Talk:Australian Navy Cadets

Ranks

The rank structure of instructors are wrong in this article. They are

Cheif Petty Officer CPO Petty officer PO Unit surport volenteer USV

I am a cadet at the moment so if you would like to email we for conformation email me <e-mail redacted>

Could someone please change this or if you want i can

USV's are not considered as instructors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.164.211 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The ranks are now correct for staff. USVs have been moved to a seperate section called "Volunteers". This is the official rank structure in ABR5128. JakeR03. 17 March 2008.

Alright. I'm bad at editing, but I have some new info for you all.

THE ABR 5128 IS GONE! As of 16/01/2020 the ABR 5128 has been replaced with the ANP 3700 -- Policy and Operating Instructions for ANC.

There are many changes, hell I haven't read most of the document yet, but here are two very key changes:

CDT WO and CDT MIDN are now both removed. The ranks are now CDT RCT - CDT CPO only.

As for instructor ranks, Able Seaman ANC, Leading Seaman ANC, and Warrant Officer ANC (IOC RANKS) have all been removed. The current ranking structure is:

Probational Instructor ANC (PI, ANC) (Bears no insina!)

Petty Officer (PO, ANC)

Chief Petty Officer (CPO, ANC).

Officer ranks remain the same. I'm currently a CDT Petty Officer. I can't find a public version of the document yet, but I can garuntee it is true and correct. I have a PDF copy if anyone would like further proof. I can't edit to save my life, could one of you find gents do it for me? Cheers FrancoisvKempen (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Specialisations

If Anyone knows the abreviation for Naval Airman could they please write it in?

cheers, Jez 14 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Activities

Cadets do not take part in fire fighting activities

somebody please change this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.95.123 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

They do as part of their overall training syllabus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.95.180 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ISCA logo.gif

Image:ISCA 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 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) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Someone using a username of ANC AsstDirInfoSystems edited this article, with a summary of "Removed criticisms as they are not appropriate for public release." Wikipedia is not censored. I am not saying that the removed material was appropriate, but the username seems to imply rather strongly that the editor in question has a conflict of interest here. The user has been blocked anyway, as the username was in violation of our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments posted in that section were rather unsubstantiated criticism. While the comment that Wikipedia is not censored are valid, I think that the material removed falls outside the scope of valid input as it is subjective criticism form an obvious member themselves and detracted from the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.31.187 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike I completely agree with your view.

The unsigned comment that the criticism "falls outside the scope of valid input as it is subjective criticism form an obvious member themselves and detracted from the article as a whole" is not appropriate. The page needs to have a balanced interpretation of the ANC, and as such a small criticisms section was created. The criticisms stated in that section were entirely appropriate, although they could have been expressed in a slightly more neutral tone. The comment that the criticisms came from a member is obvious and again appropriate to wikipedia, as only members have a suitable level of knowledge on the organisation to comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcj89 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have truncated the criticisms and neutralised them and placed them in the article. I believe that they should be in there, ANC management have no right to remove criticism from the article on them. Wikipedia is not censored.. The public has a right to know whether taxpayers money that is invested in cadets is living up to its expectations. Public-funded organisations need to be accountable, and deleting criticism on the organisation just because it makes it look bad is not being accountable to those that fund it. Furthermore, as for the "subjective criticism" argument, the authors have listed several specific incidences where it has occured. The members concerned have a right to voice specific concerns on the site. If a parent of a potential cadet wanted an independendant voice on the quality of ther cadets, they may look here, for an independent view, which at the moment has been turned into nothing more than a PR Guide. NPOV in the article please. 58.109.6.28 (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that the attempt by the ANC to censor any criticism of the organisation has been thwarted. Such comment can only be made by those who have experienced the mismanagement from within, I stand by my earlier comments having been a staff member for ten years. Those ANC members who read my comments will probably be able to identify me because they are views that I have expressed publicly for some years. I am aware that the relevant responsible Rear Admiral within Defence is aware of these adverse comments but seems powerless or unwilling to fix the problems within the ANC.

I Agree with these viewpoints, i myself was a cadet for 6 & 1/2 years, and have moved to another city with a cadet unit. I was volunteering at the local unit, teaching their drum corps and instructing sailing, then ANC HQ introduced the rule that if you're going to help out at a unit, you need to do a psych test and background test, which i was up for. only thing is, the amount of miscommunication and frustration involved. i have to pay for the 6 hour car drive to to the test far away from my home, and pay for accomodation and food. they did offer to pay, but have since changed their mind and have declared that i now need to pay. the point of staff needing to undergo training to supervise water bourne activites is very true aswell, i currently hold Gisbs upto racing skills 1, advanced powerboat handling, safety boat handling and first aid certificate, but apparently that's not quite enough, you NOW need a rescue boat certification, which Yachting Australia itself does not offer. For an organisation that so badly needs volunteers, they are making it exceedingly hard to be one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.164.211 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RAN cadets crest.gif

Image:RAN cadets crest.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 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) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the ANC

I've started a History section on the ANC page. I'd like to see some addittional accurate (and referenced) historical information added. Does anybody have useful material they can put forward? Thanks. Jake R (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Due to increasing red tape some cadet units are unable to perform core activities. One such example of this is the regulation that Australian Navy Cadet vessels be towed with an Australian Defence Force vehicle, when being transported. This is affects units in country areas and other regions that experience difficulty obtaining access to a Defence vehicle. Without such a vehicle the cadets cannot perform waterborne activities.

In addition, some feel that the upper command echelons have lost touch with the primal concepts that draw young people to the cadets. The perceived need to "bubble wrap cadets" has meant a loss of the adventure that set cadets apart from other youth groups such as the scouts.

This may be a factor in the decreasing membership of Australian Navy Cadet Training Ships, with only 2000 cadets across Australia. This compares to an approximate combined total of 20,000 cadets in the other two services.

In NSW units, waterborne activities have been curtailed due to a lack of qualified staff to supervise these activities. Many ANC staff have little or no military experience and are frequently shown up for their lack of ability. This contrasts with the Australian Army Cadets with many of their staff being ex-Army or serving Army Reservists. The ANC in NSW some years ago enjoyed the services of many former RAN or Merchant Navy professional seaman as staff members; however, over time these members have become disaffected with the "professional cadet" element amongst some senior staff that is an emerging factor.

These statements need to be verified.

Unfortunately due to resources and practical limitations we cannot go about creating empirical evidence about these criticisms. However i dare you to ask any serving instructor below the rank of lieutenant to what state the ANC is in and they will return with positive affirmation of the criticisms removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcj89 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

“JUST ADD WATER” by proud2bK363

Redacted by AusTerrapin (talk) in accordance with WP:SOAP

--Proud2b-K363 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Redacted by AusTerrapin (talk) in accordance with WP:SOAP

58.170.118.227 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Redacted by AusTerrapin (talk) in accordance with WP:SOAP

8/4/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.51.214 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Above section contravened WP:SOAP and has been redacted AusTerrapin (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

ANC Uniforms

I removed the uniforms section as it was inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.133 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a "tin lid"? I've never heard the term before and I was a cadet and then instructor for over 25 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.131.240 (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, maybe I'll do up a RAN Uniforms page with the corect the names out of ABR 81. For the moment I'll remove it because it's incorrect.--LukeSearle (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Band Units

TS Hobart is not the only band unit in the ADFC. 233 Ceremonial Flight (AAFC) and Australian Army Cadet Band Sydney are also band units —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will567 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

NTS?

The proper term before a ship is commissioned is NUSHIP. It is the same for any ANC unit awaiting recognition. NTS is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.91.150 (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important to remember that the ANC is no the RAN or RN, the ANC has done things it's own basic way since 1907, the use of 'NUSHIP' in the name of an ANC unit is incorrect as ANC units don't get Commissioned, they get recognised (much like RAN ships get Commissioner). Based on the individual circumstances of the unit, it can have 1 of 4 pre-names, 1. SU (Sub Unit), 2. NS (New Ship), 3. NTS (New Traning Ship) and 4. TS (Traning Ship). I have not seen the use of NS in the ANC since 2004 when my own unit was goven the title.--Nford24 (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2011 (AEST)

It is also important to remember that until it was recognised Training Ship Kanimbla used NUSHIP as the designation. So it was in use at some point. Why it was changed we can only speculate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.24.233 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories

In 2007 the ANC trialed a new category called the 'Cadet Safety Representative' (CSR) at TS Koopa in which 15 cadets were trained by a LEUT-RANR from National Command, the course was never run again as the content was considered to be at a staff level and not important to a cadet, the badge assigned to the new (and rare ANC category) was the 'Crossed Fire Axes' badge which was used to represent the Naval Fire Fighters aboard RAN Aircraft Carriers and was discontinued in the RAN on 30 May 1982 with the decommissioning of the HMAS Melbourne as all sailors were then required to be trained at the same level of fire fighting.--Nford24 (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2011 (AEST)

If it was trialed that means that it was never accepted on a national basis as a category and so does not classify as a category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.24.233 (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have checked The course certificates and they state "has attended and successfully passed the Inaugural ANC Cadet Safety Repersentative Course 2007", courses within the ANC the were not 'accepted on a national basis' would not have recieved a rate badge or have been conducted by National Command staff, however the CSR's course had both and all courses in the ANC must be on a national level due to the ANC training critea.--Nford24 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2011 (AEST)

TS Perth Manly NSW

This unit is not a former unit. It's name was changed to TS Condamine. Just as TS Albatross was once known as TS Beatty.

Hi, WP recognises that fact, however the fact that the names were used is important in the history of the ANC, the list contains a column entitled 'Notes' there it will state the current disposition of the unit, active or otherwise. Nford24 (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2011 (AEST)

Also left out TS Campbelltown and TS Parramatta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.125.86 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically TS Shropshire is also a former unit as it was fromerly located at Canterbury, NSW. It was closed and reopened at Grafton, NSW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.125.86 (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean up?

Just a suggestion that the section where it has the flotillas and units as well as national cmdr's etc be moved under the organisation section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbrown2 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Units and Flotillas should be before ranks becuase it reads better as the intro paragraph talks about unit first and then ranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.125.86 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Current ensign

There is an illustration of one here [[1]] 220.238.42.127 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)