CAPP 52-24

[a2capt]

"Encampment Hand"(book)?

[SarDragon]

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.

[Eclipse]

"Encampment Hand"(book)?

Hey!  Leave me alone, I'm busy planning the saving of lives and property here!
(While being mildly distracted by CT).

[BillB]

Eclipse... You had "out cadets" instead of "our cadets"

[Eclipse]

Eclipse... You had "out cadets" instead of "our cadets"

I know, I went back and fixed it.

[Ned]

If 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?

[Eclipse]

It should be a reg - making it a pamphlet will leave the door for some to say it's optional.

[MIKE]

It should be a reg - making it a pamphlet will leave the door for some to say it's optional.

Note: CAPR 52-16 would be updated to require encampments to operate per these guidelines.

[Eclipse]

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?

[ol'fido]

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.

[Eclipse]

So you're suggesting that we have pamphlets and manuals so they can be ignored, or treated as optional?

[BillB]

Eclipse....proof read.... "so" not "do". You've taught me to be a member of the spelling police

[SarDragon]

And if you're using a mobile device, turn off the freakin' auto-correct!

[Eclipse]

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.

[SarDragon]

Turn 'em all off!   

[ol'fido]

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.

[Eclipse]

How 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.

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?

[SamFranklin]

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.

[SamFranklin]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.