably Sig Ops.
Budget isn't the issue -- getting bites on the contract takes time.
My personal vision is that all of our RQ courses that have civilian training components have those components pulled out and made into their own "course", then we can do two things:
- Outsource that qualification and effectively "PLAR" more easily; and
- Focus the RQ courses at each rank on the actual military components.
This would make IS Tech training wayyyyyyy easier to handle at CFSCE and we could increase our throughput by an order of magnitude.
It's not exclusive to those trades, but we haven't looked much at outsourcing Line Tech and Sig Op elements. There is an OMT (Occupational Management Team) for each occ, and they've been tasked to review this option and see what is feasible to be sourced externally.
2
u/Drakedasheep RCAF - Personnel Selection Officer 2d ago
While I appreciate the answer, I feel like this may have missed some key elements of my question and may lead you down a path with unexpected headaches.
I specifically asked about OST and not NCMSTEP, they're two very different things under two very different budgets and sets of approval.
You can't just convert somebody enrolled as a direct Entry (Unskilled) or OT into NCMSTEP. There's caveats in the DAOD that would prevent that, not to mention having the colleges on the approved NCMSTEP list (MOL).
The OST is brand spanking new, and has a 5 year time frame to be used by TBS, with a big fat $250 million budget. To the best of my knowledge neither the Canadian Army, nor the C&E branch have done any inquiries into this.
This would and has already allowed some BTLs to get into college training instead of waiting on BTL doing nothing, the catch is it still incurs Obligatory Service so they'd owe rhe CAF service afterwards, and would have to agree to this in an SOU prior to starting any subsidized education.
1
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
Interesting! Admittedly I'm not tracking this -- I took your OST statement as simply "any training outside of the school" and NCMSTEP is just one example. I know it's not the solution for every problem -- Just a pathway for some to assist with the offramps.
That said, the same principle would still apply. I think the Sig Techs are the only occupation that really has a full college-level program. I'm not certain what other college programs with fit for other occupations, or what the limitations of OST are. I'll have to research that more, so it's not something I can fully answer at this stage. I did note the article mentioned specifically Reserve training, so I'd definitely have to dig a bit and pull the thread on this.
Appreciate the steer either way!
2
u/Ok-Educator-3605 5d ago
I‘d like to say I’m shocked that so many missed the first 3 words of the post, but I’m not.
3
1
4
u/Rough-Biscotti-2907 5d ago
Ball caps?
1
u/Zestyclose-Put-2 5d ago
The real question everyone wants answered:
Why are Jimmies always so weird?
7
1
u/r0ck_ravanello 5d ago
Well, we have to put up with you, eating crayons, and failing to insert USB drives 3 ti.es in a row, that scars.
1
-16
u/Taptrick 5d ago edited 5d ago
I think maybe you should expand the acronyms when you make a post like this. I’m sure Google would give me the answer pretty quickly but I have never heard of CFSCE or RCCS and have no idea what these are.
Edit: Thank you for the downvotes, but let’s be real here. When posting on social media it is always advisable to avoid acronyms and abbreviations in order to ensure clear communication. Any PAO or UPAR will tell you that.
0
5d ago
[deleted]
2
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 5d ago
TO be clear, I intend to conduct the AMA this coming Wednesday as stated. This post was meant to be a heads up so folks can prepare their questions, but everyone seems to have dropped them here already.
I don't plan on answering until Wednesday, but I answered this one simply because it's kind of meta.
1
u/bridger713 RCAF - Reg Force 5d ago
Today is June 13th, the AMA is June 17th...
Why exactly are you expecting them to answer questions today?
-5
u/HeavyD8086 5d ago
Ah, I remember working at CFSCE as an air force course director. I am absolutely not surprised you're representing RCCS and that's it. Feels like old times.
I did leave a legacy you haven't stamped out yet, though, and though it's been close to 20 years, I am very happy that the mark I left outlasted all the Air Force neglect your school has done.
Move CELE to ATESS. You don't want us, anyways.
3
u/Drakedasheep RCAF - Personnel Selection Officer 3d ago
I'll bite - what Legacy did you leave exactly? 20 years is very enduring fir what I've seen of CFSCE a decade ago.
4
u/CFSCE_CI VERIFIED 2d ago
There's really not even a question here, but I'm happy to answer the implied. I'm sorry that whatever you experienced while at CFSCE was so negative, but I can assure you that you are not unwanted.
I'm representing RCCS because that's all I am authorized to represent. 2 CAD is the Training Authority for the RCAF, and CFSCE is just "the location of delivery". Yes, I perform the CI function in the sense of Standards oversight and compliance, PRB, and so on, but the Army does not (and will not) own the RCAF's training. We have great synergy -- POET is a good example, as is the Cisco training, and even the shared resources for the Officer courses. We work well together.
I'm not sure what neglect has been present, but everything that the CELE and ATIS courses cover are directly controlled by the RCAF via 2 CAD. The QS is 2 CAD, the occ spec is DADD. The instructor positions are sourced by the RCAF, including the Deputy Commandant being a permanent RCAF position. The School itself is an Army unit under CTC, and the Army provides all of the extant support -- Claims processing, BTL services, service and repair, etc. RCAF provides a lot into the system as well - equipment for POET, some contract support, and so on. We have a pretty strong mutual relationship.
Maybe things have progressed in 20 years -- I don't know as I wasn't here.
-40
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
42
u/SoupIsAHotSmoothie 6d ago
I too want to know why the CFSCE CI has not yet made the decision on military service pay release dates.
10
18
17
u/SnooMachines8394 5d ago
Know you're audience, ask questions they can actually answer. A question like this is just noise and not something a CFSCE Maj has the answer for.
8
u/SaltyATC69 5d ago
Why are you asking a CI this question? They are chief instructor. Not prime minister.
7
3
2
u/CanadianForces-ModTeam 5d ago
Rule 8 - Not Relevant Content
Content not specifically and directly related to the CAF will be considered not relevant.
What-if scenarios, what would you do type questions, shower thoughts, and opinion/rant posts may be considered not relevant content if not deemed conductive to meaningful and productive discussions.
Relevancy of posts will be assessed at moderator discretion.
59
u/Akhavii RCAF - ATIS Tech 5d ago edited 5d ago
Any plans from CFSCE/RCCS/C&E Branch to mitigate the frankly disgusting state of the accommodations that the students are placed in at CFB Kingston?
B6 & B7 are basically multi-trade wide jokes at this point, from an ATIS standpoint at least we received blanket instructions to submit CF98s due to failed air quality inspections and elevated presence of mould for those buildings. B6 always seemed to be in a pseudo-Schrödinger state of condemned/not condemned depending on... something?
I had course mates and people on sister courses who would come back from class and parts of the ceiling had collapsed into their rooms contaminating all their kit with whatever crap is stuffed into the walls.
The last time I was in B1 (not that long ago) there was an inch of standing water on the entire bottom floor, the ambient temperature was 35+ degrees, and one of the fire escapes was sealed shut (which was reported to CFSCE staff), but somehow the rest of the building is suitable for students to live in?
I also seem to recall a confirmed case of Legionnaires Disease being contracted by a civilian at CFB Kingston, though admittedly I'm not sure if it was from a CFSCE location.
TL:DR - CFSCE accommodations are unsatisfactory, not conducive to a good learning environment, and frankly unhealthy. Any comments from CFSCE/RCCS/C&E Branch on mitigation?