Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 18, 2018, 06:02:30 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 11 
 on: Yesterday at 11:47:38 AM 
Started by NIN - Last post by Pace
No new commentary in several pages. There's a minimum uniform (blues or aviator). You have to wear an appropriate uniform or civilian equivalent to any event you attend. Not everyone goes to events that require the minimum uniform to be worn. I think that sums this up.


We're done here. *lock*

 12 
 on: Yesterday at 11:25:57 AM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by Pace
1. For those that haven't clicked on it; don't (unless you know this is a permission you have in eservices related to your staff or command role).


2. Once it logs you out, type in the regular url (capnhq.gov) and re-enter your log-in info. It will let you back in.


3. Don't click that link again.


4. If you do, repeat step 2.


God speed!

 13 
 on: Yesterday at 10:48:37 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by NIN
Actually, it's about time. There is no reason for all of the home-grown rules that used to be so common. Follow the program as it exists, or jump through lots of hoops to make your own rules.

Sounds good to me.

Or, whats more likely to happen is that people will just do "undocumented things" for their local procedures instead of jumping thru hoops.  They'll rely on the easier "tribal knowledge" rather than the hoops of doing it right.

Example (one that I'm dealing with right now): You have a "Local" award of some sort, specific to your wing, perhaps its a memorial award or something like that. Nobody ever really bothered to document the criteria for the award, what the award represents, who its for, how its awarded, the award elements, etc, in a supplement. So now, you're 10-11 years down the road from the first time the thing was awarded, and nobody is around who can remember the original award, its intent, etc.   Just a bunch of names on a plaque in wing HQ.  And a supplement to 39-3 has to be approved all the way to the top.  Are wings ikely to go thru the trouble? Doubtful.  Instead, people will just rely on the email sent out last year, or the year before, or the year before that.

Another great example is a supplement to the Uniform Manual. Some wings have made wing patches optional or non-mandatory (the 2014 39-1 makes it a little less clear than prior editions as to how thats made "optional" or "non-mandatory".. still digging...), or they've authorized baseball caps for wear by aircrews or something.  But its not documented anywhere, so nobody *quite* knows the *real* answer. 

My wing has an aircrew baseball cap. OK, cool, nice looking hat. Really excellent.  In researching what kind of hat, what the logo looks like, what the hat says, etc, I can't find anything.  Finally, someone says "Oh that was sent out in an email." OK, great. An email that was sent a year before I came back into CAP from being retired?  How the heck can I hold that up as any kind of "authority" when the nice man from another region here for my Wing CI asks where the authorization for that nifty head gear is.  I can't.  When fully half of our membership wasn't a member when the original email was sent out, and nobody can lay their hands on the original email, we're just asking for people to kind of march off and do whatever they want.

The pendulum has swung pretty hard in the opposite direction, and I know that folks are deliberately not documenting things so they don't have to go thru the hassle of bucking a supplement or OI up the chain.




 14 
 on: Yesterday at 10:17:28 AM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by chuckmilam
Same here.  I was about to submit a ticket, but judging from this post, it appears to be a system-wide thing.

 15 
 on: Yesterday at 10:15:01 AM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by Paul Creed III
Same for me too.

I poked around but was unable to find any thing to actually approve.

 16 
 on: Yesterday at 10:03:22 AM 
Started by PhoenixRisen - Last post by Brit_in_CAP
Now I'll absolutely agree with you there.

I find the MoH videos put the session more into a "review of the video" and less a discussion. But I've seen the converse where you get some Chaplains/CDIs that do so much talking and never let it flow into a dialogue; it's a one-way lecture.

Right, and we agree on both points; there was once a young(ish) CDI that did that...   ;)....and then he realized, in about session 4, that is was waaay more fun and of far more value to his cadets to do what was actually required..... ;D

...at which point his OJT supervisor decided there was some hope for him....!

Where do they keep the bronze bust of you?  :P

 ;D ;D.....


 17 
 on: Yesterday at 09:47:30 AM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by Toad1168
That just happened to me this morning as well.

 18 
 on: Yesterday at 09:42:49 AM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by darkmatter
so I have a weird issue I have never had before. the issue is when I log into eservices it says I have a specialty track approval. 1) I didint know I had this power (authority) to approve these types if things. 2) every time I try and click on it to view it kicks me back to the log in screen of eservices and I cant log back in. any advice on what it possible going on and how I can fix it

 19 
 on: Yesterday at 08:43:21 AM 
Started by cobra6987 - Last post by EMT-83
Actually, it's about time. There is no reason for all of the home-grown rules that used to be so common. Follow the program as it exists, or jump through lots of hoops to make your own rules.

Sounds good to me.

 20 
 on: Yesterday at 06:30:30 AM 
Started by NIN - Last post by Nick
Whatís even more concerning is the three pages of blatant attitude that itís acceptable to disregard a minimum standard, established for all members, that they agreed to when they signed their membership application.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.179 seconds with 13 queries.