What constitutes "active participation"?

[Capt Thompson]

If your assertion was correct, then every squadron in CAP would be composite and we wouldn't have a need for senior and cadet squadrons. As it stands, that's not he way CAP does things.

Not entirely. The Cadet Programs Professional Development module in OBC Block 2 states that even Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it. I.E. a Senior Squadron could still send pilots to Summer Encampment to help with O-Flights.

I know that's not how it's done, but that doesn't mean it's now how it should be imo. The propeller has 3 blades, and if it's missing one, it doesn't spin properly. CAP = 3 missions, not the 1 or 2 I feel like taking part in.

[Capt Thompson]

A lot of seniors don't want to be bothered with "those pesky kids," but they're arguably our most important mission, and the future of our organization.

[Storm Chaser]

If your assertion was correct, then every squadron in CAP would be composite and we wouldn't have a need for senior and cadet squadrons. As it stands, that's not he way CAP does things.

Not entirely. The Cadet Programs Professional Development module in OBC Block 2 states that even Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it. I.E. a Senior Squadron could still send pilots to Summer Encampment to help with O-Flights.

I know that's not how it's done, but that doesn't mean it's now how it should be imo. The propeller has 3 blades, and if it's missing one, it doesn't spin properly. CAP = 3 missions, not the 1 or 2 I feel like taking part in.

Please cite the regulation requiring every CAP member to directly participate in every one of these missions.

A lot of seniors don't want to be bothered with "those pesky kids," but they're arguably our most important mission, and the future of our organization.

As a former Earhart cadet myself, I can tell you that working with cadets is NOT a requirement to be a member of CAP. Some members choose to work directly with cadets. Others choose to support the Cadet Programs indirectly through other staff work. Yet others support our organization's missions without working with cadets and there's nothing wrong with that. We need senior squadrons as much as we need cadet squadrons.

There's a place for everyone in CAP... and plenty of work to go around.

[Capt Thompson]

Again, not anywhere I could find in the regs, but in several places in the required training. In the OBC modules (required for level II) the word "should" comes up several times. "Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it." True if it was mandatory it would be in a reg, but the fact that it is stated several times in mandatory training, as well as a mission mandated by congress, "should" be enough that every member makes some attempt to take part in all 3 missions in some way.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I know that's not how it's done, but that doesn't mean it's now how it should be imo. The propeller has 3 blades, and if it's missing one, it doesn't spin properly. CAP = 3 missions, not the 1 or 2 I feel like taking part in.

[Storm Chaser]

Again, not anywhere I could find in the regs, but in several places in the required training. In the OBC modules (required for level II) the word "should" comes up several times. "Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it." True if it was mandatory it would be in a reg, but the fact that it is stated several times in mandatory training, as well as a mission mandated by congress, "should" be enough that every member makes some attempt to take part in all 3 missions in some way.

So your only reference is OBC?

[Capt Thompson]

It should be noted that support of the 3 missions is not necessarily direct, and could be behind the scenes. As a Cadet, we had a Senior that didn't have any direct involvement with the Cadet Program, but ran fundraisers meant entirely to provide Cadets with money for Encampment, uniforms etc., and would regularly make trips to MCSS in base to pick up Cadet uniform needs. Not everyone needs to be the TCO or the AE Officer, but they should have some involvement in every mission, even if it's a small, behind the scenes part.

[Capt Thompson]

Yes, my citation is Level I Orientation, Level II OBC, and I'm sure plenty of other required trainings.

Is a member who joins to be part of the "flying club" and doesn't support the 3 missions any better than the empty shirts that don't show up?

[FW]

Mr. Thompson, thank you for joining us "older cadets" in the discussion.  Yes, "Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the cadet programs", however not all members in the squadron should have a want or need to support it.  Life is difficult enough.  "Active members" do not usually look for more to do; they already are dealing with "more than enough".  In the perfect CAP world, all squadrons would be composite, however we're not there.  For now, I guess we have to make do with what we have and try to make things better for all of us.

[Storm Chaser]

Yes, my citation is Level I Orientation, Level II OBC, and I'm sure plenty of other required trainings.

Is a member who joins to be part of the "flying club" and doesn't support the 3 missions any better than the empty shirts that don't show up?

So a mission pilot (or observer, scanners, etc.) who flies search and rescue or damage assessment or counterdrug or other operational missions and chooses not to work with cadets is in a "flying club"? You have much to learn about CAP.

By the way, cadets are not required to participate in ES either and some choose not to. There's also nothing wrong with that.

[Eclipse]

People get defensive when you say that "their thing" isn't the "only thing" and they should be doing "all the things".
that's why a strategic discussion like this gets bogged down in the micro, because it insinuates an adjustment of behavior
might be necessary, and that scares people.

The bottom line is, you're either a value to your CC or not.  Period.  The how's and why's are subjective and always will be.
If you are a once-a-year member who flies at a summer activity, but can't be bothered the rest of the year, it's fair game for
your CC to tell you that you are bringing no value to his unit and need to go elsewhere - one of the reasons there probably should
be charters for activities like encampments and NCSA that tend to collect these types of members - maybe, again, a holding
squadron at a higher level.  What people often forget is that these members still have to go through a unit, etc., for all approvals,
including flight quals - how can a CC who never has contact with an individual know whether they are flight ready when they pop
up 2 weeks before NFA and start hounding him to approve his requals?

NHQ has provided a very quick short-hand way for them to see who is bare-bones active and who isn't.  That doesn't mean
that short-hand should be the end-of, or only factor in the conversation, but it's an undeniable baseline indicator.

There are plenty of empty shirts that maintain safety currency, I can't begin to understand why someone who hasn't been
seen in a decade would go online every month and take a safety class contoniutes to do so, but whatever, people enjoy
mental gymnastics.  At least they aren't on the radar as inactive from that particular vector.

[Capt Thompson]

So a mission pilot (or observer, scanners, etc.) who flies search and rescue or damage assessment or counterdrug or other operational missions and chooses not to work with cadets is in a "flying club"? You have much to learn about CAP.

When did I say that a mission pilot, mo etc. is in a flying club? Hold on, let me reread my previous..........(jeopardy theme).......nope, didn't say that, but thanks for playing.

We have several members who are pilots, but not mission qualified, who show up to a meeting every couple of months to put miles on the plane and get an hour behind the stick, that don't do anything else to support CAP. Not only is this of no use to CAP, but also borders on an ethics violation.

When dealing with a group of volunteers, we always deal with "in a perfect world" and members "should." CAP could never mandate involvement in all 3 missions, only suggest it. Any attempt to mandate involvement would also require mandating required levels of participation, which would end up causing members with no desire to work in a particular mission to leave the program.

[vorteks]

Yes, my citation is Level I Orientation, Level II OBC, and I'm sure plenty of other required trainings.

OBC isn't "required" training.

[Capt Thompson]

Sorry, required for advancement in the professional development program, I stand corrected.

[Storm Chaser]

Actually, it's not. It's one of the required options, others being NCO Academy, OCS, OTS, ROTC, SOS, just to name a few (see CAPR 50-17).

[Capt Thompson]

50-17, page 17
CHAPTER 4–LEVEL II, TECHNICAL TRAINING
4-1. Technical Training. This training provides opportunities to learn new skills for CAP and
for individual growth and leadership. Criteria for completion of this level include:
a. Completion of Level I training.
b. Attainment of technician rating in a CAP specialty track.
c. Completion of the CAP Officer Basic Course (OBC).
d. Completion of Squadron Leadership School (SLS).

Only substitute for OBC is a Professional Military Education equivalent course. OCS, NCO Academy, ROTC etc aren't options for 90% of the membership, so no point in mentioning.

How does spending 20 posts nitpicking the exact wording of someone's post accomplish anything, or in any way pertain to the OP? Whether OBC is a requirement or not has no real relevance on my original position, or on the topic of the original post.

[Storm Chaser]

No, but you using OBC to justify an incorrect statement is. Cheers and welcome to CAP Talk!

[Майор Хаткевич]

Welcome to captalk. You'll either get used to it...or move on!

[Capt Thompson]

Ah but it only would've been an incorrect statement if I said it was required that all Seniors take part in all 3 missions. I only said OBC states that all Seniors "should" take part in all 3. That is a correct statement. The CAP wants every member to take part in all 3.....it doesn't set a requirement, only suggests that all members "should" in several trainings.

The fact of the matter is, the position was brought up that Seniors shouldn't have to participate in all missions because there's too much to do and not enough time to do it all.......but there's time to spend looking up regs to disprove a statement that doesn't need to be, and countless hours on CapTalk....hmmm.

If a Senior can't find 10 mins once a month to sit down and mentor a cadet.....or one day a year teaching an external AE class to a middle school class or Boy Scout Troop, then maybe time management is the issue?

[Eclipse]

The fact of the matter is, the position was brought up that Seniors shouldn't have to participate in all missions because there's too much to do and not enough time to do it all...

Which is why you need 2-3 times the people for CAP to function as the curriculum proposes.

but there's time to spend looking up regs to disprove a statement that doesn't need to be, and countless hours on CapTalk....hmmm.

That's an ad hominem and assumes time on Captalk is subtracted from general CAP time, which it generally isn't.

If a Senior can't find 10 mins once a month to sit down and mentor a cadet.....or one day a year teaching an external AE class to a middle school class or Boy Scout Troop, then maybe time management is the issue?

That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability.  I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.