CAPP 52-24

[SamFranklin]

^   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?

[Eclipse]

^   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.

[SamFranklin]

I think we agree about encampment principles and this document being a big step forward, but we simply disagree about regulatory philosophies.

[ol'fido]

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?

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.

[AngelWings]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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.

[AngelWings]

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.

[LGM30GMCC]

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.

[abdsp51]

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.

[sarmed1]

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

[abdsp51]

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.

[PHall]

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.

[abdsp51]

Most of guidelines and such come from the force enter so I didn't sweat to much on it. 

[Extremepredjudice]

[PHall]

And why should this thread be any different then the others on CAPTalk?

[rebowman]

For those of you interested, this is the letter we received.

When was this letter sent?

[rebowman]

For 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.....

[rebowman]

"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?

[rebowman]

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?

Not only does it need to be a regulation.   The term guidance also needs removed.   There is a big difference between guidance and policy.

[rebowman]

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.

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.