Talk:Royal Canadian Air Force Exercise Plans

Military history: Canadian / North America

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force

Improve[edit]

This article seems to need improvement in tone (not complete encyclopedic), greater context, and more specificed facts (e.g. in the sentence The Royal Canadian Airforce asked Orban to develop a fitness program for their pilots, a third of whom were not considered fit to fly--"considered" by whom?). --131.238.109.229 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by the air force obviously. I suspect the RCAF has a huge book of regualtions detailing when a pilot is or is not considered fit to fly. - SimonLyall 09:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, honestly it's obviously the RCAF who considered them not to be fit. What, do you think they asked random people? xD Sandwiches99 05:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terse version of 5BX[edit]

I won't redo the undo about the http://www.oakengates.com/5bx/ link. I'm aware it's almost the same as the version you can find on the first link, but this one is terser. It's shorter, cleaner, more accessible, and much less commercial, which is always preferred. If duplication is the problem, maybe we should replace the first link with this one. Thoughts? 217.132.84.178 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see the difference. The original html version was by a guy called Abraham Provost and posted to his website ( which no longer exists) and both sites' html versions are just copies of this. The gettingfitagain link also has various pdf versions. As for the non-commercial bit, it's just a random URL on a town's website, not linked from the rest of the site and I assume a hobby of current maintainer (eg likely to vanish without notice). - SimonLyall (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unreliable source tag[edit]

With a little trepidation, as I've not seen the tag before, I opened the pdf reference under External Links, the one that is labelled as being from an unreliable source, in Firefox. I found no problems and also scanned it with Spybot, Avast and Malaware with no results. So, what's the problem??

The link is a pdf the original booklet and imo worth ten times the article. It's designed for the general public, from couch potato upwards, written as a public information handout, is easy to understand and designed to be used. It is compete with the charts and diagrams etc.

The only odd bit I could see is that under the Crown Copyright notice at the back (!!) is the typeset note: "This copy beongs to John Orban" and an email address.... From what I've seen, the article could be improved by tighter reference to the booklet itself.

I suggest, if nobody can explain to the contrary, that the "unreliable" tag should be removed.

--LookingGlass (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-date links[edit]

The link to ref 5, http://www.goodbyecouch.com/ is out of date, and apparently has been for quite a while. The reference should probably be removed unless someone can find some other updated 5bx programme. Same about ref 7, linking to http://www.gettingfitagain.com/pioneer.php, which seem to be the same people, since gone out of business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.200.98 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'...a directorate and trade...'[edit]

I deleted the word 'trade' from the 1st paragraph of the History section, since it doesn't make sense that the RCAF would be engaging in trade, or that fitness is something which can be traded. I think it may mean that as well as the directorate, a group of RCAF personnel were trained as fitness instructors (in the sense that being a fitness instructor is a trade), in which case that should be stated more clearly, but since I don't know whether this was the case or not I have simply deleted the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.86.104 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have reinstated it as I think it was correct, though I do wonder if we can make it clearer. From what I recall of RAF talk, which I guess could be similar to RCAF, a "trade" is a specialization that the airman/woman can be placed into - like being an aircraft fitter would be a trade, or being defence infantry perhaps (hmm, that might be the wrong level of specialization, but you can see what I mean). So it's saying that fitness was made into a thing that airmen/women could do specifically whereas before, presumably, it was not. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added a link like this – trade – where readers can see "trade" used in the context described above. Best to all DBaK (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]