New CAPR 52-16 Just Dropped

[NC Hokie]

So, a new edition of CAPR 52-16 has just been published.  I don't see anything truly earth-shaking in it, but there are a lot of suggestions (should, may) from previous editions that have now been changed to commands (will, shall, or must).

[LSThiker]

Well they finally banned energy drinks for cadets.  It is about time.  Glad they did this.  Now if we could only ban soda/pop as well.

[JeffDG]

Good lord...

You know, just changing a "should" to a "shall" does not regulatory language make...

Like this:

4-5. Cadet Flying. Surveys show that the desire to fly is the most common reason youth join CAP.
Units are responsible for coordinating their flying needs with the wing. Wings are responsible for
developing plans to maximize flying opportunities for cadets in every unit within the wing. Working with
their units, the wing will provide each cadet with a flight in CAP or military aircraft within 90 days of
joining, as budgets and mission tempo allow. Furthermore, wings will strive to provide each cadet with at
least one flight per year, if funds are available. See 8-8 and CAPP 52-7, Cadet Orientation Flight
Syllabus, for details. Regions and wings are authorized to issue a supplement to this paragraph.

OK, so now the 90 days to first ORide is mandatory...but it isn't, because "as budgets and mission tempo allow"

Changing the "should" to "will" had precisely zero impact on the regulation in this paragraph...there are lots of other examples like "will endeavour to...", not "will do".   

Or "All units must strive to be well-rounded and offer activities encompassing all three CAP missions"   Look at that one from an "inspection" point of view, shall we:

IG:  Are you offering activities encompassing all 3 CAP missions?
CC:  No, we don't do any ES right now
IG:  But the regulation says you must
CC:  No, the regulation says we must strive to, we are striving to do so, but other items are higher priority right now.  We will continue to strive towards that glorious future.

[Alaric]

Well they finally banned energy drinks for cadets.  It is about time.  Glad they did this.  Now if we could only ban soda/pop as well.

Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol.  Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.

[LSThiker]

Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol.  Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.

Engage in slippery slopes often?

[lordmonar]

No it does make a significant change.

Now wings must justify why they are not flying O-rides.  It makes it harder for wings OPS side to just ignore Cadet O-rides.

Sure....if there is no money or they really are flying a lot....cadets come second.  But now wings MUST plan for O-rides or justify why they can't fly them.

Changing should to must also make the line item an inspectable item on the SUI and units must plan for all the line items and justify (to the inspectors) why they cannot meet said line item.

Should include ES......means I don't have do it even if I can and it can't be used against me during the SUI.   MUST Stride to include ES means that I have to have a valid reason NOT to include ES.   Subtle but important difference.

[Alaric]

Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol.  Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.

Engage in slippery slopes often?

As I do regulatory compliance for a living, yes. 

[NC Hokie]

Well they finally banned energy drinks for cadets.  It is about time.  Glad they did this.  Now if we could only ban soda/pop as well.

Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol.  Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.

Alaric - Energy drinks are only banned at cadet activities, which is well within CAP's area of influence.

LSThiker - I'm pretty sure that you've always been free to ban soda/pop at any cadet activity that you're in charge of.

[JeffDG]

No it does make a significant change.

Now wings must justify why they are not flying O-rides.  It makes it harder for wings OPS side to just ignore Cadet O-rides.

Sure....if there is no money or they really are flying a lot....cadets come second.  But now wings MUST plan for O-rides or justify why they can't fly them.

Changing should to must also make the line item an inspectable item on the SUI and units must plan for all the line items and justify (to the inspectors) why they cannot meet said line item.

Should include ES......means I don't have do it even if I can and it can't be used against me during the SUI.   MUST Stride to include ES means that I have to have a valid reason NOT to include ES.   Subtle but important difference.

Nope...Ops Tempo can get you out of all of that.  Sorry, pilots were busy with other stuff, our ops tempo wouldn't support it.  Justification done.

Also, not justification needed for the ES thing.  "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."  There is no requirement in the regulation to achieve anything.

It's horrendous regulatory drafting.  If you were to ask me what they did, someone did a Ctrl-R and did a global search and replace for "should" and replaced it with "will" without bothering to look at the context.

[LSThiker]

As I do regulatory compliance for a living, yes.

If you recognize the fallacy in your argument, then I do not need to counter it. Have a good day

LSThiker - I'm pretty sure that you've always been free to ban soda/pop at any cadet activity that you're in charge of.

Oh I do.

[Alaric]

Yes because forbidding things always works, just like with drugs and alcohol.  Perhaps instead of writing "nanny" regulations we educate both parents and cadets and let them make informed decisions.

Engage in slippery slopes often?

As I do regulatory compliance for a living, yes.

So if CAP decides meat is unhealthy are we going to ban that? how about the ready made meals which are high in carb?  We going to start running nutritional guidelines for CAP events?  Have a unit nutritionist?  As usual CAP has overreached into decision making that is best left to parents.

[NC Hokie]

"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."

Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one.  Here's how that conversation would most likely go...

CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right.  Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "..."
Inspector: "I'll mark that as failure to comply. I'm sure that you'll have another opportunity to answer the question later."

[lordmonar]

Same story with "OPS TEMPO".

Sure we may be busy some time and may break the 90 day window....but it gives the wing CP guy the power to sit in the OPS meetings and point out HIS flying requirements for the year/quarter/month.

[JeffDG]

"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."

Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one.  Here's how that conversation would most likely go...

CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right.  Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"

Easy fix

[JeffDG]

Same story with "OPS TEMPO".

Sure we may be busy some time and may break the 90 day window....but it gives the wing CP guy the power to sit in the OPS meetings and point out HIS flying requirements for the year/quarter/month.

Yep, but since the 90 day rule is regulatorily subordinate to the OPS TEMPO, he has no standing to demand anything.

[NC Hokie]

It's horrendous regulatory drafting.  If you were to ask me what they did, someone did a Ctrl-R and did a global search and replace for "should" and replaced it with "will" without bothering to look at the context.

FWIW, I completely agree with what you're saying here, but it's pretty clear what the intent of the changes is.  Rules lawyering might win a battle here and there, but it won't win you many friends, and it certainly won't win any wars.

[NC Hokie]

"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."

Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one.  Here's how that conversation would most likely go...

CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right.  Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"

Easy fix

So say that first and leave out the silly rules lawyering bit.  Your original statement reeks of, "I haven't done it and you can't make me."

Or maybe that's just me missing out on the nuances of internet communication.

[JeffDG]

"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."

Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one.  Here's how that conversation would most likely go...

CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right.  Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"

Easy fix

So say that first and leave out the silly rules lawyering bit.  Your original statement reeks of, "I haven't done it and you can't make me."

Or maybe that's just me missing out on the nuances of internet communication.

The way the regulation reads, the commander involved is entirely justified in saying "I haven't done it, and you can't make me so long as I have a plan to do it someday".

As I said, the regulation is written very badly if they want to achieve an actual mandate.  Global-search-and-replace is insufficient to change shoulds to musts.

[lordmonar]

"I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."

Sorry, gotta go with lordmonar on this one.  Here's how that conversation would most likely go...

CP Staffer: "I'm striving to include, and that's all the regulation requires of me."
Inspector: "You're right.  Just to be clear, how, exactly, are you striving to include ES into your cadet activity schedule?"
CP Staffer: "Here it is in my plan of action for next year"
Inspector: "OK"

Easy fix

And that's the point. 

[lordmonar]

Same story with "OPS TEMPO".

Sure we may be busy some time and may break the 90 day window....but it gives the wing CP guy the power to sit in the OPS meetings and point out HIS flying requirements for the year/quarter/month.

Yep, but since the 90 day rule is regulatorily subordinate to the OPS TEMPO, he has no standing to demand anything.

No...because the WING will also be graded on how well they are meeting the 90-day rule and as we know from Safety Compliance wings don't like like to tell higher headquarters that they are not doing something.

Point being...with virtually NO wings meeting the 200 hour goal for aircraft.......OPS tempo may be an excuse for "this month" but not the whole year.

The part that is going to be a pain is now cadet squadrons will have to much more proactive in getting this done in stead of waiting for the next O-flight day.   Which I think is a good thing.