Variation In Unit Supplements, Operating Instructions Etc

[MIKE]

CAPR 5-4 and CAPR 10-1 provide sample documents that lay out the format for each document... I would think that since these are both regulations, units should stick very closely to the format as provided, but I have seen some local variation... Not saying that writing the date wrong invalidates your OI, but NHQ is providing a specfic format in a directive.

My unit has a tendency to reinvent the wheel sometimes. What say ye?

While on the subject... CAPR 5-4 Attachment 1. says that functional address symbols may be used in place of something like Squadron Operating Instruction... The Attachment shows Wing Operating Instruction (WOI)... What about something like Podunk Cadet Squadron OI (PCSOI)?  It's not the same as the FAS in CAPR 10-1, so it's a little odd.

[lordmonar]

Yeah...so?  What is your point.  Sure we don't need to reinvent the wheel...but if you don't follow the "directed" format...who cares?

[MIKE]

I was looking for others thoughts or openions on the subject... Like you said, you don't care.

[ELTHunter]

It has always irked me a little bit when local units and personnell, be they squadrons, groups, or wing, don't use the formats for documents and such that are laid out in the regulations.  Granted, I'm not sure CAP's formats are strictly like those of the regular military, following them still makes all of our paperwork look uniform and the organization as a whole more professional.

I think it just goes back to most people don't want to take the time to to go look at the regulation and see how it's supposed to be done.  Either that, or they don't know it's there, or they just don't care.

[BlackKnight]

I'm with Maj. Waddell on this one.  If you're going to put forth the effort, why not do a little research and follow the correct format and terminology the first time?

One thing I see all too frequently is former Army officers using their Army OI's instead of CAP/USAF procedures.  I don't know whether it's simple laziness or actual contempt for USAF terminology and formats. It pretty much guarantees that their personnel won't have a clue when they try to operate at wing or national activities. It's not worth making a stink over, but it still drives me quietly nuts when I see it.  Such as referring to cadet airmen and NCOs as E-1/E-7's, senior officers as O-3's, etc.  Squads and platoons instead of elements and flights, referencing Army Field Manuals for ES training instead of CAP SQTR guides...

[Hawk200]

One thing I see all too frequently is former Army officers using their Army OI's instead of CAP/USAF procedures.  I don't know whether it's simple laziness or actual contempt for USAF terminology and formats. It pretty much guarantees that their personnel won't have a clue when they try to operate at wing or national activities. It's not worth making a stink over, but it still drives me quietly nuts when I see it.  Such as referring to cadet airmen and NCOs as E-1/E-7's, senior officers as O-3's, etc.  Squads and platoons instead of elements and flights, referencing Army Field Manuals for ES training instead of CAP SQTR guides...

I've seen this same issue before. Seems like we should make it clear to these folks coming in that it's not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard, it is the Civil Air Patrol.  And that transference into our little organization means that we have our own way of doing things.

Sometimes if you get these types, when they reference something such as a Field Manual, respond with "Uh, what was that again?" Wait for the usual "Well, you know...", then tell them "No, I don't know that Army regulation (or manual), I'm in the Civil Air Patrol." Like most living creatures, they get the corrections after a few tries.

If you outrank them appreciably, a different tact can be taken. Sit them down, and tell them that you won't tolerate laziness. Explain that our organization uses its own publications, and they need to learn ours, not demand that someone learn their way. Sometimes it works, sometimes they leave. IF they leave, no major loss, they wouldn't have worked with the team, and someone that refuses to work with the team isn't an asset.

[ADCAPer]

I'd just be happy to see National acknowledge that Article XX of the CAP Constitution actually exists.

Okay, that's not true, I'd be even happier if they would acknowledge it and then consistently follow their own rules and regulations.

There are too many people in this organization, from the local squadrons all the way up to the very top of the chain who feel that the regulations only apply when it suits their needs.

[lordmonar]

Here is another one of those forms over substance threads.

We argue and grind our teeth because someone calls the Service Dress a Class A uniform or that ex-army type use the wrong abbreviations for their rank or that there are regs, manual and pamphlets not instructions, field manuals, NAVELEX or technical orders.

Yes examples are in the regs.  Yes it is a sign of laziness that someone did not read each and every manual and un-learn all his previous knowledge.

But really!  So the local policy letter is not in CAP approved format.  So the squadron down the road says that todays uniform is Class A's or Undress Blues.  So there may be a little communication problem when people from those squadrons are operating at wing level. (not really because we get this same stuff from wing, region and national all the time!)

Are planes going to fall out of the sky because of it?  Are not meeting our training objectives because of it.  Are our cadets going to be bad leaders because of it?

No.  That is all I got say.

[Hawk200]

Are planes going to fall out of the sky because of it? 

Probably not, but that isn't the question. The question is: Are we not getting planes into the sky because of the miscommunication?

Are not meeting our training objectives because of it.  Are our cadets going to be bad leaders because of it?

No.  That is all I got say.

I would disagree. If you teach cadets that they don't have to follow a prescribed publication if they don't feel like learning what it is, then yeah, they probably will be bad leaders.