Non-Members (Guests) at a CAP Bivouac

[Stonewall]

Question:   If a second senior member was needed for an overnight bivouac with cadets, but the second senior couldn't come unless they brought their kid (I'm assuming younger than CAP age, i.e. a small child), is this authorized?

I'm guessing a BIG NO.

Just running this past the gang for GP.

[PHall]

Actually, I don't really see a problem with that. It doesn't violate any reg I can think of.

[Eclipse]

Actually, I don't really see a problem with that. It doesn't violate any reg I can think of.

How about "You have to be a member to participate in CAP activities?"

Big no.

That parent's attention needs to be 100% on the cadets he is there to supervise, yet it will be divided 1/2 on the cadets, 1/2 or more on the kid.

The kid certainly should not be participating with the cadets in any thing they do, he's not a member, so that means parent #2 has to keep the kid occupied, fed, sleeping, potty-ed, happy, etc.  That's where his focus will be.

There's also the issue of CAP accepting responsibility for a non-member over which it has no authority.

[lordmonar]

I would say it depends on the acitivty, age of the non member, amount of supervision you are going to need from the other member.

This is caviated with a couple of rules.

1.  The non member does not do any of the activities.
2.  The parent understands that CAP has no laibilty for any accidents.

As for non mmebers at CAP acitivties....we have them all the time.  Parents visit their kids at encampment, accompany them to air shows.  I have brought my kids with me to meetings and other training acitivites.

I would not bring them to a mission...but as I said it depends of the acitivity.

[Rotorhead]

Actually, I don't really see a problem with that. It doesn't violate any reg I can think of.

How about "You have to be a member to participate in CAP activities?"

Big no.

That parent's attention needs to be 100% on the cadets he is there to supervise, yet it will be divided 1/2 on the cadets, 1/2 or more on the kid.

The kid certainly should not be participating with the cadets in any thing they do, he's not a member, so that means parent #2 has to keep the kid occupied, fed, sleeping, potty-ed, happy, etc.  That's where his focus will be.

There's also the issue of CAP accepting responsibility for a non-member over which it has no authority.

I'll buy this.

It's a matter of common sense, too.

And if some cadet gets hurt and it is found that one of the Senior members responsible for supervising them was distracted watching their child...hoo boy.

[Stonewall]

I guess it may just be me.  I'm just not one of those senior members that likes to mix non-CAP with CAP.  Not in the sense of non-CAP "operators", like civilian SAR groups, but family types.  As far as CP, I'm not a fan of parents joining CAP to be with their kids.  I'm just not a "squadron mom" type.  And that's the situation we're talking about here.

[frustration]
Unfortunately FLWG requires female seniors to be at overnight activities where female cadets are present (not the same as 52-10).  So this is where we're at.  I guess there is a female senior or two from another squadron who is willing to come out but as it was explained to me..."as long as they get to bring their kiddies, they'll come".  [/frustration]

[Eclipse]

Including non-CAP members isn't something that's even on my planning radar.  I know its more common in the BSA/GSA, etc., but those organizations tend to be more social / family orientated by nature.

It might be nice if a few of those female members stepped up and made arrangements for kid #2 so that kid #1 can do "his thing" without the background noise.

What we're seeing here is the oft-discussed "unintended consequences" of making up well-intentioned but unnecessary extra rules for the program.

[Ned]

FWIW, I've kicked this around in a slightly different context - encampment.

As an encampment commander, I noticed that some of our most respected tactical officers did foolish things like get married and have babies.  If that wasn't bad enough, sometimes they told me that with a young child or two at home that it was "bad form" for them to leave their spouse at home for a week with the kids just so they could help mentor other people's kids at encampment.

Just imagine.   

Since to run a proper CAWG encampment I needed to find something on the order of 23 tactical officers, it occurred to me that if I could score some "family friendly" housing on post, I could in essense run an informal Tactical Officer Day Care Center  staffed by spouses that would allow Tacs to participate during the duty day and stay married.

It never really worked out for a lot of reasons.  (Rule #1, never tell as USAF base commander that you were thinking of running an informal Day Care Center for your activity -- apparently the AF has a whole lot of rules for child care centers that fill several books and take 2-3 years to settle in advance.  Who knew?  )

But "dual-hatted" CAP folks who were also military members or retirees did get family quarters and bring their non-CAP spouses and kids on occasion.  This generally worked out well because - at least at encampment - it is pretty easy to keep the CAP and non-CAP folks separate until the review.

I still think we need to think of ways to make things like encampments and NCSAs more family friendly for our volunteers; but without compromising the training environment for the troops.

Ned Lee
Encampment Enthusiast

[Stonewall]

~but without compromising the training environment for the troops.

And see, that is my #1 concern.

[LtCol Hooligan]

Just a thought, but couldn't the guests be victims or something else?  We had a practice search where an 8 year old and 11 year old hid in the woods until the search team found them.  It was pretty successful cause the kids would move around or duck down and hide- a lot different than a dummy hiding in the woods.  Now keep in mind this was pretty controlled (a small wodded area that we had control over) and the observer had eyes and ears on the "victims" the entire time.  The mother of the victims was also a CAP member.  At any rate- it could be a way to be creative.

[Duke Dillio]

Why not try to get some of those parents in as sponsor members?  They can supervise and they don't have to wear the uniform...

[Rotorhead]

We had a practice search where an 8 year old and 11 year old hid in the woods until the search team found them.  It was pretty successful cause the kids would move around or duck down and hide-

Do a lot of your plane crash victims run around and hide from your ground teams?

[Stonewall]

We had a practice search where an 8 year old and 11 year old hid in the woods until the search team found them.  It was pretty successful cause the kids would move around or duck down and hide-

Do a lot of your plane crash victims run around and hide from your ground teams?

+1 Was thinking the same thing.

Once I was voluntold to be a victim for a SAREX with K9 teams and the only order I was given was "do not move around or make noise; you are unconscious and injured".  Talk about boring.

[SJFedor]

We had a practice search where an 8 year old and 11 year old hid in the woods until the search team found them.  It was pretty successful cause the kids would move around or duck down and hide-

Do a lot of your plane crash victims run around and hide from your ground teams?

+1 Was thinking the same thing.

Once I was voluntold to be a victim for a SAREX with K9 teams and the only order I was given was "do not move around or make noise; you are unconscious and injured".  Talk about boring.

I got voluntold for that once, too. I brought my iPod and a book.

[Stonewall]

We had a practice search where an 8 year old and 11 year old hid in the woods until the search team found them.  It was pretty successful cause the kids would move around or duck down and hide-

Do a lot of your plane crash victims run around and hide from your ground teams?

+1 Was thinking the same thing.

Once I was voluntold to be a victim for a SAREX with K9 teams and the only order I was given was "do not move around or make noise; you are unconscious and injured".  Talk about boring.

I got voluntold for that once, too. I brought my iPod and a book.

You young buck, my experience happened long before iPods...  Plus, back WIWAYS (I Was A Young Senior) we had restrictions on what we could bring to the field, and an iPod walkman was not authorized kit for our ground team....  Man, it was tough back in those days.

[tjaxe]

I guess it may just be me.  I'm just not one of those senior members that likes to mix non-CAP with CAP.  Not in the sense of non-CAP "operators", like civilian SAR groups, but family types.  As far as CP, I'm not a fan of parents joining CAP to be with their kids.  I'm just not a "squadron mom" type.  And that's the situation we're talking about here.

[frustration]
Unfortunately FLWG requires female seniors to be at overnight activities where female cadets are present (not the same as 52-10).  So this is where we're at.  I guess there is a female senior or two from another squadron who is willing to come out but as it was explained to me..."as long as they get to bring their kiddies, they'll come".  [/frustration]

We've talked about this in another thread somewhere... it is RIDICULOUS  for Wings to add rules such as this when National does not require it!!!!!  Please tell me that if female cadets want to go on an overnight but there's no female SM that the female cadets are not barred from going while the males can still go.  Please, PLEASE tell me that.

[Stonewall]

Please tell me that if female cadets want to go on an overnight but there's no female SM that the female cadets are not barred from going while the males can still go.  Please, PLEASE tell me that.

Sorry to say, but on Thursday I learned that a female cadet was not allowed to participate in an overnight bivouac in November because the female senior member who was supposed to be there called out sick.  The cadet in question, I think, is even over 18 and is a cadet officer.  She has been to Hawk Mountain and is highly motivated for ES.  She was very upset as she mentioned that she had her gear packed and was ready to go when she learned she couldn't participate.

I was told this wing policy came into affect following some incident in south Florida.  I don't have any personal knowledge of the situation that occured, but as discussed in that other thread, that if it's good enough for NHQ and the Air Force, why isn't it good enough for a wing?

I think this about sums it up:

What we're seeing here is the oft-discussed "unintended consequences" of making up well-intentioned but unnecessary extra rules for the program.

[tjaxe]

And as I said in the other thread, it's also downright discriminaiton.  The overnight should have been canceled.  In effect the cadet was barred BECAUSE she is female.  In my opinion National should be made aware of these rules and should somehow outlaw them.  It's outrageous!  If I were that cadet I would be so pissed off I would quit.  Rules such as this are irresponsible, plain and simple.

[Stonewall]

And as I said in the other thread, it's also downright discriminaiton.  The overnight should have been canceled.  In effect the cadet was barred BECAUSE she is female.  In my opinion National should be made aware of these rules and should somehow outlaw them.  It's outrageous!  If I were that cadet I would be so pissed off I would quit.  Rules such as this are irresponsible, plain and simple.

I concur, sister.  Trust me, I am making an effort to learn more about this policy and have an email to the Wing DCP asking if it is still valid. 

I wasn't aware of the situation back in November, and if I had been involved, I would have flown you in to have a female senior present.  Luckily, there's a former Spaatz cadet in Daytona going to school who has agreed to join us if necessary.  She's still a member and current in CPP; but she's from another wing.  Hopefully that won't be an issue.

[jimmydeanno]

We had a practice search where an 8 year old and 11 year old hid in the woods until the search team found them.  It was pretty successful cause the kids would move around or duck down and hide-

Do a lot of your plane crash victims run around and hide from your ground teams?

Talking to a local SAR group during the summer, this situation actually arises quite a bit.  Lost people apparently are afraid of wild animals, etc so they avoid "weird" noises.  Also, dehydration, stress, etc can make you dilusional.  

They told us that they have had numerous searches where their victim actively tried to avoid the rescuers.