So...I got my hot little hands on a pre-release copy of 52-24. (That's the CAP Encampment Guide for you who haven't been keeping up.)
I can't find it anywhere for publication, so I won't post it, even via PM.
Maybe Ned can? It's dated July, so one could assume that it will be posted for comment soon.
In general I think it's a well-thought out, comprehensive guide that will take us in the direction of standardization. There's plenty
of hints that the collaborators have paid attention to many of our gripes and suggestions, and a lot of the baseline annoyances
that drive us OCD-types crazy have been specifically addressed in a "knock it off" kind of way.
Some terminology is changing, a few oft-used terms are being officially disavowed, and the curriculum is moving towards more hands-on and less .ppt.
The administrative requirements are going to increase, as will the academic expectation for the basics. The days of "attendance" being the
sole requirement for completion appear to be over.
There's going to be a learning curve, but the pain is going to be spread around pretty evenly. Those encampments that have been
run close to the book, with common sense procedures and no FMJ nonsense won't have to adjust much, but I know of a few that
will definitely have some major heartburn to deal with as they transition. The weekend ones will need to take a hard look at schedules
and policies and make some adjustments.
I would personally like to see a subset of this become a general guide for cadet activities, since the same issues pop up at bivouacs and
flight academies, but one thing at a time.
Any idea when it'll be made generally available so we can start the "wailing and gnashing of teeth".
Its nice to hear they have been working on it. I have a draft copy of the proposed CAPP 52-11 which was called the Encampment Training Manual, but this was dated ten years ago.
Too bad the latest version is out there for viewing. Maybe they want the encampment season to be done with first.
a word to the wise. The Smokey the Bear hat at the Massachusetts wing encampment has been used as an example as what NOT to do by NHQ. In fact a picture of that cadet was sent out with a huge admonishment to all involved. Don't be "that" guy.
Quote from: cap235629 on August 09, 2012, 02:46:41 AM
a word to the wise. The Smokey the Bear hat at the Massachusetts wing encampment has been used as an example as what NOT to do by NHQ. In fact a picture of that cadet was sent out with a huge admonishment to all involved. Don't be "that" guy.
Yeah, that note is pretty "direct".
It is open for comment from wing commanders and DCP's first.
From the comments I have heard today alone, the gnashing and wailing has started from DCP's already.
9 hours of uninterrupted sleep for basics
8 hours of uninterrupted sleep for cadet staff
no CQ or fire watch at all
50 contact hours, up from 40
Mandatory "cadet journal" that the basics have to write in every day
Just to name a few that are causing some of the heartburn
Those were definitely ones I expect to be "challenged" and for all the wrong reasons.
The sleep and CQ issues are fine with me and too long in coming. The activity I ran always had that policy anyway - less then that, especially
for a normal week-long encampment is just dangerous and unnecessary.
CQ is where a lot of the "bad ideas" happen, since in a lot of activities this means unchaperoned cadets lurking all night. I know a fair number of
activities have moved to having seniors who are there "off-shift" specifically to man the CQ. I think someone needs to keep an eye on the doors,
but it should not be cadets or primary staff. Anyone whining about that is doing so because of some "rite of passage" nonsense.
I really like the new structure of the classes, 50 hours is no big deal for a week-long activity, but will be a challenge for the weekend encampments.
The actual indicated curriculum is 47 hours with 2-6 for administration. Graduation requires a minimum of 40, so that really hasn't changed much.
The weekend encampment I ran already exceeds that with room to spare, though the new curriculum's emphasis is now in different areas.
I don't personally think the journals are going to live to the final - I like the idea, but anyone who has seen the literacy rate among the average
adolescent these days knows why this won't be of much use.
My biggest concern, frankly, is the requirement of academic testing- easy enough to accomplish, but a new mindset for cadets who are
used to simply showing up. How do you handle a cadet who has blown it by mid-week? You know there will always be some. Do you send them home?
Refund their money? Do they graduate with their flight and then get an empty folder? All TBD.
IMHO, the loudest whining will be from activities that have been playing fast and loose with the regs and mission of encampments, and
won't like being told what to do - they will fixate on trivialities of terminology or tradition and miss the point of the curriculum itself, which is to provide
a rich, immersive environment for cadets to grow basic skills they should already have from their home squadrons, not "mini-basic training".
There's a lot of emphasis around intensity levels and parental involvement as well, again, most well-structured activities are already doing 70-80%
of what will be called for, and just need to adjust and tweak. I think the extra requirements will also bring in a need for more technology and
more staff, which is a good thing as well.
Ugh, we had to write journals for ATS. MAJOR HEADACHE.
At a certain point you dash some vanilla thing off just to get it done in time. Kinda moves away from the idea of a journal and becomes a burden.
Not only that, but seriously who will read 150 basic's journals?
Oh I agree with you Eclipse (shocking I know ;D )
The only problem I can foresee with this would be brining in more SM staff. Some areas already struggle to provide a good amount of seniors.
(I also agree that the journal will never see the official light of day)
Quote from: NCRblues on August 09, 2012, 03:16:06 AM
It is open for comment from wing commanders and DCP's first.
From the comments I have heard today alone, the gnashing and wailing has started from DCP's already.
9 hours of uninterrupted sleep for basics
8 hours of uninterrupted sleep for cadet staff
no CQ or fire watch at all
50 contact hours, up from 40
Mandatory "cadet journal" that the basics have to write in every day
Just to name a few that are causing some of the heartburn
That much sleep!?! That'd cause me heartburn!!! The last thing I want to do is to sign up for some weak sleep session! That's sad, really. And a cadet journal, sounds more like a cadet diary to me! I wonder if they want cadets to write down their "emotions" each day or if they're going to be all about recording experiences. Either way, it sounds like a waste of time and money to me, mainly since encampment isn't a language course (even though a lot of cadets could really use it) nor is it assured accuracy. Good riddence to CQ watches though!
What's next, are they going to take away PT? Drill? I don't want to spend any of my complitation of hard earned money that I've earned and my parents earned to head to some activity that isn't going to give me a challenge. While I don't expect it to be something like PJOC, I expect it to have difficult times. I want to know if I go that I truely earned another ribbon on my rack.
Just my 0.02 cents.
As a matter of fact there is significant emphasis on PT.
Quote from: AngelWings on August 09, 2012, 03:56:18 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 09, 2012, 03:16:06 AM
It is open for comment from wing commanders and DCP's first.
From the comments I have heard today alone, the gnashing and wailing has started from DCP's already.
9 hours of uninterrupted sleep for basics
8 hours of uninterrupted sleep for cadet staff
no CQ or fire watch at all
50 contact hours, up from 40
Mandatory "cadet journal" that the basics have to write in every day
Just to name a few that are causing some of the heartburn
That much sleep!?! That'd cause me heartburn!!! The last thing I want to do is to sign up for some weak sleep session! That's sad, really. And a cadet journal, sounds more like a cadet diary to me! I wonder if they want cadets to write down their "emotions" each day or if they're going to be all about recording experiences. Either way, it sounds like a waste of time and money to me, mainly since encampment isn't a language course (even though a lot of cadets could really use it) nor is it assured accuracy. Good riddence to CQ watches though!
What's next, are they going to take away PT? Drill? I don't want to spend any of my complitation of hard earned money that I've earned and my parents earned to head to some activity that isn't going to give me a challenge. While I don't expect it to be something like PJOC, I expect it to have difficult times. I want to know if I go that I truely earned another ribbon on my rack.
Just my 0.02 cents.
I just got back from 3 days at ARWG encampment, and I will tell you first hand that cadets need that amount of sleep to function. As do seniors.
We had cadets crashing and burning before noon every day because they weren't getting enough sleep. I am currently sleep deprived, and I am having to re-type all of this as I go to avoid spelling and grammar issues. Numerous cadets went on sick call because they had "stomach aches" or "headaches" that magically disappeared after taking a nap. Cadets who were shambling around between classes suddenly had pep and energy.
Today, we were on such a tight schedule that we actually got everything done...early. Tours, messing, and pickups and deliveries of cadets went off without a hitch and by 1300 we were ahead of schedule. We forewent PT and standing at attention before sitting and eating in order to accomplish the near impossible.
Sorry, but this got a little off topic. I just got home 30 minutes ago and I am blubbity-blub tired. Cadets can be told what time lights out is and that they are to hydrate hydrate hydrate (we had a cadet who went through 4 camelbacks full of water and STILL became a heat casualty) but that won't mean they will do it. They will stay up late and complain and moan that they didn't get enough sleep. We could build 10 hours of sleep a night into the schedule and they would stay up til 0400 talking. The SM drivers, on the other hand, got not much more sleep. We had lights out at about 2130 or so with reveille at 0500, but unfamiliar cots and inadequate air conditioning caused us to toss and turn all night. I think I got about 5 hours of useful sleep in the last 72 hours.
There was a touchy-feely moment during our ES class when the instructor asked the cadets to name a rose and a thorn for the course. Roses being positives and thorns being negatives.
Bleh. I should have stayed an extra day, because the C-130 flights are tomorrow. Supposed to have been today but they scrubbed it.
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 09, 2012, 04:18:40 AM
There was a touchy-feely moment during our ES class when the instructor asked the cadets to name a rose and a thorn for the course. Roses being positives and thorns being negatives.
That is something I instituted as a morale booster on our FTX's. I like that I am present even when I am not there.....
The proper terminology is thorns and roses as we always end on a positive.....
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 09, 2012, 04:18:40 AMI just got back from 3 days at ARWG encampment, and I will tell you first hand that cadets need that amount of sleep to function. As do seniors.
We had cadets crashing and burning before noon every day because they weren't getting enough sleep. I am currently sleep deprived, and I am having to re-type all of this as I go to avoid spelling and grammar issues. Numerous cadets went on sick call because they had "stomach aches" or "headaches" that magically disappeared after taking a nap. Cadets who were shambling around between classes suddenly had pep and energy.
There are cumulative issues at work as well - sleep deprivation, stress both generated and real, a significantly increased mental and physical ops tempo (usually from zero the week before), coupled with no caffeine or other garbage which a lot of kids these days live on. Energy drinks and sodas are specifically prohibited for cadets - something most encampments are doing already, at least for the
basics.
Put that all together and what do you get? The "Thursday Crash" - a major uptick in sick call, injuries, and homesickness.
Most gaia-days are 24 hours. Subtract 9 and that's like...
...um....
...something around...um, 15-16 hours left (ish).
In a 5-day encampment, not including the weekends, that's 75 hours to accomplish 47 hours of class. Add in the weekends and
there should be no issue. If you can't get it done in 15 hours a day, you won't get it any more done if you're up all night.
Quote from: cap235629 on August 09, 2012, 04:27:22 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 09, 2012, 04:18:40 AM
There was a touchy-feely moment during our ES class when the instructor asked the cadets to name a rose and a thorn for the course. Roses being positives and thorns being negatives.
That is something I instituted as a morale booster on our FTX's. I like that I am present even when I am not there.....
The proper terminology is thorns and roses as we always end on a positive.....
GLR does something similar for RSC with "sharp and pricklies" vs. "warm and fuzziess"
For those of you interested, this is the letter we received.
As it turns out, the release of the draft version this morning was a touch premature. We had hoped to finish one more round of internal editing before posting it on the Cadet Proving Grounds for comment after the NB meeting. But through an internal communication error it was sent out this morning attached to another message concerning cadet uniform wear at encampment.
But no harm was done; it is just a slightly rougher draft than we normally release. The whe point is to solicit comments and input Before going to final draft. We will then look for a winter encampment to volunteer to help us field-test it before finalizing the document.
If all goes well, we hope to have it in place by next Spring for use during summer 2013.
There is no problem with sharing and discussing the draft here. All of us are pretty busy with COS here, or I would do it myself. Or just wait a bit and it will be posted on the Proving Grounds for comment. Just remember that it is an evolving document and be careful to watch the draft revision date during any comparisons.
Despite being down a few positions, the NHQ corporate CP team does tremendous work. We have a lot of high-quality product coming out of the shop. Kudos to Curt LaFond and crew!
Quote from: Ned on August 09, 2012, 04:36:04 AMIf all goes well, we hope to have it in place by next Spring for use during summer 2013.
One question or comment to this issue - there are encampments that take place during the winter and Spring, encampments that already have
very aggressive schedules which are difficult to juggle.
Is the initial roll-out going to include phase-in for the first year? Timing on this, too close to an activity which is already "in the can" could be
next to impossible to fix if it's mandatory.
Or will there be an option to use the draft as the specification before it is fully approved?
Quote from: cap235629 on August 09, 2012, 04:32:27 AMFor those of you interested, this is the letter we received.
That photo, and that letter, are the product of a recent encampment? (I know, that thread, this thread, etc..) but it says CAPMart in the text of the letter, and it's not signed by anyone. One would think that anyone that high up involved at NHQ today would know that CAPMart has not existed in many years. ;)
^ Re-emphasizing just how long it's actually been since 39-1 was written / updated.
Wow that photo made a huge wave!
Oh, duh. All they did was take text from 39-1, and add one paragraph to it, with a pasted in photo.
Not really a letter, then.
Anyone gonna post it, as Ned says it's okay? :) First thing I checked was that proving grounds page ..
Quote from: a2capt on August 09, 2012, 04:57:32 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on August 09, 2012, 04:32:27 AMFor those of you interested, this is the letter we received.
That photo, and that letter, are the product of a recent encampment? (I know, that thread, this thread, etc..) but it says CAPMart in the text of the letter, and it's not signed by anyone. One would think that anyone that high up involved at NHQ today would know that CAPMart has not existed in many years. ;)
The incident was at a MAWG encampment recently(?)...the topic was a hot button for many of us here. At some point, the kid who had originated the hat had written on facebook to say that he was glad they had brought it back, because "they tried to take it away from me", which tells me that this has been going on for quite some time. There were numerous glaring violations in the pictures posted as well.
Here's the link to the original thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15829.60 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15829.60)
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 01:47:47 AM
the basics.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 04:28:59 AM
the basics.
I am intrigued. I wonder what the new sanctioned term for first time attendees is.
I saw the "emphasis on PT", and "not just attendance" comments, and I'm curious. Since we do have cadets with physical disabilities, does the guide provide for a workaround for them? If it's not included I bet it will be the next big THING to be discussed.
There's only comment on reasonable accommodation, just like 52-16 and other policies. One presumes the the PT categories would still apply as normal.
As to the "more then attendance" - there will be testing after each class, and a cadet must achieve a cumulative 80% to graduate.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 03:09:33 PM
There's only comment on reasonable accommodation, just like 52-16 and other policies. One presumes the the PT categories would still apply as normal.
As to the "more then attendance" - there will be testing after each class, and a cadet must achieve a cumulative 80% to graduate.
Interesting (and I suppose good move). Does that mean the class prep folks now need to write a test?
Well, since the great Ned Lee said it was ok to post it... Here it is! In the words of a famous baseball announcer "Go crazy folks, go crazy" (but not to crazy I hope, I really like what this is aiming to do)
Quote from: NCRblues on August 09, 2012, 03:15:54 PM
Well, since the great Ned Lee said it was ok to post it... Here it is! In the words of a famous baseball announcer "Go crazy folks, go crazy" (but not to crazy I hope, I really like what this is aiming to do)
4 minutes, 3 downloads. For this time of day on CT...
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 09, 2012, 03:12:20 PM
Interesting (and I suppose good move). Does that mean the class prep folks now need to write a test?
Looks like - although it also appears that a lot of the classes will be provided by NHQ, and the AE classes are from the AE curriculum.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 01:47:47 AM
the basics.
Since it's posted.
First year cadets, "in ranks" will now be referred to as "students". "Doolies", "rooks", and other slang are specifically prohibited.
Cadet staff will be referred to as "cadre".
TAC officers will be referred to as "Training Officers".
Cool by me...
No more TACOs!?
Oh well. I suppose "students" works. Since it's not BCT, they aren't "Basics". Though given the other terms used, "basics" was ok.
I hated the word "TACO"
I did not mind the word "TAC" (training, advising and counseling)
Quote from: NCRblues on August 09, 2012, 04:19:21 PM
I hated the word "TACO"
I did not mind the word "TAC" (training, advising and counseling)
Ditto, though my impression was that "Teach / Advise / Counsel" was a retcon of the derogatory "TACO" based on "TAC Officer"
I wonder who the first cadet to put TAC-O on paper and call it taco was...
Quote from: NCRblues on August 09, 2012, 03:16:06 AM
It is open for comment from wing commanders and DCP's first.
From the comments I have heard today alone, the gnashing and wailing has started from DCP's already.
9 hours of uninterrupted sleep for basics
8 hours of uninterrupted sleep for cadet staff
I'm just a lowly CDC, but I have to question this difference in sleep hours based on the justification used in the publication. If 9 hours are required for students "per pediatric guidelines for teens," how is it that cadre are magically able to get by with only 8 hours? They're teens too, right? Seems to me that there should be one standard, since students and cadre (with few exceptions) are all teens.
Also, it will be interesting to see how much time cadre and staff members spend telling students to "knock it off" after lights out each night.
A *minimum* of 20 minutes per cadet to eat?
That's kind of ridiculous actually, it shouldn't take 20 minutes to eat during encampment.
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 09, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
A *minimum* of 20 minutes per cadet to eat?
That's kind of ridiculous actually, it shouldn't take 20 minutes to eat during encampment.
It's called "chewing" - yo might try it sometime...
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 09, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
A *minimum* of 20 minutes per cadet to eat?
That's kind of ridiculous actually, it shouldn't take 20 minutes to eat during encampment.
Why not? What training purpose does eating quickly serve?
A full plate of food can realistically be finished off in 10 minutes, maybe less if you're focused on actually eating. Especially since things like Stews, Chili and Rice are easy to get down without much effort.
Eating within a more reasonable time frame promotes time management, frees up more training time for the cadets, and while some may not agree it does lean towards the more intense encampment environment that some cadets attend to be exposed to.
20 minutes is a bit long, considering it should only take 10-15 minutes to eat a meal (from some study I cannot find the link of) and for the fact it's not like you can talk or really adjust, so it'd be absolutely horrible for the "students". It's not comfortable for the "students" at all.
Eating quickly also leads to indigestion, increased sick calls, and overeating. If you take longer to eat, you typically feel full after eating less food. If you cram everything down your pie hole at once, then you over fill and end up getting sick.
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 09, 2012, 05:02:57 PM
A full plate of food can realistically be finished off in 10 minutes, maybe less if you're focused on actually eating. Especially since things like Stews, Chili and Rice are easy to get down without much effort.
Wolfing food without tasting it is a specific cause of of obesity, because your body's systems for feeling full are bypassed too quickly.
20 minutes is reasonable, and realistic. Anything less is getting too micromanaging on the schedule. If you're that hard up that you need an extra 10 minutes in the day, just add it. But cramming food in less is not productive.
Quote from: a2capt on August 09, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
20 minutes is reasonable, and realistic. Anything less is getting too micromanaging on the schedule. If you're that hard up that you need an extra 10 minutes in the day, just add it. But cramming food in less is not productive.
Agree 100% - anything else is just hardkewl FMJ.
The Navy has very specific rules about how long recruits are allowed / required to have to actually eat - not total galley time, sit down eat time.
One would imagine the other services do as well.
These types of situations would be where we would do well to emulate the military - the military of today, not 1963. Further on that path,
encampment is much more akin to an Airman's first tech school then BMT.
Since no one is actually allowed to read the journal, What's the point?
"Students", I'd prefer "inflight cadets". I thought basics worked, but I understand the quick leap to BMT and then a hop to FMJ.
"Senior staff are eligible to receive encampment credit upon providing 40 hours' service on-site."
Considering the work that has to take place before an encampment, I think some of the 40 could be off-site or prior. Although it looks like we get an online encampment application process (ICUT anyone), there is a lot of work available for senior members to cover in preparation.
We are essentially talking about a ribbon or an additional clasp for senior members. Encampment is not a requirement for any other senior activities that I know of.
Overall, having a fairly comprehensive guide on how to hold an activity that is the gateway to cadet officership, NCSAs and has the Air Force's attention, seems like a good idea. I think they have avoided a one size fits all approach and that's coming from a Rhode Islander.
Quote from: phirons on August 09, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
"Senior staff are eligible to receive encampment credit upon providing 40 hours' service on-site."
Considering the work that has to take place before an encampment, I think some of the 40 could be off-site or prior. Although it looks like we get an online encampment application process (ICUT anyone), there is a lot of work available for senior members to cover in preparation.
The issue here is that until they upped the ante to the 30 hours required now, we had a lot of "ribbon shoppers" who would show up for an hour or two and expect encampment credit.
I think the 30 hours is more reasonable, and it should be at the subjective approval of the commander, but KAY & SARAH.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 09, 2012, 05:02:57 PM
A full plate of food can realistically be finished off in 10 minutes, maybe less if you're focused on actually eating. Especially since things like Stews, Chili and Rice are easy to get down without much effort.
Wolfing food without tasting it is a specific cause of of obesity, because your body's systems for feeling full are bypassed too quickly.
Maybe so but since we don't have an obesity problem in the USA or in CAP, it isn't an issue. <<<< sarcasm.
Give them time to eat for stated reasons but also for a chance to decompress a little and relax between activities. <<<<< serious
Besides, they also need time for a post meal smoke. <<<< guess which!
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
Quote from: phirons on August 09, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
"Senior staff are eligible to receive encampment credit upon providing 40 hours' service on-site."
Considering the work that has to take place before an encampment, I think some of the 40 could be off-site or prior. Although it looks like we get an online encampment application process (ICUT anyone), there is a lot of work available for senior members to cover in preparation.
The issue here is that until they upped the ante to the 30 hours required now, we had a lot of "ribbon shoppers" who would show up for an hour or two and expect encampment credit.
I think the 30 hours is more reasonable, and it should be at the subjective approval of the commander, but KAY & SARAH.
The "ribbon shoppers" above are the worst case example. (They were probably trolling for salutes as well. >:D )
If a senior says I can do x for y hours (I'm open to a minimum on y, maybe 8?) and
does it on-site, off-off site or on the moon, let them have the award. Showing up unannounced and drinking coffee in front of the
basics students for a day does not cut it.
I could even argue that in some cases an older cadet who has graduated the student role (and the cadet cadre role?) who says I can do x for y hours, should get the clasp.
I can't speak for everywhere but some years senior support is as scarce as hen's teeth. Having a few extra seniors or senior cadets around for in and out processing is worth a ribbon (or clasp) IMHO.
OK...30/40 hours, as in 8-10 hour workdays, or as in from the time you sign in to when you sign out? Obviously, you can't be expected to get credit for the time spent sleeping, showering or using the latrine, but how is the time accounted for? I have no clue and I've been in CAP for 20 years or so, almost. Eating meals can ostensibly be counted as time monitoring cadets, I suppose?
If you're showing up, staying overnight, and fully engaged in the encampment, you're going to get credit. If you're a day player, then
the commander has to look at the total effort. Up until now, the 30 hours was more subjective, the 40 in the draft appears to be
be more specific to being there, turning wrenches.
Encampments are called "Type A" and Type B" again. ;)
If they do twenty minutes, can they allow some small conversating or something? 20 minutes sitting down worried if you do something wrong you'll get yelled at/in trouble is not fun. It's a tradeoff of time to eat versus being in the "firing zone".
Quote from: AngelWings on August 09, 2012, 09:07:39 PM
If they do twenty minutes, can they allow some small conversating or something? 20 minutes sitting down worried if you do something wrong you'll get yelled at/in trouble is not fun. It's a tradeoff of time to eat versus being in the "firing zone".
Sitting quietly or reading your
OI Encampment Handbook, or perhaps making notes for your journal isn't going to kill anyone.
Perhaps teaching our cadets to slow down and relax a bit would not hurt.
If you're getting yelled at, somebody is doing something wrong.
This is a training activity, not a stress induction excercise. Perhaps the guide will get people to finally understand that.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 09:24:19 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on August 09, 2012, 09:07:39 PM
If they do twenty minutes, can they allow some small conversating or something? 20 minutes sitting down worried if you do something wrong you'll get yelled at/in trouble is not fun. It's a tradeoff of time to eat versus being in the "firing zone".
Sitting quietly or reading your OI Encampment Hand, or perhaps making notes for your journal isn't going to kill anyone.
Perhaps teaching out cadets to slow down and relax a bit would not hurt.
If you're getting yelled at, somebody is doing something wrong.
This is a training activity, not a stress induction excessive. Perhaps the guide will get people to finally understand that.
That'd be reasonable.
Eclipse needs to proof his posts for typo or spelcheck errors
Quote from: BillB on August 09, 2012, 11:30:09 PM
Eclipse needs to proof his posts for typo or spelcheck errors
Lol, he also needs to stop double posting.
GET HIM!!! >:D
Quote from: BillB on August 09, 2012, 11:30:09 PM
Eclipse needs to proof his posts for typo or spelcheck errors
What did I misspell?
That last post, several at least a couple words are incomplete. Re-read it :)
No idea what you're talking about.
For some reason I am always too light on the "u" in "you".
"Encampment Hand"(book)?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 09, 2012, 04:32:41 PM
I wonder who the first cadet to put TAC-O on paper and call it taco was...
Well, the term was well established in 1966, so take it from there.
Quote from: a2capt on August 10, 2012, 01:04:19 AM
"Encampment Hand"(book)?
Hey! Leave me alone, I'm busy planning the saving of lives and property here!
(While being mildly distracted by CT).
Eclipse... You had "out cadets" instead of "our cadets"
Quote from: BillB on August 10, 2012, 08:53:22 AM
Eclipse... You had "out cadets" instead of "our cadets"
I know, I went back and fixed it.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 04:41:00 AM
Quote from: Ned on August 09, 2012, 04:36:04 AMIf all goes well, we hope to have it in place by next Spring for use during summer 2013.
One question or comment to this issue - there are encampments that take place during the winter and Spring, encampments that already have
very aggressive schedules which are difficult to juggle.
Is the initial roll-out going to include phase-in for the first year? Timing on this, too close to an activity which is already "in the can" could be
next to impossible to fix if it's mandatory.
Or will there be an option to use the draft as the specification before it is fully approved?
There has been no decision about an effective date; indeed that will be a vital part of the discussion. We are still discussing whether it should be a reg or a pamphlet. I have commanded my share of large encampments and fully understand things like lead time and the relative agility of the planning process.
I can feel the lack of love for the journaling. I am on my way home from COS and I don't think even Phase 3 and 4 cadets liked it very much.
The areas where we expected controversy were some of the traditional areas like single-gender flights, nomenclature for students and staff, and mandatory sleep time.
But there are a lot of issues that are important to the success of the encampment program that would benefit from member input.
Further thoughts?
It should be a reg - making it a pamphlet will leave the door for some to say it's optional.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 10, 2012, 09:20:01 PM
It should be a reg - making it a pamphlet will leave the door for some to say it's optional.
Quote from: CAPP 52-24Note: CAPR 52-16 would be updated to require encampments to operate per these guidelines.
Fair enough, but why are we still using CAPP's at all? Is there a difference in getting them approved or updated?
Same with "M"s, why aren't we just sticking with "R" for everything?
It's simple. You always complain about people playing fast and loose with the program. Well, OTOH, there are people in CAP who are so wrapped up in the "regulations" that all they use them to find new, better, and creative ways to say "NO!" to every idea or suggestion that doesn't fit into their neat little idea of what the "program" should be.
The "Colonel Lards" are just as detrimental to the program as the "Pappy Boyingtons".
And that why we still have pamphlets and manuals.
So you're suggesting that we have pamphlets and manuals so they can be ignored, or treated as optional?
Eclipse....proof read.... "so" not "do". You've taught me to be a member of the spelling police
And if you're using a mobile device, turn off the freakin' auto-correct!
Quote from: SarDragon on August 11, 2012, 12:06:04 AM
And if you're using a mobile device, turn off the freakin' auto-correct!
Between that, auto-cap, and auto-suggest, I'm wearing out the backspace key.
Turn 'em all off! 8)
Quote from: Eclipse on August 10, 2012, 11:36:05 PM
So you're suggesting that we have pamphlets and manuals do they can be ignored, or treated as optional?
Didn't say that did I? I said...
The "Colonel Lards" are just as detrimental to the program as the "Pappy Boyingtons".
Both extremes are bad. How many times have I heard on this forum different people including yourself say that "anything not specifically allowed by the regulations is prohibited." If all our pubs become regs, you know as well as I do that unless something is spelled out in
BIG, BOLD BLACK AND WHITE, there will be someone to say
NO to every new idea and innovation. The processes would become more important than results.
You and I have butted heads more than once on this forum because we have different visions of what this organization should be like. That's OK. But we cannot possibly formulate regulations that cover every possible permutation of every situation. To try would completely paralyze this organization and institutionalize the bad as well as the good. The overwhelming majority of our members do good work, follow the regs, manuals, and pamphlets, and make good decisions everyday. We don't need to regulate every single facet of the organization.
Quote from: ol'fido on August 11, 2012, 12:29:13 AMHow many times have I heard on this forum different people including yourself say that "anything not specifically allowed by the regulations is prohibited."
Apparently not enough, since a lot of people feel CAP works in some other fashion, which it doesn't. New ideas and innovation have a process for being addressed, and that does not include local interpretations of regulations when things have a clear intention and direction. They are addressed through the chain up to a corporate officer who has the authority to make the respective decision, and usually that's reserved at the national level.
Very little that falls into the "you can't tell me what to do category" also fits the "innovation" category. They are generally smack in the middle of the "wouldn't it be cool to ..." category. The one NHQ wants us to pretty much stay out of.
Quote from: ol'fido on August 11, 2012, 12:29:13 AM
You and I have butted heads more than once on this forum because we have different visions of what this organization should be like. That's OK. But we cannot possibly formulate regulations that cover every possible permutation of every situation. To try would completely paralyze this organization and institutionalize the bad as well as the good. The overwhelming majority of our members do good work, follow the regs, manuals, and pamphlets, and make good decisions everyday. We don't need to regulate every single facet of the organization.
I agree with this, but how is that relevant to the "R/P/M" question? Why designate a document as a "P", when compliance is mandatory, regardless?
Are "P"s more fluid and easier to update then "R"s?
Off topic but on point to where we are now in this thread . . .
Tangent #1
The regulation vs. pamphlet distinction makes sense to me. Big Policy goes into regulations and operational / implementation instructions go into pamphlets, in CAP. Maybe the AF is on the right track by using "instruction" more often than regulation or manual, etc.
Considering how long it takes to get a regulation through CAP's official approval process, (60-1, 20-1, m39-1, are egregious examples) I imagine it's bureaucratically easier to publish pamphlets because "they" can change a pamphlet easily. Heck, we all gripe about the various boards overruling each other and creating a mess instead of clear guidance. Maybe the upcoming governance stuff will change that.
Personally I think one problem in CAP is that the AF-style regulatory system is often unsuited for CAP. Yes, everyone needs to follow "The Rules," but at the same time good leaders can discern "Rules" from "rules" and will remember that the aim is not blind obedience to regulations but the accomplishment of the mission in the spirit of the Core Values, which are more enduring than mere regulations. I suggest that the Core Value of "Excellence," if you really believe in it, is at odds with the "follow the book above all else" posture, which goes back to my point about a military-style regulation system (sans UCMJ) being out of place for CAP.
If leaders abuse their discretion with "rules" (small r) or make objectively stupid decisions, we can remove them; but overall, we ought to frame the big issues well and put "Rules" in regulations, and then empower leaders to use their judgment to perform the mission, using "rules" as guidelines.
In short, I prefer a principle-centered style of leadership over a legalistic, codified system of control.
Tangent #2
Some of us are old enough to know that Nixon was the "law and order" candidate. Respect for authority and conformity with social norms is a feature of political conservativism. But the conservative movement also has a limited government streak in it, too. I don't mean any of this judgmentally. I think it's fascinating that CAP appeals to generally conservative people -- the flag, the military ethos, law and order -- but that the weird curve ball in CAP is that that conservativism produces a hyper-legalism that is responsible for our massive, massive, massive amount of regulatory guidance. CAP is the party of "big government" conservativism. Again, not meant to disparage, just fascinating.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 11, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
Very little that falls into the "you can't tell me what to do category" also fits the "innovation" category. The are generally smack in the middle of the "wouldn't it be cool to ..." category. The one NHQ wants us to pretty much stay out of.
This is well said. Another way of putting it is in the context of those commanders who think they can "add" to CAP standards, just not subtract from them. That's a backdoor for making Rules and rules meaningless. That perspective makes no sense to me because (a) the people who say that are usually hyper-legalistic types, and yet the "you can add to the reg" provision is nowhere stated in 98% of CAP regs, and (b) if you can add to the requirements, okay then, in my squadron to earn your Curry you have to test and CPFT and stuff, but also solve Riemann and slay Godzilla.
Quote from: SamFranklin on August 11, 2012, 01:21:09 AMConsidering how long it takes to get a regulation through CAP's official approval process, (60-1, 20-1, m39-1, are egregious examples) I imagine it's bureaucratically easier to publish pamphlets because "they" can change a pamphlet easily. Heck, we all gripe about the various boards overruling each other and creating a mess instead of clear guidance. Maybe the upcoming governance stuff will change that.
Then change the process. This is literally the textbook case - this "pamphlet" will be treated as a mandatory document, it will effect thousands of members directly, even more indirectly, impact operations nationally, literally change the face of many long-standing activities, and abolish many long-standing traditions, yet we want to leave a document with that level of impact as a "pamphlet" because a "regulation" is too hard to change?
I don't want documents with this level of impact to be "easy to change". Not especially when they will be expected to be treated as mandatory as a reg. That's just not cricket.
^ Change the process . . . indeed!!!
But yes, make the document easy to change. We ought not be afraid of change. We ought to see change as a key to success and therefore create ways for new and better ideas to supersede the old. If this new curriculum (or whatever) needs to be tweaked after the first summer, let's make it super easy to do that. Why the preference for stasis over agility and customer responsiveness?
Quote from: SamFranklin on August 11, 2012, 01:47:20 AM
^ Change the process . . . indeed!!!
But yes, make the document easy to change. We ought not be afraid of change. We ought to see change as a key to success and therefore create ways for new and better ideas to supersede the old. If this new curriculum (or whatever) needs to be tweaked after the first summer, let's make it super easy to do that. Why the preference for stasis over agility and customer responsiveness?
Because these changes have real-world impact that cost people money, time, and in many cases member spirit. This pamphlet contains a number of
non-trivial requirements that will cause activities to rearrange their schedules, and might even preclude some members from participating. Changes like that should not be made on an easy whim.
This guide has been a long time coming, and is sorely needed, but should not be considered a "living document" in the sense we're discussing.
For example, while the minimum hours to graduate haven't changed, the contact hours have increased by 15%, that's not a small number for activities which are already pressed for time, and before you suggest extending things - venues, staff availability, and calendar days don't just become available because we say they have to, not to mention the real-world cost to the cadets when activities have to be extended by a day - that's three meals (at least), which at military prices is still about $10-12. Encampment commanders agonize over $5 increases to cover costs, let alone extending things.
Then there's the academic requirements - this is a fundamental shift in attitude from "attendance" to "performance", and one that I agree with in principle, but in a universe where cadets hold off Mitchell as long as they can
now, and a small number profess money issues in attending at all,
telling a cadet on day 4 that they can't possibly graduate isn't going to increase retention or make them happier about being in CAP.
I think we agree about encampment principles and this document being a big step forward, but we simply disagree about regulatory philosophies.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 11, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
Quote from: ol'fido on August 11, 2012, 12:29:13 AMHow many times have I heard on this forum different people including yourself say that "anything not specifically allowed by the regulations is prohibited."
Apparently not enough, since a lot of people feel CAP works in some other fashion, which it doesn't. New ideas and innovation have a process for being addressed, and that does not include local interpretations of regulations when things have a clear intention and direction. They are addressed through the chain up to a corporate officer who has the authority to make the respective decision, and usually that's reserved at the national level.
Very little that falls into the "you can't tell me what to do category" also fits the "innovation" category. They are generally smack in the middle of the "wouldn't it be cool to ..." category. The one NHQ wants us to pretty much stay out of.
Quote from: ol'fido on August 11, 2012, 12:29:13 AM
You and I have butted heads more than once on this forum because we have different visions of what this organization should be like. That's OK. But we cannot possibly formulate regulations that cover every possible permutation of every situation. To try would completely paralyze this organization and institutionalize the bad as well as the good. The overwhelming majority of our members do good work, follow the regs, manuals, and pamphlets, and make good decisions everyday. We don't need to regulate every single facet of the organization.
I agree with this, but how is that relevant to the "R/P/M" question? Why designate a document as a "P", when compliance is mandatory, regardless?
Are "P"s more fluid and easier to update then "R"s?
1. I don't see all this "Hey, let's do what you want to and ignore the regs" that apparently you see everywhere. Must be a Chicago thing.
2. No matter what you do, when you put the "Regulation" label on anything, there will be some staff functionary that will find a way to say "NO" to everything and anything. So instead of a set of reasonable and logical guidelines that everyone can follow, you will get regulatory straight jackets with a bunch of staff weenie, bureaucratic Pharisees who will worry more about the "letter" of the law instead of the "spirit" of the reg that was reason it became a reg in the first place.
If regulations were the end all, be all, we would not leaders. We'd have all the answers. Leaders, among other things, make decisions when there is something not covered in a book. Remember A Few Good Men? There was this Marine on the stand and he was posed the question "Where does it say in the book where the chow hall is?" He said "Well, it is not in the book!". So, if the regs don't list I can eat, use the bathroom, wear under arm deodorant, or talk, than am I in fact breaking them? If a pamphlet shows me a picture of a guy with mirror shined boots and creases going down his pants and sleeves, am I breaking regs by not having those?
Logic and common sense should be priority. Black and white regulations should not try to cover grey areas.
Perhaps the difference is a bit more subtle:
The NB sets our policy, codifying the regulations. So a "R" is created establishing the regulatory requirement. Let's say the Professional Development Program.
The "R" says that Civil Air Patrol will have a professional development program that will have multiple specialty tracks which train a volunteer on how to conduct their job in CAP.
The NB has now established a requirement for a PD program, but there isn't any guidance as to how to implement that program - so that's where the "P" comes in. It's an administrative guidebook to a regulatory requirement. The "R" can reference the "P" and the "P" can be updated as websites change, systems change, etc., without having to have the NB vote on a regulatory change.
It allows the NB to remain the body that creates the regulatory requirements while allowing the program managers to update the procedure that meets the NB edict.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 11, 2012, 04:47:13 AM
Perhaps the difference is a bit more subtle:
The NB sets our policy, codifying the regulations. So a "R" is created establishing the regulatory requirement. Let's say the Professional Development Program.
The "R" says that Civil Air Patrol will have a professional development program that will have multiple specialty tracks which train a volunteer on how to conduct their job in CAP.
The NB has now established a requirement for a PD program, but there isn't any guidance as to how to implement that program - so that's where the "P" comes in. It's an administrative guidebook to a regulatory requirement. The "R" can reference the "P" and the "P" can be updated as websites change, systems change, etc., without having to have the NB vote on a regulatory change.
It allows the NB to remain the body that creates the regulatory requirements while allowing the program managers to update the procedure that meets the NB edict.
I agree.
In some ways the USAF acts in a similar manner.
The Air Staff gives big picture guidance, based on the guidance of POTUS and Congress.
Big picture guidance
DoD Instructions, then AFIs, then MAJCOM instructions, then NAF instructions or supplements, etc. Always the lower stuff cannot counteract the higher or be less restrictive in nature, and gets to smaller and smaller specifics. For the purposes of standardization it makes sense for encampment to be very, very similar across the country, but there is still room for how to go about doing it specifically. This pamphlet even acknowledges that and points out an encampment is going to need an OI.
(Example from the AF for how it all works)
DoD Says: You will secure nuclear weapons
AFI Says: You will use at least X number of people around a nuclear weapon given these circumstances.
AFGSCI Says: You will use X+Y number of SF personnel in these circumstances
NAF Says: (Not sure what all they say in this example)
Wing Says (Well SFG): You will be loaded out this way, with your gear located in this configuration. Though that may be slightly higher.
There's still room for the officer or NCO in charge to say 'You will be there, and you will be there given the tactical situation' but they weren't making decisions all the way up to the big picture level.
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on August 11, 2012, 07:02:20 AM
Wing Says (Well SFG): You will be loaded out this way, with your gear located in this configuration. Though that may be slightly higher.
In the thirteen years I have been in I have never seen a Wing say you will be loaded in any fashion nor have a policy on how a defenders gear is set up. I have seen headquarters SF say something as far as what gear will used, worn etc, but never have I ever seen a wing dictate what equipment they would wear. The load and day to day equipment is determined by the host wings mission.
I have seen the squadron dictate what gear will be worn and where it is placed on the LBE. Back in the late 90's I was on the aggressor team out at DM; one of the SF guys was critiqueing our participation in an operation and one of his points was that our gear was un-uniform, differant types of pouches in differant places vs all the same like his SF guys.
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on August 12, 2012, 01:29:37 PM
I have seen the squadron dictate what gear will be worn and where it is placed on the LBE. Back in the late 90's I was on the aggressor team out at DM; one of the SF guys was critiqueing our participation in an operation and one of his points was that our gear was un-uniform, differant types of pouches in differant places vs all the same like his SF guys.
mk
Now I have seen and been part of units that have done that, at the local level. But I have never seen a Wg CC dictate such.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 12, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on August 12, 2012, 01:29:37 PM
I have seen the squadron dictate what gear will be worn and where it is placed on the LBE. Back in the late 90's I was on the aggressor team out at DM; one of the SF guys was critiqueing our participation in an operation and one of his points was that our gear was un-uniform, differant types of pouches in differant places vs all the same like his SF guys.
mk
Now I have seen and been part of units that have done that, at the local level. But I have never seen a Wg CC dictate such.
No a Wg/CC wouldn't directly dictate stuff like this. They would delegate it through the Support Group and SFS Commanders.
As far as you guys are concerned, it came from the SFS Commander. Even if it was the Wg CC who directed it.
Most of guidelines and such come from the force enter so I didn't sweat to much on it.
(http://tohno-chan.com/ot/arch/src/129675588935.jpg)
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on August 12, 2012, 11:19:34 PM
(http://tohno-chan.com/ot/arch/src/129675588935.jpg)
And why should this thread be any different then the others on CAPTalk?
Quote from: cap235629 on August 09, 2012, 04:32:27 AM
For those of you interested, this is the letter we received.
When was this letter sent?
Quote from: a2capt on August 09, 2012, 04:57:32 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on August 09, 2012, 04:32:27 AMFor those of you interested, this is the letter we received.
That photo, and that letter, are the product of a recent encampment? (I know, that thread, this thread, etc..) but it says CAPMart in the text of the letter, and it's not signed by anyone. One would think that anyone that high up involved at NHQ today would know that CAPMart has not existed in many years. ;)
The letter directly quoted 39-1.....
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
Quote from: phirons on August 09, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
"Senior staff are eligible to receive encampment credit upon providing 40 hours' service on-site."
Considering the work that has to take place before an encampment, I think some of the 40 could be off-site or prior. Although it looks like we get an online encampment application process (ICUT anyone), there is a lot of work available for senior members to cover in preparation.
The issue here is that until they upped the ante to the 30 hours required now, we had a lot of "ribbon shoppers" who would show up for an hour or two and expect encampment credit.
I think the 30 hours is more reasonable, and it should be at the subjective approval of the commander, but KAY & SARAH.
Hour or two? How'd that happen?
CAPR 52-16 currently says 80%. How does an hour or two equal 80% at any encampment?
Quote from: Ned on August 10, 2012, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 04:41:00 AM
Quote from: Ned on August 09, 2012, 04:36:04 AMIf all goes well, we hope to have it in place by next Spring for use during summer 2013.
One question or comment to this issue - there are encampments that take place during the winter and Spring, encampments that already have
very aggressive schedules which are difficult to juggle.
Is the initial roll-out going to include phase-in for the first year? Timing on this, too close to an activity which is already "in the can" could be
next to impossible to fix if it's mandatory.
Or will there be an option to use the draft as the specification before it is fully approved?
There has been no decision about an effective date; indeed that will be a vital part of the discussion. We are still discussing whether it should be a reg or a pamphlet. I have commanded my share of large encampments and fully understand things like lead time and the relative agility of the planning process.
I can feel the lack of love for the journaling. I am on my way home from COS and I don't think even Phase 3 and 4 cadets liked it very much.
The areas where we expected controversy were some of the traditional areas like single-gender flights, nomenclature for students and staff, and mandatory sleep time.
But there are a lot of issues that are important to the success of the encampment program that would benefit from member input.
Further thoughts?
Not only does it need to be a regulation. The term guidance also needs removed. There is a big difference between guidance and policy.
Quote from: MIKE on August 10, 2012, 09:29:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 10, 2012, 09:20:01 PM
It should be a reg - making it a pamphlet will leave the door for some to say it's optional.
Quote from: CAPP 52-24Note: CAPR 52-16 would be updated to require encampments to operate per these guidelines.
Adding that disclaimer at the front does not remove the defintion of a pamphlet. A pamphlet is defined as non-directive. Disclaimer or not, if you intend for something to be directive then do not make it a pamphlet.
Quote from: rebowman on August 27, 2012, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
Quote from: phirons on August 09, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
"Senior staff are eligible to receive encampment credit upon providing 40 hours' service on-site."
Considering the work that has to take place before an encampment, I think some of the 40 could be off-site or prior. Although it looks like we get an online encampment application process (ICUT anyone), there is a lot of work available for senior members to cover in preparation.
The issue here is that until they upped the ante to the 30 hours required now, we had a lot of "ribbon shoppers" who would show up for an hour or two and expect encampment credit.
I think the 30 hours is more reasonable, and it should be at the subjective approval of the commander, but KAY & SARAH.
Hour or two? How'd that happen?
CAPR 52-16 currently says 80%. How does an hour or two equal 80% at any encampment?
You're confusing
cadet basic student credit with staff credit - they are not the same thing, nor do they have the same expectations.
Students are expected to complete at least 80% of the published curriculum, staff have no such fulfillment requirements - their "contact hours"
and performance are at the subjective appraisal of the encampment commander.
Prior to the current revision 52-16, there was no definition of the requirement for staff members, cadet or senior - the general assumption was
if you were signed into the encampment, you got a ribbon. We had more than a few instructors and "day players" who received
ribbons during that period.
A draft of CAPP-52-24 has been posted to the Cadet Proving Grounds. It's labeled as "Draft 20 August 2012" but I haven't had time to compare it to the document that was previously posted here.
There are also some interesting comments posted on the blog entry associated with posting the PDF:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?encampment_guide_draft&show=entry&blogID=714 (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?encampment_guide_draft&show=entry&blogID=714)
Good thing Eclipse doesn't believe in social media and avoids blogs. His head would explode if he saw what interesting regulation interpretation is going on out there at encampments.
From reading the comments I get the impression that more than a few encampments completely blow off the mandated curriculum in CAPR 52-16. They continue to think that encampments get a pass on CAPR 52-16, 39-1 etc. and should be an exercise in sleep deprivation.
How can you have an Emergency Services encampment and still complete the current 40hr curriculum in 52-16 and give a cadet encampment credit for their Mitchell?
Quote from: PA Guy on October 05, 2012, 10:44:15 AM
How can you have an Emergency Services encampment and still complete the current 40hr curriculum in 52-16 and give a cadet encampment credit for their Mitchell?
One approach would be to run the ES encampment in parallel with the "regular" encampment. First time attenders go through the regular encampment to ensure that USAF expectations for Mitchell cadets are met, and repeat customers get to choose between the ES and regular encampment tracks.
Quote from: NC Hokie on October 05, 2012, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on October 05, 2012, 10:44:15 AM
How can you have an Emergency Services encampment and still complete the current 40hr curriculum in 52-16 and give a cadet encampment credit for their Mitchell?
One approach would be to run the ES encampment in parallel with the "regular" encampment. First time attenders go through the regular encampment to ensure that USAF expectations for Mitchell cadets are met, and repeat customers get to choose between the ES and regular encampment tracks.
I agree - however that would not necessarily confer a ribbon or encampment credit for anyone on the ES side. It's just another activity
that is coincidentally sharing the same logistics.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 05, 2012, 02:46:35 PMI agree - however that would not necessarily confer a ribbon or encampment credit for anyone on the ES side. It's just another activity that is coincidentally sharing the same logistics.
..which is pretty much what they did in CAWG a couple years ago.
Quote from: PA Guy on October 05, 2012, 10:44:15 AM
From reading the comments I get the impression that more than a few encampments completely blow off the mandated curriculum in CAPR 52-16. They continue to think that encampments get a pass on CAPR 52-16, 39-1 etc. and should be an exercise in sleep deprivation.
How can you have an Emergency Services encampment and still complete the current 40hr curriculum in 52-16 and give a cadet encampment credit for their Mitchell?
It's quite easy with the current requirements, and South Dakota/North Dakota have been doing them every other year, for years.
The key is while yes it is an "ES encampment", The ES curriculum augments the requirements in 52-16 rather than replaces it.
Unlike a GSAR school or equivalent, ES is not all these cadets do all day, it probably amounts to one or two activities a day.
Quote from: Fubar on October 05, 2012, 08:28:05 AM
A draft of CAPP-52-24 has been posted to the Cadet Proving Grounds. It's labeled as "Draft 20 August 2012" but I haven't had time to compare it to the document that was previously posted here.
There are also some interesting comments posted on the blog entry associated with posting the PDF:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?encampment_guide_draft&show=entry&blogID=714 (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?encampment_guide_draft&show=entry&blogID=714)
Good thing Eclipse doesn't believe in social media and avoids blogs. His head would explode if he saw what interesting regulation interpretation is going on out there at encampments.
Sounds to me like the Whinny FMJ crew is all up in those comments. I should comment once I get to a PC.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 05, 2012, 02:46:35 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on October 05, 2012, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on October 05, 2012, 10:44:15 AM
How can you have an Emergency Services encampment and still complete the current 40hr curriculum in 52-16 and give a cadet encampment credit for their Mitchell?
One approach would be to run the ES encampment in parallel with the "regular" encampment. First time attenders go through the regular encampment to ensure that USAF expectations for Mitchell cadets are met, and repeat customers get to choose between the ES and regular encampment tracks.
I agree - however that would not necessarily confer a ribbon or encampment credit for anyone on the ES side. It's just another activity
that is coincidentally sharing the same logistics.
I can't see any reason why not, as the current draft of the encampment guide authorizes this arrangement in paragraph 1.2.h. for second-year cadets in "advanced training flights."
Advanced CP training...ES training is not even the spirit of what encampment is.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 05, 2012, 04:54:55 PM
Advanced CP training...ES training is not even the spirit of what encampment is.
That's the beauty of leaving "advanced training flights" undefined, as it lets each wing decide what to offer repeat cadets that are not chosen as (or interested in being on) staff.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 05, 2012, 04:54:55 PM
Advanced CP training...ES training is not even the spirit of what encampment is.
What is ES but another tool for Cadets to exercise leadership skills and decision making in a dynamic environment?
As long as it used as just another tool I see no problem implementing it into an encampment curriculum and have done it successfully on more than one occasion.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 05, 2012, 04:54:55 PM
Advanced CP training...ES training is not even the spirit of what encampment is.
Exactly.
Think RCLS or similar curriculum, not a Comm school, flight training, or First Aid class.
Lost in all our our noise about ES training is that the journaling requirement has been all but eliminated from this edition of the draft encampment guide.
Quote from: NC Hokie on October 05, 2012, 05:31:32 PM
Lost in all our our noise about ES training is that the journaling requirement has been all but eliminated from this edition of the draft encampment guide.
You're welcome.
The Power of CAPTalk.
Quote from: tsrup on October 05, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 05, 2012, 04:54:55 PM
Advanced CP training...ES training is not even the spirit of what encampment is.
What is ES but another tool for Cadets to exercise leadership skills and decision making in a dynamic environment?
As long as it used as just another tool I see no problem implementing it into an encampment curriculum and have done it successfully on more than one occasion.
Leave that up to the SAREXs, NESAs, GSAR Schools, and Bivouacs.
Encampment should be about applying Cadet Program concepts and building on them. I would hardly say a SAREX or any of the above mentioned activities did much of that for me as a cadet.
You want an encampment ribbon? Then go as staff/basic/advanced training flight, etc. You want an ES event? No ribbon required, especially not the Encampment Ribbon.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 05, 2012, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: tsrup on October 05, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 05, 2012, 04:54:55 PM
Advanced CP training...ES training is not even the spirit of what encampment is.
What is ES but another tool for Cadets to exercise leadership skills and decision making in a dynamic environment?
As long as it used as just another tool I see no problem implementing it into an encampment curriculum and have done it successfully on more than one occasion.
Leave that up to the SAREXs, NESAs, GSAR Schools, and Bivouacs.
Encampment should be about applying Cadet Program concepts and building on them. I would hardly say a SAREX or any of the above mentioned activities did much of that for me as a cadet.
You want an encampment ribbon? Then go as staff/basic/advanced training flight, etc. You want an ES event? No ribbon required, especially not the Encampment Ribbon.
It is possible to have an encampment with some ES instruction.
CAPR 52-16 is the framework, the requirements. The requirements and the mission gets met, the only difference is wether you use a flat head screw or a phillips head to accomplish it.
It is by no means a GTM factory.
ES exposure SHOULD be included in Encampment. But an "ES Encampment" Is not actually an encampment.
Quote from: tsrup on October 05, 2012, 03:40:58 PM
Unlike a GSAR school or equivalent, ES is not all these cadets do all day, it probably amounts to one or two activities a day.
How many hours in the training day do those one or two ES classes take? In the training schedule how many hours are devoted to ES training over the course of the encampment?
Over the course of encampment, ES training probably takes about 8-10 hours total.
This is a generous estimate of course, as I don't have any of the previous training schedules in front of me.
Wow, I guess I missed the original incarnation of this thread.
(Note for the tl:dr crowd. This got longer than I wanted. Read at your own risk)
Couple points I'll suggest:
1) While I certainly do take into consideration the wishes of the troops (ie. the blog posts on the CP page), if you will, it is important to fully understand and appreciate where they're coming from. C/SSgt who says "I don't like the idea that this will make encampment 'less military'!" or something similar, for example, isn't quite what I'd call a "Subject Matter Expert." It always cracked me up that the folks who seemed to be on the biggest kick to "make it more military" or who felt they were the best judge of "what is military enough" were the people who actually had NO IDEA what they were talking about. 9 times of 10, it was someone who's sole window into the military, apart from CAP, was repeated viewings of Platoon, Full Metal Jacket & Jarhead (oh, and Three Kings.. Cuz we all know how accurate that was).
2) At least at the encampments for which I was either the training officer, commandant of cadets or commander, at the end of the encampment I provided a report to the Liaison Officer State Director that basically said "I certify that the training program executed exceeds the requirements set forth in CAPM 52-16 (well, CAPR 50-16 BITD) and that the following individuals participated in over 80% of the required instruction for successful completion of this encampment." Years ago, I actually sat down with the training schedule and had to highlight for the LO what parts met what requirements. I started including in the training schedule the specific reference to the 50-16 guidance and some short hand in the reference so I could more easily add up the hours per requirement. But before we'd sign graduation certificates, we formally ensured that the requirements were me, and more importantly, who didn't meet them. (we also had mechanisms in place to track who did not meet the 80%. A cadet that shows up late/goes home early is an easy one to figure out, but the kid who spends 2 1/2 days in sick bay and not in training is a little tougher to figure out. I frequently impressed upon the cadet staff that while accountability of their people from a safety & leadership standpoint was the primarily goal, the secondary objective was to ensure that we knew who was missing training for whatever reason)
Keep in mind: we took that stuff seriously. Encampment was a) the gateway to the Mitchell Award & Phase III (Cadet Officer) and as former Cadet Officers, we wanted to be sure that the people who followed us met the same standards and requirements, and nobody was going to slack their way into pips via a bogus encampment credit; and b) with the Mitchell came the potential for E-3 upon enlistment in the AF, or E-2 elsewhere. Can't have people getting advanced grade who didn't really "be there and do that."
3) While I'm not a big fan of the "students" reference, I don't disagree with it, either. I think there are probably better terms of reference, such as "Airmen" (as in the collective "Airmen" not "Cadet Airmen"). We always referred to them as "the Basic Cadets" (as in "this is their Basic Encampment") but not in the C/AB sense, either.
I was always a little put off by "other" terms used for first year cadets (ie. "doolies") that really had no basis at all in the program history. (I will admit: In the office we would sometimes refer to the collective body of "first time cadets" as "the smacks," as in "smackwads," but that was _strictly_ a "while you're plotting the schedule on the whiteboard" thing.. as in "OK, so at 0900 the smacks are down at the rifle range, and the squadron staffs are where? Uh huh, ok, right, at the barracks. And at 11:30, we need all the buses at the range to pickup the smacks and get 'em to chow." Nowhere did we actually write down "smacks" or call them that to their faces)
The uniformed services do refer to their students as either "students" when they are in a training situation (ie. AIT or some other training course, like NCOA) or as their collective nomenclature ("soliders" or "airmen," as distinguished from "cadre" for the training course). Because you can have the entire range of Phase I & Phase II cadets at encampment, I suppose that referring to them as "Basics" might offput some to think that you're calling a 3 year c/CMSgt a "no-striper" but that was not the manner of reference for us. The term "Basic Cadet" and "Basic Cadet Encampment" pre-dated the fairly regular use of "C/AB" by many, many years.
4) I like the Encampment Report requirements. Wings need metrics to back up the performance of their programs.
Back when I first became a Wing DCP (WIWADCP! LOL), the guy who had been the DCP before me, and who was the DCP after me is sort of a Big Deal™ in CAP now, so I got to inherit a lot of good things and (I hope) he got to inherit some good stuff from me. My first year as DCP, I started setting encampment targets. One of my targets was that I wanted 50% of the cadets who had not attended encampment in the wing to go to encampment. (I think it was 50%. That was a number I pulled out of my butt, I think, not one based in any specific metric. I figured we'd use that number and adjust when we figured it was realistic or not) Being a database guy, I was able to query out info from CAPWatch that told me how many cadets in the wing did not have encampment yet. So I figured "OK, we have 260 cadets in the wing, of those 260, 100 don't have encampment yet. So I want to set a goal of 50 basic cadets at encampment." (those numbers, while round, were actually very close to what our wing's numbers were, give or take)
This was important to us from the standpoint of maximizing our facility (we had bed space for about 60 or 65 "in-ranks" cadets), but also because I wanted to encourage cadet participation in encampment (for the purposes of retention, program development, etc). Having a target to shoot for was better than "Well, we sent out applications, didn't get many back. Oh well, encampment with 32 cadets will be a blast anyway.." It gave me a gauge to give to the unit commanders to encourage participation, especially as we got down to the wire on the application deadline.
(Side note: We also used that database run to laser focus our encampment mailings to keep costs down and ensure that we were getting the right people in the right places. Instead of shotgunning the cadet staff application to everybody, we would send the staff application package out around the first of the year to only those cadets who had completed an encampment. Then, when it was time in February to send out the basic cadet mailing, it conversely went to everybody in the wing who did NOT have an encampment. We were trying to a) encourage cadet staff participation by targeting them with a specific mailing; b) discourage 2nd time basic encampment attendees, partly due to barracks space, but partly due to prompt progression thru the ranks. Going to encampment a second time as a first-timer, especially if you were a C/Amn the first time, and a C/A1C a year later, just didn't keep with the goals and aims of the program, IMHO. We did not have a follow-on "advanced program" yet (partly due to space) for "second timers who don't make cadet staff", and our requirements were that you had to be a C/SrA to apply for Cadet Staff with the understanding that you needed to be a C/NCO to be selected and attend as a cadet staff member. That seemed to motivate at least a few cadets to get off their collective duffs and make it into Phase II so they could be Cadet Staff at encampment.)
So, I think those metrics in the report will give wings some efficiency and effectiveness targets to hit, which is an improvement over some places where they don't have _any_ earthly idea of how they're doing to help the program or to move the ball forward.
5) Co-ed-ness. Yes.
The barracks in MI Wing were usually not setup in a way that was perfect for a co-ed situation. The barracks were open-bay, 1 flight per barracks, etc, and from a unit cohesion and ease of management standpoint (ie. one flight, one barracks, one throat to choke when there's a problem in Barracks 107, not having to chase people down across 2 buildings, etc) they were well suited for that. Plus, we had the sheer numbers of female cadets to support two whole flights out of 9 total, and we had been setup that way forever. Today, however, the "dorms" are changing, they only have a few (4, maybe?) barracks buildings setup as open bay, and the nature of our program has changed considerably vis-a-vis males & females. Could co-ed flights be done at that same facility? Probably. The gnashing of gears during the paradigm shift might be a little noisy initially, but it would eventually get figured out.
The facility I had here as encampment commander and DCP was considerably different and it really made no sense to have a female-only flight when we had less than 12 female cadets and only 4 flights total anyway. So we made it work. Was it perfect? No. But we had three barracks buildings, of which the females were in one end of the center building. The rest of the buildings were "mixed flight" and the flight staff might have all their cadets in one building, or some in one and some in the other. The unit cohesion argument is out the window anyway, and the female cadets have their own space, so why not integrate?
(to be fair: I did not have to promulgate that policy, co-ed flights had been "the way we do it" for years, so as the relative new guy in the wing, I was literally the only person at encampment who had to "get with the program." So yeah, it wasn't a big deal)
Not sure I care about the "co-ed inspection" part disallowing male cadets from inspecting the female's drawer items and vice versa. If things are rolled/folded in a nice consistent military fashion, then there shouldn't be any issue. And if you're coming to encampment with anything more racy than the functional equivalent of tighty-whiteys (female or male), well... mom and dad need to get you some different skivvies. :)
6) 20 minutes to eat? LUXURY! :) I see the intent: there are places where meals have become "get in, sit down, shut up, stuff your piehole and get the hell out!" but I'm not sure I agree here.
Is 20 minutes a functional metric in all circumstances? Maybe. Depends on the facility size, the number of cadets, etc. But just like the "30 second showers," (more on that later), you get some enterprising young man who saw "The Boys In Company C" too many times and his self-styled Sergeant Loyce pops out 10-12 times a day. He knows that his flight the year before, when he was a first timer, was able to go from first man at the headcount to all out of the DFAC in 15 minutes, and they were a bunch of slackers, so this year, he's going to prove what a great NCO he is and push his entire flight thru the DFAC in 10 minutes total time. So what if that means that the last guy has to jam his half-eaten bagel into his mouth on the way to the tray tip? We're gonna be "more military about this if it kills you!!"
Is there a middle ground, or a way to recommend that meals be consumed in a manner which promotes digestion and dietary health? Sure.
Maybe: "Cadets should be afforded the opportunity to eat their meal in an unhurried manner, within the dictates of the facility capacity, training schedule and other requirements. To specify a specific time to eat is not appropriate in all circumstances, but it is generally understood that meals should take no less than 10 minutes or so to consume, and that rushing cadets through a meal can lead to dietary problems. Commanders and training officers should plan sufficient time in the schedule to get all personnel fed in a timely fashion without undue haste."
Meals are a time to stop, step back, get some sustenance and think about how things are going. Share a little conversation with your flight buddies, talk about how neat that tour of the B-52 was, etc. You're not automatons, right?
As a training officer, knowing the size/scope of the MI encampments, we were able to shove 250-300 cadets thru the dining hall without much "EAT AND GET OUT!" exhortations in around an hour. Did people spend 20 minutes eating? Probably not. I never stop-watched a cadet from "Seated to out" but my sense was that meals would usually last more than 10 minutes per cadet, but probably not much more than 15. Sometimes a little less, seldom more, but it depended on what they were eating.
With the speed of serving, seating available and number of cadets, had I been required to specify (and monitor) "20 minutes from the time your butt hits the seat" per cadet, we would have had a lot of cadets standing in long chow lines outside, cadets standing there with a tray looking for a seat, or standing around waiting for people to come out of chow. A 1 hour meal block would probably become 90 minutes in a blink.
This could be a huge hit to the training schedule, again, depending on your site.
At our training site (an ANG CRTC), you might be at the base theater before lunch, a half mile or so from the DFAC. So we'd build an "enroute" into the schedule such that the morning class block got done at, say, 11:45. Enroute to lunch was 1145 to 1200, with lunch starting at 1200. 15 minutes to march a half mile? Perhaps that was a little much, but that took into account getting out of the base theater, into formation, minor delays at the DFAC, etc. Maybe Major Heighspeed's ES class ran over, etc. 15 minutes to enroute a half mile allowed us for a little "accordion" in the schedule in the event that things went sideways, like the DFAC suddenly can't feed people until 1210.
But if we were scheduled at the rifle range after lunch, which is 3/4 of a mile from the DFAC, and 1330 is the training block, I need those guys moving for the training site by 1300, maybe 1315 at the very latest (the last flights).
Consider it this way: It was generally understood that lunch took ~ 90-120 minutes from "end of the morning block of training to the beginning of the afternoon block" on a good day. More if I have to bus people to the DFAC or its a longer footmarch to the training site, or we need a bus ride. If I have to accommodate 90 minutes for just the meal to meet a specific amount of "contact time between the cadet's fourth point of contact and the seat" per meal, now we're looking at 120-150 minutes, minimum, or maybe more, between those training evolutions, again, depending on the number of cadets, DFAC capacity, serving speed, etc.
I think that one might need a little adjustment and 'commanders intent' around it to allow flexibility.
7) Sleep. Some states have certain requirements for camps that specify the number of hours the campers are required to sleep. I don't think 8 hrs is an incorrect assumption, I think 9 hrs might be pushing it.
Again, from a training officer's perspective: You build a lot of your schedule backwards. First training block on Tuesday is the tour of fighter operations a mile away from the cadet area at 0900. 30 minute enroute time. 0830 departure from the barracks. 0830 to 0800 is barracks prep for inspection (nobody ever said to me as a training officer "Gosh, sir, we had way, way too much time to prepare our barracks.."), 0700 to 0800 is breakfast (specified by the base, not us), 0630 to 0700 is change into uniform from PT, PT is 0545 to 0630. OK, so first call is 0530. 8 hrs of sleep is 2130 lights out the night before.
You see where this exercise is going. 9 hrs of sleep means that either a) we put the troops to bed at 2030; or b) we wake them up at 0630 and skip PT. Or we do PT from 0630 to 0700, then right to breakfast, and then they have 30 minutes to square away their barracks and get showered and into a uniform before they're off to their first training evolution.
Remember where I mentioned "30 second showers" before? This is where you get enterprising young dynamic Americans and Aerospace Leaders who go "Hmmm, 2 showerheads, 20 cadets... OK, listen up! After we took 20 minutes to prep our uniforms and barracks, we only have 10 minutes to shower, shave and get dressed. EVERY CADET WILL TAKE A 30 SECOND SHOWER!" Uh, yeah. Fun. NOT!
Again, I think 8 hours is a realistic number. I've put it in my training schedules, and it seems to work well enough that you don't have too many zombie cadets on the 2nd day.
8) Showers & Hygiene. We've addressed 30 second showers, so that will about cover the flyby.
Who suggested wearing a bathing suit in communal showers? Seriously Really? Did someone just seriously suggest that with a straight face? What next, a Victorian bathing costume, lest someone actually see an inch more of someone's skin that they should?
These are cadets who are > 12 years old. If they're not already in a gym class or sports team where they might have to shower with others in a communal arrangement, they very soon will be. I don't know if I want to call someone a dynamic American and Aerospace Leader who is too socially embarrassed or awkward to take a shower whether the facility is communal or not.
I realize this sounds like I'm saying "get naked and wave your junk in people's face," but I'm not.
People need to be comfortable in their own skin. Nakedness in the course of showering is neither a crime nor an embarrassment. Its a function. Its like people who won't take a leak outside during a bivouac. What, are you worried a squirrel might laugh at you? If you're that socially uptight about showers, what other baggage (from a leadership perspective) might you be dragging along with you?
What was it I said about encampment as the "gateway to advanced grade" in the military? Yeah, let me know how your MTI reacts to you wanting to take a shower in the barracks at Lackland in your PT shorts.
Ugh. Thankfully, this publication does not mention that as a suggestion, but merely covers the fact that communal showers may be an issue.
9) Goodbyes. I love this! We used to inprocess our students such that here was the initial check-in area (where we reviewed paperwork, got any last minute items, fixed any missing signatures) and then "OK, moms & dads, say your good byes here.." and once the cadet went on the other side of the first inprocessing station, they were ours. (of course, we did not use the suggested contract, but the remainder of inprocessing was very straightforward and calm. The flight sergeants waiting on the other side of the doors leading from the drill hall to take their charges to the barracks, well, they were similarly straightforward, but maybe not so calm! :) )
10) Contraband Shakedown. We did ours as part of inprocessing before they ever got to the barracks, and in MI Wing we did it once the cadet go to the barracks. But it was one-on-one and very quick. "Do you have any food, weapons, pornography, drugs, alcohol, smoking materials or tobacco products, gambling paraphernalia, or non-CAP reading matierals?" (ack! 20+ years later I can do that without thinking. Creepy!). We didn't have cell phones & computers way back in the early 1990s, and very few when I was an encampment commander.
11) I am of several minds on the self-administration of prescription drugs thing. I have seen med call work well, I've also see it turn into a gigantic goat-rope.
I'm leery of self-administration (potential for abuse, etc), but then again, we get back to the dynamic Americans thing. If you're 12+ years old, have a prescription med that you need to take, and cannot successfully administer it yourself, perhaps you shouldn't be out in public unsupervised. :) (my 11 year old son as meds he takes in the evenings, and he has taken them, on his own, for over 2 years now)
Yes, the concern about others accessing a cadets's meds is certainly valid, but if you find it, you deal with it, and make a hell of an example out of it, and eventually the word gets out "Holy crap, man, don't share your Ritalin with your bunkmate, you'll get sent home!"
The concern about a cadet either not administering or improperly administering their own meds is also valid, but how likely is that? It might be so infrequent as to not warrant the unnecessary intrusion into the training schedule to have to troop a whole bunch of people down to sick bay 3x a day.
If a kid has a serious issue that demands his meds be more closely monitored or dispensed, the parents will know that and should have that conversation with the encampment. Maybe that one young man (or woman) has to visit the MO once a day and have meds administered. Why have everybody do it that way if its really only one person has an issue that requires more supervision.
At the same time, if the cadet becomes a discipline problem and its discovered it is partly due to not self-administering a med, then that needs to be a factor in the counseling of the cadet over the discipline problem.
I just realized this is getting way longer than it needs to be, so I'll jump past the training schedules part (cursory overview says that they look good, but I haven't taken an indepth dive in to see if they are sufficiently stupid-proof...)
12) Inspection program. This is important: Inspection is one of those basic NCO/Officer leadership skills. Flight sergeants and commanders should be constantly informally "inspecting" their troops (not a formal stand-by inspection.. thats a timewaster) so they know at any time who needs more help, who needs less, who might be a good cadet to pair with another.
When an actual "inspection" comes along, 30 minutes should be sufficient to see that either a) the standards are being met; or b) they are not being met.
You're not doing a white-glove every day (or at least, you shouldn't be), but if you're doing inspections are part of your "flight scoring" metrics, then yeah, it might take longer. So cadets book out for training at 0830, you might have a more "detail" inspection of the barracks for individual/flight scoring.
Or maybe not. Maybe you're just walking thru going "Uh huh, Alpha Flight's barracks look like the aftermath of Katrina. What are they doing, or more importantly, NOT DOING, with their time?" or "Bravo Flight's bunks are universally poor. Maybe we need some retraining there?"
(Funny side story: I re-badged my old Michigan Wing SOPs for my first encampment as a commander in my new wing. I took over ~2 weeks before the encampment was to start, and I didn't have a lot of spin-up time, so it was "find and replace" all the obvious wing names and such, fix the barracks differences I knew about, and print these suckers out! One of the things in the SOP was that bunks were diagrammed and shown to be made with dust covers. All the cadets were issued two blankets.
Along about Monday or Tuesday, I walk thru my barracks with my commandant and I stop and go "Wait, CJ, what the hell man? Why are all these bunks being made with dollar-bill collars?"
He looks at me like I grew a second head. "Well, thats the way they've always been done.."
I grabbed an SOP off the desk and showed him the pictures of the dust covers and how to make the bunk, meticulously drawn by me many years before for the wing encampment SOP, even! He was like "Gee, uh, I dunno?! Wow, I guess I missed that!"
I grabbed a flight commander and said "Why are you making the bunks like this?"
He says "Because we've always done it like that, sir?"
"What about the SOP? Right here, see, bunks with dustcovers?"
"Well, we didn't understand what it meant, sir, so we just did it the old way."
"Didn't understand what it meant? Huh? Did you think to ask anybody what it meant? Try to make the bunk like the pretty pictures?"
"No sir, I guess not.."
It was a funny story, because it illustrated not only a communication gap, where I assumed they'd just read & interpret the published guidance, but also a cultural one. Changing a culture of 'we've always done it this way' is wicked hard.
But it also illustrated the need for officers and NCOs at all levels to delegate and check (basic leadership), inspect (basic leadership), and communicate effectively (basic leadership) when the troops might not have all the info or need guidance & clarification.
The next year, we selected cadet staff based partly on their ability to "read and interpret published guidance." We'd put a "commonly done one way, but here's what the actual regulation says" situation in front of them, let them read the guidance and then see what they did. It was pretty funny, actually.
That following year at cadet staff selection, we dragged a bunk out behind the barracks and listened to the cadets tell us how making a bunk with a dust cover was way, way too time consuming. My commandant and I took 2 sheets, a pillow case and 2 blankets folded up on the bed and made a nice tight dust cover bunk as a team in about a minute and a half. I challenged the cadet staff to make a collared bunk in that amount of time. They could not. Tactical and technical proficiency FTW!)
I'm going to say this about the summer encampment I work at(IL):
1) We usually exceed the required curicculum hours listed in the 52-16 easily.
2) I don't know if we give everyone 20 minutes to eat but we don't try to push people through as fast as possible. It's usually a pretty relaxed time although the ocassional flight commander or sergeant will go a little "semper psycho" but the exec staff usually corrects this pretty quick.
3) We've been doing coed flights now for so long that people look at me funny when I tell them that we used to have all the females in one squadron. Sidenote: The dominate formation when I was a cadet was the squadron.
4)We have scheduled our cadets for 8 hours since WIWAC. 2100-0500. Guess we'll have to figure something out there.
5) The only issue with our showers is that we have GIs that share the same shower facilities. Simple answer was to put up signs saying "CAP only during these hours". The facility first sergeant was all for it.
So basically all we got to do is look at our sleep schedule and change some terminology. No big deal.
Quote from: ol'fido on October 07, 2012, 02:38:17 AM4)We have scheduled our cadets for 8 hours since WIWAC. 2100-0500. Guess we'll have to figure something out there.
Eight certainly seems like enough, especially since the "CQ" crap has been retired. No more getting up in the middle of the night and then trying to sleep for a couple more hours before PT.
Someone else also mentioned the cadet staff are the same age as the students - why can they operate on eight hours when the students allegedly need nine?
Retaining information?
Quote from: Fubar on October 07, 2012, 04:10:42 AMSomeone else also mentioned the cadet staff are the same age as the students - why can they operate on eight hours when the students allegedly need nine?
I would argue they can't, but historically the students are much younger then the cadre - probably by 2-3+ years on average. The activity is never
as much of a system-shock for cadre as it is for students, if only because they know exactly what they are getting themselves into, and done it at least once. By the time you get into "big-4" executive cadets staff, they are generally juniors or higher in high school and commonly in college.
Students have the requirement that they must "do" whatever is scheduled - cadre have the advantage of being relieved, taking a rest period, and
otherwise being able to stand down during classes, etc.
Also, at least at encampments I've run, we have endeavored to get staff naps during the training day. There are typically multiple opportunities in a day to get staff down for an hour or so nap. Obviously you can't do the same with students.
I'm sorry, but I hate the term "students" in this context. It sounds too "corporate". And just because the AF uses it, doesn't make it any less "corporate". It's like talking about "customers", "product", and "metrics" when dealing with CAP operations and programs. It just grates on me to no end. Death to Yuppies! >:D
Well, "basics" isn't correct either, since encampment isn't basic cadet training.
I think the term was used specifically to try and get people to understand that encampments are supposed to
be more akin to tech school and less like BMT.
I like the term "cadets". Seems to work in most other contexts. You would have cadets, ATS cadets, cadet staff, senior staff,etc. The term is very descriptive without being pejorative or "corporate".
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
Well, "basics" isn't correct either, since encampment isn't basic cadet training.
I think the term was used specifically to try and get people to understand that encampments are supposed to
be more akin to tech school and less like BMT.
Well, considering that at AF BMT you are a "trainee" until the Airman's coin ceremony and then you are an "Airman". I like the term "Trainee". After all, its 100% the truth, you are in training to advance your education and training rapidly to prepare yourself to be of service to your community, state and nation.
^ >:D see what I did with that?
My turn! A lot of these items have been covered already but I feel they bear re-repeating:
1.) Sick call. I agree 100% with the "exceptional circumstances" provision often exercised with Encampment. All the encampments and CTWs I've been to, we've always had cadet medics, supervised by a HSO, take custody of cadet medications during shakedown as part of the controlled substances provision....for aren't prescription meds just that? Isn't part of DDR education to teach that prescription meds can be abused just as much as "street" drugs? So yea, the meds are taken into Encampment custody and dispensed out to the respective cadets as needed. As mentioned on the blog, this prevents the cadets from accidentally overdosing, thinking that if they take more meds they'll get through Encampment easier, or their fellow flight members may ask them if they can try a bit out of simple curiosity -- or the cadet may simply lose the meds.
2.) Just call 'em cadets. It ain' hard. Call the rest the mentioned terms, cadre, etc.
3.) 9 hours of sleep? Good luck with that. You say lights out at 2100, but odds are the cadets aren't going to pipe down and go to sleep right away, especially the more chatterbox types. Unless you want to cut into tomorrow's time schedule, I'd shoot for 8. Plus how are we going to police this 9 hours? Especially if we're getting rid of CQ. Oh sure the senior member or two doing the CQ may be able to monitor for night owls, but he can't catch everything.
4.) I do agree with the idea of an actual grading system to help eliminate the "come and show up" cadets. WIWAC (JROTC mind you) and I went to Leadership Academy if you didn't pass the PT test to Navy standards on the second full day, you were sent home at your unit's expense. Same if you were going to fail out academically. I feel this is needed to reduce the number of cadets who are pressured by their Squadron, fellow Squadron members, or even parents to go to something that they aren't ready for, only to plod through it halfway, which brings down the encampment as a whole. Youth programs with a military base aren't for everyone. Am I dismissing them outright? Not at all, I'm the product of them, but still, they're not for everyone, and there needs to be the ability to remove those not cut out for it, or at least the intense parts.
5.) 20 minute meal times. Couple this with the fact that a lot of meal facilities are shared with our real military family, then once you factor in the time it takes to get the encampment set up in the meal system with the cashiers, making sure there's room in the facility, letting the real military members still make use of the facility, AND allow everyone this 20 minute minimum, you're now a good 2 hours behind schedule. This should be a simple provision of non-interference by cadre of cadets at meal. Even The Citadel has this, stating that upperclassmen shall not interfere with Knob meals after second rest is called.
6.) Parents at in-processing? NO! That is not the time for the parents to be there. Perhaps have an event just before in-processing, a relaxed social atmosphere with the parents and cadets, conducted probably by the Encampment Commander (the Senior Member, not the Cadet) to allow any "anxiety questions" and such to be addressed without fear of making the staff mad or getting yelled at. After this, then as the guide said the parents would be dismissed and in-processing would begin. All the training academies I went to with JROTC, and even in-processing with NROTC, there was no parent presence at the actual in-processing. It all ended before. Not to mention you have to take into account facility size. Our encampment (except for the Parris Island outing) has always had in-processing in the admin office of our assigned regular facility. This thing is small, about the size of a mobile classroom facility. It's crowded enough in there with the staff and cadets getting process in, now factor in one or two extra un-needed bodies and multiply times 100+ at times, and it becomes something really nasty. Parents, you can't hold little Johnny's hand the whole time, otherwise he's never going to grow up and will stay at home with you for the rest of his life as closet child.
Ok, soapbox is free for the next one!
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
1.) Sick call. I agree 100% with the "exceptional circumstances" provision often exercised with Encampment. All the encampments and CTWs I've been to, we've always had cadet medics, supervised by a HSO, take custody of cadet medications during shakedown as part of the controlled substances provision....for aren't prescription meds just that? Isn't part of DDR education to teach that prescription meds can be abused just as much as "street" drugs? So yea, the meds are taken into Encampment custody and dispensed out to the respective cadets as needed. As mentioned on the blog, this prevents the cadets from accidentally overdosing, thinking that if they take more meds they'll get through Encampment easier, or their fellow flight members may ask them if they can try a bit out of simple curiosity -- or the cadet may simply lose the meds.
That's been prohibited for at least two years.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
1.) Sick call. I agree 100% with the "exceptional circumstances" provision often exercised with Encampment. All the encampments and CTWs I've been to, we've always had cadet medics, supervised by a HSO, take custody of cadet medications during shakedown as part of the controlled substances provision....for aren't prescription meds just that? Isn't part of DDR education to teach that prescription meds can be abused just as much as "street" drugs? So yea, the meds are taken into Encampment custody and dispensed out to the respective cadets as needed. As mentioned on the blog, this prevents the cadets from accidentally overdosing, thinking that if they take more meds they'll get through Encampment easier, or their fellow flight members may ask them if they can try a bit out of simple curiosity -- or the cadet may simply lose the meds.
That's been prohibited for at least two years.
CAPR 160-2
QuoteA CAP senior member, after obtaining all the necessary information and receiving documentation of the written permission from a minor cadet's parent or guardian for the administration of prescription medication during the activity, can agree to accept the responsibility of making sure the minor cadet is reminded to take any prescribed medication at the times and in the frequencies prescribed; however, no senior member will be required or encouraged to do so. This regulation does not prohibit senior member staff from monitoring medication compliance with directly observed medication ingestion, having medication forms for the cadet to initial when doses were taken, performing pill counts, or other compliance verification.
And that's precisely what our sick call does. The cadets self-medicate at their proper times, all we are providing is a central, secure, and where needed refrigerated location for the meds to be stored. They are not dispensed or administered in the medical sense by the encampment medical staff. The cadet is simply given their container, they take what they take, and it is returned for keeping. Better alternative than the cadet losing it or, as 160-2 says farther down, giving it to another cadet. Plus the HSO is rated as an EMT at least.
CAPR 160-2 also states:
QuoteExcept in extraordinary circumstances, CAP members, regardless of age, will be responsible for transporting, storing, and taking their own medications, including inhalers and epinephrine pens.
Since you are requiring the cadets to turn their medications over to your HSO, it would appear contrary to the requirement that the cadet be responsible for storing their medications. You can give them a container to store their meds, but it appears you can't require the cadet to then turn that container over to you.
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2012, 01:20:23 AM...all we are providing is a central, secure, and where needed refrigerated location for the meds to be stored. They are not dispensed or administered in the medical sense by the encampment medical staff. The cadet is simply given their container, they take what they take, and it is returned for keeping. Better alternative than the cadet losing it or, as 160-2 says farther down, giving it to another cadet. Plus the HSO is rated as an EMT at least.
"Exactly what you are doing" is what NHQ has made clear we are
not to do, and whether the HSO is an EMT or not is irrelevant.
160-2
"5. Except in extraordinary circumstances, CAP members, regardless of age, will be responsible for transporting, storing and taking their own medications. Members who require refrigeration for medications should carefully coordinate with activity officials well in advance of their attendance at the activity to ensure that refrigeration will be available.""Because you think it's a good idea." does not constitute "extraordinary circumstances". This is exactly the problem that we have been working on
and against for years. NHQ makes the rules crystal clear, and people do whatever they think is "better" anyway.
Not only that, you can get in serious trouble by possessing other people's medication.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 08, 2012, 01:58:48 AM
Not only that, you can get in serious trouble by possessing other people's medication.
Except in states that prohibit minors from having their own prescription meds...
Well it could also be the fact that the last encampment I went to was in 2010, and 160-2 was published in 2011. I'm trying to remember if the provisions were different then.
Regardless, I overlooked that bit in my rant since, again, I was acting off 2010 information, etc., and I do apologize. I still hold true to my other points though! :P
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 01:55:09 AM
"Exactly what you are doing" is what NHQ has made clear we are not to do, and whether the HSO is an EMT or not is irrelevant.
^^agreed
Dispensing medications is outside of the scope of practice of an EMT. And there are very limited medications (that belong to and are prescribed to a patient) that an EMT can even legally "assist" with (my state there are only two).
Not to mention that my scope of practice is non-existant at a CAP function since I would be operating without medical direction (a doctor on the other end of a phone or written protocols).
The only comfort that an encampment staff should have about having a few EMTs on staff is that those individuals will be able to call 911 like pros.
Keeping and storing pills is a no-no and is explicitly stated so. To me willful non-compliance would be an egregious violation and should result in membership suspension at the very least.
CAP needs to either legitimize roles for "medics" (never going to happen) or get rid of the HSO concept entirely.
Quote from: NCRblues on October 08, 2012, 02:06:49 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 08, 2012, 01:58:48 AM
Not only that, you can get in serious trouble by possessing other people's medication.
Except in states that prohibit minors from having their own prescription meds...
Where's that?
How can you prohibit an asthmatic from carrying an inhaler, or someone with allergies from
carrying an epi-pen? Not to mention the cocktails kids take these days.
Quote from: NCRblues on October 08, 2012, 02:06:49 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 08, 2012, 01:58:48 AM
Not only that, you can get in serious trouble by possessing other people's medication.
Except in states that prohibit minors from having their own prescription meds...
What state(s) is that? Please provide a cite(s). Thank you.
Having just dealt with this issue at the last NBB, ill be happy to provide Department of heath scripture. (BTW, for those that are going to say it does not apply to CAP, the state of WI disagrees with you). Straight from WI DHS 175.19
"(b) Except as allowed in par. (c), all medication brought to
camp by a camper or staff member under 18 years of age shall be
kept in a locked unit and shall be administered by health services
staff qualified under sub. (5) (b), except that bee sting medication,
inhalers, an insulin syringe or other medication or device used in
the event of life−threatening situations may be carried by a camper
or staff member. Each camper or staff member 18 years of age or
older may take responsibility for the security of his or her personal
medication.
(c) When a camp's facilities are used for a program of 3 nights
or less, an adult leader of the group shall keep all medications
brought to camp by a camper or staff member under 18 years of
age in a locked unit. The adult leader shall be responsible for the
administration of the medications."
Quote from: NCRblues on October 08, 2012, 04:46:56 AM
Having just dealt with this issue at the last NBB, ill be happy to provide Department of heath scripture. (BTW, for those that are going to say it does not apply to CAP, the state of WI disagrees with you). Straight from WI DHS 175.19
"(b) Except as allowed in par. (c), all medication brought to
camp by a camper or staff member under 18 years of age shall be
kept in a locked unit and shall be administered by health services
staff qualified under sub. (5) (b), except that bee sting medication,
inhalers, an insulin syringe or other medication or device used in
the event of life−threatening situations may be carried by a camper
or staff member. Each camper or staff member 18 years of age or
older may take responsibility for the security of his or her personal
medication.
(c) When a camp's facilities are used for a program of 3 nights
or less, an adult leader of the group shall keep all medications
brought to camp by a camper or staff member under 18 years of
age in a locked unit. The adult leader shall be responsible for the
administration of the medications."
Then in this instance there would have to be a wing supplement to the regulation that would be vetted approved by higher headquarters as opposed to "The law is different here, so we'll just ignore this one".
I do agree that no CAP member should placed between violating local laws to be compliant with CAP regulations, however there is a process that with proactive thought and a willingness to work through problems before they arrise seems like it would solve this situation.
I'm not saying that WIWING is doing any of these things, I'm just pointing out that there is a lesson to be taken from this and that this can serve as an example to others facing similar types of circumstances.
Quote from: NCRblues on October 08, 2012, 04:46:56 AM
Having just dealt with this issue at the last NBB, ill be happy to provide Department of heath scripture. (BTW, for those that are going to say it does not apply to CAP, the state of WI disagrees with you). Straight from WI DHS 175.19
The definition of "camp" here would seem to fit NBB, primarily because it takes place on non-federal land. Many, if not most, encampments,
occur on military bases and other federal(ized) land and facilities where something like this (probably) wouldn't reach.
In this case, NBB would also appear to require permits and state inspections as well.
This is a situation where the state and NHQ GC's need to get together and issue guidance.
Extreme Prejudice and PHall-
You two almost killed me with your post of the derailed train, and the response.
Really, I have a cold, and reading both I became short of breath I literally was gasping for breath.
I am going to ask the moderator to require you to post something like "WARNING - The post that comes may be dangerous to your health."
Take care,
Flyer
I have yet to review the draft, but just wanted to chime in real quick. This past weekend we held a Basic Cadet School from Fri evening to Sun evening. This was the second one that I had staffed but the first that I had any real involvement in with planning. On Fri night the staff were told especially the flt staff that this was not basic training and was not encampment, and they were to keep the yelling and screaming to a minimum. For some reason here in CA they like all that, and I think that was one of the reasons why the BCS that was held in Mar didn't go so well. This one went much more smoother and our basic cadets or students had more fun with it. Hopefully the final draft of this for encampment will enable the cadets both students and staff alike to have more fun and retain material taught.
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
My turn! A lot of these items have been covered already but I feel they bear re-repeating:
1.) Sick call. I agree 100% with the "exceptional circumstances" provision often exercised with Encampment. All the encampments and CTWs I've been to, we've always had cadet medics, supervised by a HSO, take custody of cadet medications during shakedown as part of the controlled substances provision....for aren't prescription meds just that? Isn't part of DDR education to teach that prescription meds can be abused just as much as "street" drugs? So yea, the meds are taken into Encampment custody and dispensed out to the respective cadets as needed. As mentioned on the blog, this prevents the cadets from accidentally overdosing, thinking that if they take more meds they'll get through Encampment easier, or their fellow flight members may ask them if they can try a bit out of simple curiosity -- or the cadet may simply lose the meds.
2.) Just call 'em cadets. It ain' hard. Call the rest the mentioned terms, cadre, etc.
3.) 9 hours of sleep? Good luck with that. You say lights out at 2100, but odds are the cadets aren't going to pipe down and go to sleep right away, especially the more chatterbox types. Unless you want to cut into tomorrow's time schedule, I'd shoot for 8. Plus how are we going to police this 9 hours? Especially if we're getting rid of CQ. Oh sure the senior member or two doing the CQ may be able to monitor for night owls, but he can't catch everything.
4.) I do agree with the idea of an actual grading system to help eliminate the "come and show up" cadets. WIWAC (JROTC mind you) and I went to Leadership Academy if you didn't pass the PT test to Navy standards on the second full day, you were sent home at your unit's expense. Same if you were going to fail out academically. I feel this is needed to reduce the number of cadets who are pressured by their Squadron, fellow Squadron members, or even parents to go to something that they aren't ready for, only to plod through it halfway, which brings down the encampment as a whole. Youth programs with a military base aren't for everyone. Am I dismissing them outright? Not at all, I'm the product of them, but still, they're not for everyone, and there needs to be the ability to remove those not cut out for it, or at least the intense parts.
5.) 20 minute meal times. Couple this with the fact that a lot of meal facilities are shared with our real military family, then once you factor in the time it takes to get the encampment set up in the meal system with the cashiers, making sure there's room in the facility, letting the real military members still make use of the facility, AND allow everyone this 20 minute minimum, you're now a good 2 hours behind schedule. This should be a simple provision of non-interference by cadre of cadets at meal. Even The Citadel has this, stating that upperclassmen shall not interfere with Knob meals after second rest is called.
6.) Parents at in-processing? NO! That is not the time for the parents to be there. Perhaps have an event just before in-processing, a relaxed social atmosphere with the parents and cadets, conducted probably by the Encampment Commander (the Senior Member, not the Cadet) to allow any "anxiety questions" and such to be addressed without fear of making the staff mad or getting yelled at. After this, then as the guide said the parents would be dismissed and in-processing would begin. All the training academies I went to with JROTC, and even in-processing with NROTC, there was no parent presence at the actual in-processing. It all ended before. Not to mention you have to take into account facility size. Our encampment (except for the Parris Island outing) has always had in-processing in the admin office of our assigned regular facility. This thing is small, about the size of a mobile classroom facility. It's crowded enough in there with the staff and cadets getting process in, now factor in one or two extra un-needed bodies and multiply times 100+ at times, and it becomes something really nasty. Parents, you can't hold little Johnny's hand the whole time, otherwise he's never going to grow up and will stay at home with you for the rest of his life as closet child.
Ok, soapbox is free for the next one!
I don't think anyone is guaranteed getting an actual nine(9) hours of sleep. The requirement is for the OPPORTUNITY of nine hours of sleep in a bed. We usually check to make sure the cadets are in THEIR bed, the lights are out, and everyone is quiet. No one is going to go around and make sure that 100 + cadets are actually snoozing or just laying there with their eyes closed.
In IL we include parents in the inprocessing arrangements by having a video/power point presentation for them showing what is going to go on that week while their cadets are actually going through in-processing. There is a designated time to say goodbyes and all that built into the process. Has worked for years.
Quote from: ol'fido on October 08, 2012, 06:29:42 PMI don't think anyone is guaranteed getting an actual nine(9) hours of sleep. The requirement is for the OPPORTUNITY of nine hours of sleep in a bed. We usually check to make sure the cadets are in THEIR bed, the lights are out, and everyone is quiet. No one is going to go around and make sure that 100 + cadets are actually snoozing or just laying there with their eyes closed.
I agree - you can't submit a schedule with 7 hours of lights out and expect it to be approved or pass muster.
That muster, presumably, now being someone from Wing, since it appears the
State Directors LRADO's are no longer the approving
authority for the form 20's.
I want to address the sleeping issue. As long as I've been involved in CAP, cadets don't sleep at night. Period. Especially at a Wing activity. Regardless of how much you wear them out, they don't sleep at night. Even forbidding energy drinks and any form of caffeine doesn't work. They are too jacked up on youthful hormones and seeing old and new friends and the excitement of the activity in question. Mandating 8 or 9 hours for sleep will not solve the issue, because any down time just means more time for them to talk and screw around.
By the second or third day, the cadets are pretty much worn out past their personal wall, and will nap wherever and whenever they can, but that doesn't translate into sleeping their 8 or 9 hours at night. Cadets will nod off during classes, van trips, and any time they're stationary for more than two minutes, even at attention, but they won't sleep at night.
I've been to my fair share of encampments, both as a cadet and senior. Cadets. Don't. Sleep. No matter how many times I've patrolled the barracks or cottages as part of my TAC duties, I've had to shut the cadets up each and every trip through. Eventually, exhaustion wins but generally, with the excitement of the activity, three or four hours is all you're going to get out of them.
Directives, regulations, charts, PowerPoint slides, parental notification...nothing works. Cadets will just continue to squander their free time not sleeping when they're supposed to. It's a fact of teen life, and like Ferris Bueller said: Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
While I won't disagree that you have a hard time getting cadets to sleep, I should note that my experience is that after the first day or two, the pace of the activity dictates their sleeping patterns.
My personal experience (as a cadet) was that I slept like a _log_ at encampment. Sure, the first couple nights, the lights go out, you're laying in your bunk and its like Mom & Dad enforcing you to sleep: just cuz the lights are out doesn't mean you're sawing logs. You lay there, looking at the ceiling and thinking "Ok, any time now would be nice.."
And then your buddy 3 bunks down makes a fart sound and 13 people crack up. After that, its "Game on" and you probably don't actually get to sleep until after 11pm.
But by the 2nd or 3rd night, you walk into a barracks at 9:30, and everybody is asleep: flight staff, TAC officer, and all the cadets.
Modern teenagers and sleep schedules go together like oil and water, but if the day is busy/challenging enough, and the flight staff is on top of their cadets in classes, then they either go face-first into their soup at dinner, or they're out after a hot shower.
It always cracks me up the first couple days. Cadets show up with their modern gamer sleep schedule: Play video games until 4-5 am, sleep till noon, bum around for hours, then start playing video games again. They're all goofed up that first day, and likely to not fall asleep easily that first night. Then 0530 comes along, first call! You have to use a cattle prod to get them to PT. That 2nd day is a somnambulist's wet dream: zombie cadets, nodding heads in classes, etc. That 2nd night they're eyeing their bunk by 7:30pm.
But I think you'll find that 8 hrs is about the max you can push it.
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 08, 2012, 06:46:24 PM
I want to address the sleeping issue. As long as I've been involved in CAP, cadets don't sleep at night. Period.
That does not jive with my experience. There's always a few who has issues winding down, and if you let
them goof off unsupervised they will try to stay up all night, but the majority are dead to the world 5 minutes after lights out.
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 08, 2012, 06:46:24 PM
I want to address the sleeping issue. As long as I've been involved in CAP, cadets don't sleep at night. Period.
Non concur. As NIN said I don't care if they stare at the ceiling all night but they will be in their bed and and not talking or disturbing others.
I think this also goes to the "culture" of encampments. If part of the cadet lore in your Wing is playing grab #$@ after lights out you have to end that particular bit lore. You clearly explain your expectations to both "students" and cadet staff then follow up with swift and real consequences if your expectations are not met. It is amazing what sending a cadet home with no encampment credit for chronic violations will accomplish. Cadets will continue to engage in this behavior as long as they know there are no real consequences.
Failure to meet this requirement is a failure in leadership. This is like saying we can't meet the standard so we will lower the standard. Students and cadet staff don't dictate policy at encampment.
I slept each and every night as a cadet at encampment. Then again I fall asleep whenever I can get a few zs
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
I agree - you can't submit a schedule with 7 hours of lights out and expect it to be approved or pass muster.
That muster, presumably, now being someone from Wing, since it appears the State Directors LRADO's are no longer the approving
authority for the form 20's.
Wouldn't that person be the Wing DCP, Or Region DCP for a Region Encampment?
As far as I in know that is still TBD.