FO discrimination

[lordmonar]

Members under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

[davidsinn]

Members under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

That makes them worthless as GTLs then. Has anybody realized that?

[notaNCO forever]

Members under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

That makes them worthless as GTLs then. Has anybody realized that?

Not if they have someone over 21 to drive the van. The GTL does not need to be the driver.

[lordmonar]

No...but it does raise the question about how can someone be responsible enought to lead and command someone to do something he himself is not allowed to do due to age?

This is one of my points about making the rules consistant.

IF we are not responsible enough to drive our team until we are 21....we should not be responsible to lead our team in the field.

[notaNCO forever]

 Maybe not being able to drive a CAP vehicle until you are twenty one has more to do with insurance than age.

[davidsinn]

Members under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

That makes them worthless as GTLs then. Has anybody realized that?

Not if they have someone over 21 to drive the van. The GTL does not need to be the driver.

So a 19 year old CADET can be a PIC($250k airframe)on a search. But a 19year old Adult Officer (Senior member, term of the week...) can't drive a Van($20k)? Something that in IN they would have been doing for 3 years out of uniform? They can command a unit and be responsible for the van but they can't drive it? That right there is pure age discrimination. BTW I was an 18 year old employee of a school system and was able to drive their 15 pax vans so the insurance is something that can be worked out.

[DNall]

We have under 21 Pvts drive vans for the national guard all the time. Generally 15pax completely full of enlisted soldiers & over a hundred miles each way. There's no training & no paperwork, just "jump up there & follow us."

I understand it being an insurance issue. In a perfect world we'd just pay more for insurance and do the right thing, but it's not perfect. It's reasonable for us to both reduce risk and insurance costs by imposing an age restriction on drivers. However: 1) that should also apply to our oldest drivers who also pose a risk/cost; and, 2) none of that has anything to do with grade.

[hatentx]

Well to drive any Army vehicle legally you must have a DA 346.  Even if it is a TMP.  The difference with that though is that PVT works for the Army and is under UCMJ.  A FO is not.  I agree though the issue is the age and not the grade.  In the RM saftey briefs every weekend is focus to the 25 and under crowd despite the rank that us warn.  I would be interested why CAP choose to make the FO track.  It may have well served its purpose. 
You will never get the older crowd from driving because he who has the most votes make the rules.

[DNall]

They're rental vans in support of RRC moving enlistees to RSP drill wknds. So, no 346 or any other training other than a state driver's license. I don't even have a 346. I'm not sure where UCMJ comes into play.

I understand it's uphill to place any restrictions (driving, flying, etc) on over 70 members. I'm not necessarily arguing that has to be done, just that it's problematic to do it to under 21 members and not apply the same insurance liability standard across membership. That's potentially an example of discrimination.

That said, being an FO or 2LT really has nothing to do with being able to drive a van or not. If that were the case, a CAP driver's license would be a requirement to promote to officer grade, and it certainly is not.

[JAFO78]

OK I will dive into the gray waters here with this question, My oldest daughter is going to be 17, and may want to join CAP. Would she be better off joining as a cadet, or waiting another year and join at 18 to become a FO?

I don't know who much testing and such she could get done in a year as a cadet.

I understand that FO is 18 to 21.

Any guidance would be of help.

[BillB]

If your daughter joins at age 17, she can remain a cadet to age 21. I'd have her join to enjoy cadet membership. If and when she earns the Mitchell award, she might consider turning senior and be a FO. And until she turns 17, she would be eligible for O-flights.

[Eclipse]

^ Ditto.

There are any number of experiences open to a cadet that are not available to seniors - she can always convert, but never go back.

You can get pretty far in the program in 4 years, though some of how successful she can be will be dependent on the local unit and how well she is able to work with being a subordinate to cadets who will likely be much younger than she is.

Defiantly something for a direct conversation with the unit CC.

[mmouw]

No...but it does raise the question about how can someone be responsible enought to lead and command someone to do something he himself is not allowed to do due to age?

This is one of my points about making the rules consistant.

IF we are not responsible enough to drive our team until we are 21....we should not be responsible to lead our team in the field.

If this is true, then when I was on Active Duty with the Air Force and under 21, I should not have been put in a position, as an E-4, to lead or supervise anyone because I couldn't drink legally? If I was't mature enough to get drunk according to the laws, then why was I mature enough be put in harms way. Don't ever underestimate what someone can accomplish under the age of 21. Think about it, when do most of us get our professional training? It isn't after the age of 25.

[lordmonar]

No...but it does raise the question about how can someone be responsible enought to lead and command someone to do something he himself is not allowed to do due to age?

This is one of my points about making the rules consistant.

IF we are not responsible enough to drive our team until we are 21....we should not be responsible to lead our team in the field.

If this is true, then when I was on Active Duty with the Air Force and under 21, I should not have been put in a position, as an E-4, to lead or supervise anyone because I couldn't drink legally? If I was't mature enough to get drunk according to the laws, then why was I mature enough be put in harms way. Don't ever underestimate what someone can accomplish under the age of 21. Think about it, when do most of us get our professional training? It isn't after the age of 25.

Apples and oranges....first drinking is not a normal duty function of anyone in the USAF or CAP.

If the USAF has a rule that you had to be 21 to drive...and then put you incharge a detail that required you to certify and supervise drivers....that would be very stupid.

Now...we don't have a lot of FO's in command positions.....but there is no rule stopping an FO being appointed a Squadron Commander.....where that exact situation can occur.

I don't really care one way or the other...but I do think we need to make all our regulations and policies consistant.

If you can drive a van with passangers under 21.....you should not be able to command, fly a C-182 with pax, be a GTL and a whole host of other jobs that are just as responsible and have the same potential for accidents/damage/cost.

[D2SK]

Stop whining and turn 21.

[mmouw]

If you can drive a van with passangers under 21.....you should not be able to command, fly a C-182 with pax, be a GTL and a whole host of other jobs that are just as responsible and have the same potential for accidents/damage/cost.

The point I was making is the needs of the mission come before age. If you have someone who is capable of leading a team because of ability instead of how old they are, then that is all that matters. I would hate to have to explain to the family of someone who is missing that we can't send a team out to search for their loved one because our only available team leader was under 21. To be honest and up front, most of the good GTLs I have worked with were under the age of 23. Its the person that makes a good leader and not their age.

Tags - MIKE

[Eclipse]

Being a good GTL has nothing to do with driving a vehicle, in fact being the driver actually hinders
effective leadership to a certain extent for the same  reasons an MP isn't really supposed to be in the "search".

Many states waive the requirement for a CAP-DL for under 18 GTL's.

[davidsinn]

Being a good GTL has nothing to do with driving a vehicle, in fact being the driver actually hinders
effective leadership to a certain extent for the same  reasons an MP isn't really supposed to be in the "search".

Many states waive the requirement for a CAP-DL for under 18 GTL's.

The point is you are placing someone in command of an asset that they are prohibited from operating.

[Eclipse]

Being a good GTL has nothing to do with driving a vehicle, in fact being the driver actually hinders
effective leadership to a certain extent for the same  reasons an MP isn't really supposed to be in the "search".

Many states waive the requirement for a CAP-DL for under 18 GTL's.

The point is you are placing someone in command of an asset that they are prohibited from operating.

A GTL is not necessarily in command of a vehicle just because they are in it, the CAP-driver is responsible for the vehicle.

It does potentially setup some places for conflict if the driver decides "I'm not going there", etc.  Thankfully it doesn't come up very often, at least by me, as we have plenty of GTM's w/ licenses, though I know there are too many wings that artificially limit the number of licenses they issue as a general rule, regardless of age or other.

[SAR-EMT1]

As far as the FO program existing... I asked about this when I was once a young innocent Flight Officer.  I was told the reason for having it is that generally you must be 21+ to become a commissioned officer in the RM. CAP maintains the FO program in this day and age to adhere to that adage.


( I know about the half dozen "military Jo-Co's" that pop out 20 y/o reservists, with an associates; but they are 1) reservists and 2) they have stipulations requiring a bachelors before they advance/promote/go active)