CPPT 52-10 "Transportation"

[FloridaCaptain]

I am just going to put it out there for those in charge that this line in the new regulation is causing harm to countless cadets.  Many cadets are too young to drive.  Many cadets want to participate in CAP, but lack the transportation to do so.  I can understand CAP telling us what to do in corporate vehicles, but the 2 deep rule should not apply when all you are trying to do is get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity.  You keep adding things like this, and then CAP looks at its cadet numbers dropping and says "gee I wonder why this is?").  Makes me wonder if CAP even wants the cadet program anymore.  I am so glad it wasn't this way when I was a cadet. 

Thank you, I am done. 

g. Transportation.
If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family
members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader
driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet)
.
Note that
ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-
owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5,
Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

[Alaric]

I am just going to put it out there for those in charge that this line in the new regulation is causing harm to countless cadets.  Many cadets are too young to drive.  Many cadets want to participate in CAP, but lack the transportation to do so.  I can understand CAP telling us what to do in corporate vehicles, but the 2 deep rule should not apply when all you are trying to do is get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity.  You keep adding things like this, and then CAP looks at its cadet numbers dropping and says "gee I wonder why this is?").  Makes me wonder if CAP even wants the cadet program anymore.  I am so glad it wasn't this way when I was a cadet. 

Thank you, I am done. 

g. Transportation.
If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family
members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader
driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet)
.
Note that
ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-
owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5,
Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

Welcome to the Nanny State, where regulations don't need to make sense, just burden the membership.  (and of course CYA the organization)

[Eclipse]

I am just going to put it out there for those in charge that this line in the new regulation is causing harm to countless cadets.

I think you are confusing the word "harm" with the word "protecting".

"Disadvantaged" are some of the most at-risk in our organization, for the very reason that they may not have the attentive
adults in their lives to pay attention and recognize an issue, and grooming them can be easier.

Cadet numbers are not dropping because of the 2-up driving rule.

Seriously, the CP has plenty of challenges, some outside CAP's control, but this isn't one of them.

[dwb]

The "party of 3+" rule for transportation is certainly one of the most significant changes in the new CPP, and it will not be without its difficulties to implement. I also agree that CAP (like many things) has become more expensive, and we certainly don't want to make the program inaccessible to people who would benefit from it but can't afford it.

There are options for working within the letter of the regulation. A senior member parent who has a cadet child can pick up the one cadet who doesn't have a ride (thus the party will number three, except while it's just parent/child but that's okay). Two senior members can carpool and pick up the one cadet. The cadet can arrange transportation to another cadet's house and ride to the meeting with that family. There won't always be options, but oftentimes there will be if you just think about the logistics in advance.

Furthermore, the new policy has been in effect since April 18th of this year. I think it's a little premature to say CAP is "causing harm to countless cadets". Let's wait and see what the retention numbers do in the next 3-4 years before rushing to judgment.

Here's what I wrote about the new policy for my Wing:

When the original CPP was released in the late 1980s, CAP was lauded for being proactive in how it protected youth from physical and sexual abuse. Requiring adult members to be fingerprinted and undergo an FBI background check was an innovation at the time. CAP is also aware of its unique vulnerability to hazing given the cadet program's military leadership model, and has long used the Department of Defense (DoD) definition of hazing and adopted DoD's no tolerance stance on it.

In revising the policy now, CAP can leverage 25 years of academic research on youth abuse. This research has led CAP to make its policy more focused on prevention of abuse by prohibiting the types of "grooming" behaviors that lead most often to sexual abuse and by setting more rigorous standards of practice to protect all cadets from abuse. It also encourages positive leadership on the part of our cadet cadre and adult leaders, which can lead to less abuse as well.

http://www.govirginiawingcap.com/overview-of-the-new-cadet-protection-policy/

I think that second paragraph says it all. Although it might be very inconvenient to get a third person in the car, and it may prevent the occasional cadet from attending a meeting or activity, it also eliminates a whole category of potential places where one-on-one unduly familiar contact can occur.

[coudano]

the 2 deep rule should not apply when all you are trying to do is get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity. 

When you are trying to get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity is *EXACTLY* when the rule of three should apply.
A predatory adult would likely single out that disadvantaged cadet for grooming,
and transportation to and from a meeting is an opportune time to do that.

[Alaric]

The "party of 3+" rule for transportation is certainly one of the most significant changes in the new CPP, and it will not be without its difficulties to implement. I also agree that CAP (like many things) has become more expensive, and we certainly don't want to make the program inaccessible to people who would benefit from it but can't afford it.

There are options for working within the letter of the regulation. A senior member parent who has a cadet child can pick up the one cadet who doesn't have a ride (thus the party will number three, except while it's just parent/child but that's okay). Two senior members can carpool and pick up the one cadet. The cadet can arrange transportation to another cadet's house and ride to the meeting with that family. There won't always be options, but oftentimes there will be if you just think about the logistics in advance.

Furthermore, the new policy has been in effect since April 18th of this year. I think it's a little premature to say CAP is "causing harm to countless cadets". Let's wait and see what the retention numbers do in the next 3-4 years before rushing to judgment.

Here's what I wrote about the new policy for my Wing:

When the original CPP was released in the late 1980s, CAP was lauded for being proactive in how it protected youth from physical and sexual abuse. Requiring adult members to be fingerprinted and undergo an FBI background check was an innovation at the time. CAP is also aware of its unique vulnerability to hazing given the cadet program's military leadership model, and has long used the Department of Defense (DoD) definition of hazing and adopted DoD's no tolerance stance on it.

In revising the policy now, CAP can leverage 25 years of academic research on youth abuse. This research has led CAP to make its policy more focused on prevention of abuse by prohibiting the types of "grooming" behaviors that lead most often to sexual abuse and by setting more rigorous standards of practice to protect all cadets from abuse. It also encourages positive leadership on the part of our cadet cadre and adult leaders, which can lead to less abuse as well.

http://www.govirginiawingcap.com/overview-of-the-new-cadet-protection-policy/

I think that second paragraph says it all. Although it might be very inconvenient to get a third person in the car, and it may prevent the occasional cadet from attending a meeting or activity, it also eliminates a whole category of potential places where one-on-one unduly familiar contact can occur.

Not inconvenient, unnecessary, and often more costly both in time and money.  But as long as the organization is protected, that's what counts.   

[lordmonar]

What counts is protecting the cadets

[Alaric]

What counts is protecting the cadets

Yes since we are all predators

[lordmonar]

I know I'm not
But I can't guarantee that you aren't
And that's the point
 

[Alaric]

I know I'm not
But I can't guarantee that you aren't
And that's the point

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.  Or just make getting to events their parents problem

[Eclipse]

You know, it only applies to members.

If some non-member wants to drive some other parent's kids, CAP is out of it.

That was easy.

[coudano]

Or just make getting to events their parents problem

Actually it is, the parents problem.

[dwb]

Yes since we are all predators

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.

I understand your frustration. I honestly do. But you're not doing your argument any favors with statements like these.

The rule is in place to protect everyone -- to remove a scenario where grooming or other inappropriate actions can occur, to protect senior members from false allegations or bad appearances, to assure parents that CAP is taking seriously its responsibility to watch over their children, and yes, to protect the organization itself.

It's also not an unprecedented rule in youth-serving organizations. It just happens to be different from what you're used to. Culture change is hard, and make no mistake, the new CPP is as much a culture change as the original one was 25 years ago. And not everybody is going to be on board with this change, and some people will probably leave. If that's you, well, I don't think it's a good reason to quit CAP, but I'm not going to compel people to stay.

[Alaric]

Yes since we are all predators

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.

I understand your frustration. I honestly do. But you're not doing your argument any favors with statements like these.

The rule is in place to protect everyone -- to remove a scenario where grooming or other inappropriate actions can occur, to protect senior members from false allegations or bad appearances, to assure parents that CAP is taking seriously its responsibility to watch over their children, and yes, to protect the organization itself.

It's also not an unprecedented rule in youth-serving organizations. It just happens to be different from what you're used to. Culture change is hard, and make no mistake, the new CPP is as much a culture change as the original one was 25 years ago. And not everybody is going to be on board with this change, and some people will probably leave. If that's you, well, I don't think it's a good reason to quit CAP, but I'm not going to compel people to stay.

I have no intention of leaving CAP I just will never work with cadets if it can be avoided

[Eclipse]

I have no intention of leaving CAP I just will never work with cadets if it can be avoided

Nothing wrong with that.

[MajorM]

What frustrates me is that the rule is the easiest, "lowest-fruit" solution.  It does impact units, particularly rural ones.  I have units where cadets travel 45-60 minutes one way.

There are mitigation strategies and risk management tools between "just do it" and "forbidden".  When there is an identified risk you can create a strategy with all of the involved stakeholders to address it. 

Though I also realize that with the wide variety of competencies and skillsets, what one commander may be able to manage, another cannot.

[Alaric]

Yes since we are all predators

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.

I understand your frustration. I honestly do. But you're not doing your argument any favors with statements like these.

The rule is in place to protect everyone -- to remove a scenario where grooming or other inappropriate actions can occur, to protect senior members from false allegations or bad appearances, to assure parents that CAP is taking seriously its responsibility to watch over their children, and yes, to protect the organization itself.

It's also not an unprecedented rule in youth-serving organizations. It just happens to be different from what you're used to. Culture change is hard, and make no mistake, the new CPP is as much a culture change as the original one was 25 years ago. And not everybody is going to be on board with this change, and some people will probably leave. If that's you, well, I don't think it's a good reason to quit CAP, but I'm not going to compel people to stay.

I think the presumption that we are predators is offensive, and if that is the major worry, then do away with the cadet program and we wont need to worry about it.  If parents don't have the time or resources to drop off their kids then sorry, they cant participate.

[Cadetter]

(Was going to edit this out but I guess I'll leave it, was disrespectful to put up in the way I meant it) What about when cadets don't have parents?

[Alaric]

What about when cadets don't have parents?

Not my problem

[Eclipse]

What about when cadets don't have parents?

They have legal guardians, in some cases, it's the state, but there is always someone
responsible for them.

The sad fact of life, especially today, is that not everyone can do everything, everyone
has limitations, and at some point you simply have to say "we can't help you".

CAP is not a rec center, a boot camp, or a foster program.  In comparison to similar youth programs,
it has fairly high expectations of participation, academics, and cost.  That's just the fact.

If anything, the distances needed to travel are indicative of the program shrinkage - in
years passed there were units all over the place in relative proximity to just about
anyone interested, just like the BSA.   There's a good place to start - seeding units,
but in the current paradigm, where units are placed on the whim of the
sitting commander, or are dependent on donated facilities, there's not much anyone
can do about "getting there" other then to say "you must".

[Cadetter]

Please see my edit

[a2capt]

If we've got a cadet living on their own accord, I'm going to figure that CAP attendance is not going to be that high on their worry list. OTOH, it may just be one of the better avenues for them to get help. But...

Otherwise, you're either under guardianship or emancipation.

[lordmonar]

I think the presumption that we are predators is offensive, and if that is the major worry, then do away with the cadet program and we wont need to worry about it.  If parents don't have the time or resources to drop off their kids then sorry, they cant participate.

When a Cop pulls you over for speeding....he is armed and wearing body armor and he has called in "I'm getting out of my car" not because he presumes that you are a looking to kill a cop.    But he is going to err on the side of caution.

You don't have to play.  No one is asking you to.   Take the basic level CPP training and then go away.   I don't ask people who are scared flying to be air crew I certainly wont ask someone who is scared of cadets to do CP.

As for "you can't get here you can't participate"  well that's a sort of given.   

Listen it sucks....it really does.   But that's life.  No one said it was fair.   

[Brit_in_CAP]

I have no intention of leaving CAP I just will never work with cadets if it can be avoided

Nothing wrong with that.

+1...entirely fair call to make.

[Brit_in_CAP]

What about when cadets don't have parents?

They have legal guardians, in some cases, it's the state, but there is always someone
responsible for them.

The sad fact of life, especially today, is that not everyone can do everything, everyone
has limitations, and at some point you simply have to say "we can't help you".

CAP is not a rec center, a boot camp, or a foster program.  In comparison to similar youth programs,
it has fairly high expectations of participation, academics, and cost.  That's just the fact.

If anything, the distances needed to travel are indicative of the program shrinkage - in
years passed there were units all over the place in relative proximity to just about
anyone interested, just like the BSA.   There's a good place to start - seeding units,
but in the current paradigm, where units are placed on the whim of the
sitting commander, or are dependent on donated facilities, there's not much anyone
can do about "getting there" other then to say "you must".

+1, especially the point about that not everyone can do everything, everyone
has limitations, and at some point you simply have to say "we can't help you".

We go so far and no further.  I agree with you that we have high expectations of our cadets and adults, especially in terms of cost; I don't like that, to be honest, and we can mitigate it to some extent but my talk to prospective parents always has the same basic points: this is what we are, who we are and what we do.  If this works for you and your child, please complete an application.  If you do join, please commit to giving us the time we ask of you.  If this doesn't meet your needs, then thanks for visiting and have a pleasant evening. 

[Brit_in_CAP]

I think the presumption that we are predators is offensive, and if that is the major worry, then do away with the cadet program and we wont need to worry about it.  If parents don't have the time or resources to drop off their kids then sorry, they cant participate.

You don't have to play.  No one is asking you to.   Take the basic level CPP training and then go away.   I don't ask people who are scared flying to be air crew I certainly wont ask someone who is scared of cadets to do CP.

As for "you can't get here you can't participate"  well that's a sort of given.   

Listen it sucks....it really does.   But that's life.  No one said it was fair.   

Check, Check and Check!

People have to remember that they choose to join, they must adapt to the organization...not the other way around.

[FloridaCaptain]

Well the only honest member here is the one talking about getting rid of cadets. Through these types of regulations CAP is making it impossible for cadets to get anything out of their membership. I am sure the cadet whom I had to say "no" to, will speak with his wallet when it comes time for renewal. CAP clearly doesn't want cadets, so I agree..get rid of it and have your pilots club.  geniuses!

[Eclipse]

^ Wow,  100% a load of steaming nonsense.

[Garibaldi]

By all means, let's disband the cadet corps because it's just "too easy for us predators" to take advantage of. 

There are senior squadrons out there. If you don't want to deal with cadets, fine. Join one of them, and you will never have to lay eyes on one in your entire career, let alone have one jeopardize your livelihood with false accusations.

CAP is clearly not cadet friendly. We don't allow cadets to fly airplanes, we don't let them lead, we don't let them do anything, and they clearly are a drain on the budget that can go to other things like new planes to replace our dilapidated fleet and the 2010-era vans. Teenagers are clearly not what we are looking for, we need more adults!

GET RID OF THE THIRD PART OF OUR MISSION SO THAT THE TRIANGLE THINGY BECOMES A TWO-BLADED PROP THINGY!

I personally loathe cadets and really hate to see them grow and prosper into responsible adults who go to college, or join the military to further the agenda of The Man. To see them wearing the uniform of our proud ADULT servicemen and women...makes my stomach turn. I'd rather see a bunch of long-haired, tattooed, smoking, drug dealing high school dropout skateboarders. They truly are the epitome of what a teen should be.

And if you believe that, you clearly have no grasp of sarcasm.

[FloridaCaptain]

Garibaldi, you are exactly right, thank you for seeing the issue. The only nonsense I have seen is this new CPPT.

[Panzerbjorn]

I think people are forgetting that the 3+ party protection works in both directions.  People are taking offense and are feeling like they are being looked at as predators.  There have been plenty of instances out there in the news where children are making false accusations and ruining the lives and reputations of the accused.  Typically those scenarios are one-on-one situations.  I choose to believe that regs like that are there to protect me as much as the cadet.

[Eclipse]

^ Exactly.

Last week my wife was at an overnight benefit activity where a bunch of Scouts were participating.

One mom, who appears to have a somewhat "dramatic" personal life, slowed down enough for him to jump out dropped off her son
and he was so new to the troop there was some real concern he might not even be an official member yet.

She certainly had no idea who she was leaving her kid with, and it appears he was "unclear" on why he was there,
and not all that excited about being involved.  Comments he made indicate he may well be left to his own devices
on a regular basis.  He had some non-trivial behavioral issues that may or may not preclude his long-term involvement,
and getting ahold of mom when the activity wrapped up early (i.e. 5am) was difficult as apparently she had been "out".

That's a situation that is bad from every angle and the adults need to protect themselves as much as the kid needs protection.
Everyone involved that night should have been in theoretical bubble wrap.

More to the direct point, I have been privy-to or directly involved in a number of situations where false complaints were
filed maliciously and had everyone been following the simple, clear rules, there would have been no opportunity for
even an allegation.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

This is an important question, and should be clearly and definitively answered so that we all operate with integrity and consistency across all units. 

I did some research within CAP regulations, CAP Knowledge Base and CAP published white papers, and here's where am arriving:

CAPR 52-10, 18 APR 2014, paragraph 2-3(g) states: (Emphasis mine)

Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

My understanding is that the last sentence, in the above section, is saying: if your are in a POV, transporting cadet(s) to and from Civil Air Patrol activities, then the CAPR 52-10 regulation does not apply, and therefore no requirements for the number of people in the POV.


CAPR 77-1, 13 MAR 2013: paragraph 1-8(b) states:  (Emphasis mine)

Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP members and their passengers. CAP assumes no right of control, liability or responsibility for such transportation. Unit commanders must approve, in writing, justification for use of a POV as official CAP transportation, when adequate COVs are not available for such purposes. Approval is limited to unusual circumstances where lack of transportation or capability for CAP members adversely impacts important activities. Prior to granting such permission, the member must produce evidence of insurance coverage, state inspection (if required) and registration. Written approval for use of a POV will be maintained on file in accordance with CAPR 10-2, Files Maintenance and Records Disposition.

While the above is chiefly referencing insurance and liability of property, it reinforces the general tone across all Civil Air Patrol regulations that travel to and from Civil Air Patrol event in POVs is not under Civil Air Patrol control or supervision unless a unit commander directly authorizes it, which would then lead me to believe, with my admittedly limited experience in the field, that would make a POV into a TUV (Temporary use vehicle).

I believe this reinforces my current understanding/reading of CAPR 52-10, in that the Civil Air Patrol assumes no right of control, liability or responsibility.  I therefore conclude this to mean that the Civil Air Patrol is stating (bluntly) it has no interest or involvement in controlling, managing or monitoring travel to and from Civil Air Patrol events in POVs.


Then there's the entry on the CAP Knowledgebase that talks about travel and the updated CAPR 52-10:
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/922/~/cadets-or-parents-driving-other-cadets-to-cap-meetings-and-activities
(note: there is an error on the reference to CAPR 52-10, paragraph 9-5. "Transportation Policies." on the CAP Knowledgebase, likely just a reference to an older version of CAPR 52-10, feedback already submitted to CAP Knowledgebase team.)


With this research, I am left with the understanding that when I am traveling in my POV, to or from a Civil Air Patrol event, I can, at my sole discretion, provide transportation to others, regardless of their membership in the Civil Air Patrol, without fulfilling the 3 person rule in CAPR 52-16.

With that said, anytime a cadet gets into my POV, I had already had a very blunt conversion with the the cadet's parent(s) and/or guardian(s), in advance and with enough time for them to make other arrangements, making it very clear that in these cases (travel to and from events), I am not acting as, nor representing the Civil Air Patrol and they should NOT consider my membership in the Civil Air Patrol as a trust factor when deciding to entrust me with the safety and well being of their child.  I really look to see if the parent is fully getting that point as it's easy for a parent who is overwhelmed or distracted from fully being present to the gravity of that conversation; for themselves, their child and myself. 

I would also selectivity decline a request to transport a single cadet in cases where I have concerns about the maturity and/or historical behaviors (of either the cadet or parent.)  While I currently believe the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Protection Policy 3 person rule in CAPR 52-16 does not apply in these limited cases (POV to and from events), my reputation within the unit, and with our customers (the parents), always applies and is my full-time, privileged responsibility regardless if there's a Civil Air Patrol regulation in effect or not.

I welcome comments, advise, counter-points and corrections as I am only interested in the successfully application of the new Civil Air Patrol Cadet Protection Policy while maximizing the number of cadets that we can support.

-r

[SamFranklin]

Robb asks a good question. The "own risk" thing is tricky and/or poorly explained, so I did some digging of my own. Apparently the new "CPPT" (or whatever they call it now) is available in draft form on the Proving Grounds.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Cadet_Protection_Basic__slides_09E39B8D2C1A7.pdf

The draft training explicitly says thou shall not break the rule of three in driving. So, that "own risk" section Robb quoted must mean:  "Must follow the rule of three, and by the way, travel to and from CAP is at your risk, under your insurance, not CAP's insurance."


-sf

[Eclipse]

The "new CPPT is not in "draft form" it in full effect as of April 2014.

52-10 (page 6) is explicit and clear in this regard, and just like the 2nd amendment, you can's split the paragraph to suit your interpretation.

g. Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family
members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader
driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that
ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered
part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air
Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

The paragraph makes no separation of the to/from as having to be "official" and only denotes
that to/from "isn't" official to insure members understand that CAP NHQ isn't going to cover them when they
rear end someone on the way to a meeting.

There is no option or wiggle room here, by design. An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

Robb asks a good question. The "own risk" thing is tricky and/or poorly explained, so I did some digging of my own. Apparently the new "CPPT" (or whatever they call it now) is available in draft form on the Proving Grounds.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Cadet_Protection_Basic__slides_09E39B8D2C1A7.pdf

The draft training explicitly says thou shall not break the rule of three in driving. So, that "own risk" section Robb quoted must mean:  "Must follow the rule of three, and by the way, travel to and from CAP is at your risk, under your insurance, not CAP's insurance."


-sf

Sam: Good find -- That presentation didn't come up in my research, but I just reviewed it and wonder if it's in draft because the relevant regulations; CAPR 52-10, CAPR 77-1, possible other, are not yet updated to be consistent with it's example of the Mom giving permission to a SM that lives nearby.   Or, and I don't know either way, it's because the presentation itself it over reaching. 

I fully agree with CAP using and applying all the best practices other youth organizations are using, as well as using experts and science based studies to craft our regulations, and ultimately our culture, but just like with ORM, balance is the key and is what I expect and trust will be used when all the i's are dotted and t's crossed.

Which pulls me back to my first reply on this post: 

This is an important question, and should be clearly and definitively answered so that we all operate with integrity and consistency across all units.

I am going to put this to National HQ and ask for guidance, because I don't like un-dotted i's, which are really just t's with the cross missing... (think about it)   

-r

[SamFranklin]

The "new CPPT is not in "draft form" it in full effect as of April 2014.

Yes, the policy and its regulation, CAPR 52-10, are in full effect. The new version of CPPT, the *training* is in draft form. I think you mixed up your abbreviations.  CPP = policy, CPPT = policy training.

[NC Hokie]

Which pulls me back to my first reply on this post: 

This is an important question, and should be clearly and definitively answered so that we all operate with integrity and consistency across all units.

I am going to put this to National HQ and ask for guidance, because I don't like un-dotted i's, which are really just t's with the cross missing... (think about it)   

Please do, and share the answer with the rest of us.  I think Eclipse got it right, but independent, semi-authoritative confirmation won't hurt.



IMHO, NHQ caused confusion and delay (thanks, Sir Topham Hatt) by including that reference to CAPR 900-5, as a reminder that CAP won't pay for any bent metal and boo boos in a POV accident isn't really relevant to the topic in question.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

The "new CPPT is not in "draft form" it in full effect as of April 2014.

52-10 (page 6) is explicit and clear in this regard, and just like the 2nd amendment, you can's split the paragraph to suit your interpretation.

g. Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family
members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader
driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that
ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered
part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member’s risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air
Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

The paragraph makes no separation of the to/from as having to be "official" and only denotes
that to/from "isn't" official to insure members understand that CAP NHQ isn't going to cover them when they
rear end someone on the way to a meeting.

There is no option or wiggle room here, by design. An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself.

Eclipse,

It's not my intention to create any unclarity, in fact, I am taking a stand for clarity by doing this research and posting here, and as noted by my reply to Sam saying that I was going to put this to National HQ for guidance.

While I get your your view that I may have 'split the paragraph to suit' I actually tried to do the opposite by reading all the CAP regulations, CAP Knowledge Base and CAP published white papers that I could find to review.   It's from the collections of those that I came to my current conclusion. The consistent guidance and tone across all those regulations is that the Civil Air Patrol has no interest or involvement in controlling, managing or monitoring travel to and from Civil Air Patrol events in POVs.   

I think that it's important to say at this point that I don't have a dog in this race.  I am looking for guidance, not a specific result.  And I expect that guidance to be clear and consistent.   My guess is that it's currently not clear because this isn't a simple topic, balancing cadet protection with cadet access with parent requests, etc.

In previous draft versions, I recall the "Coffee house" rule, which if that was still in the current CAPR 52-10, I thnk I would be leaning to your conclusion:

An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself.

But absent more guidance from National, I'm left with my current operating understanding, as stated in my original reply to this post.

I'm more than open to debate here (respectfully) both sides, but I doubt that this will be settled for me without either National HQ weighting in, someone in my chain of command providing direct guidance, or an update to CAPR 52-10 or CAPR 77-1 that counters my conclusions from my read of:

CAPR 77-1, 13 MAR 2013: paragraph 1-8(b):

Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP members and their passengers. CAP assumes no right of control, liability or responsibility for such transportation.

I can't help but read "CAP assumes no right of control" to mean that the Civil Air Patrol declines all involvement, including the ability or responsibility to regulate or monitor said transportation.

Thoughts?

-r

[NC Hokie]

There is no option or wiggle room here, by design. An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself.

Actually, a strict reading of the regulation is that an adult leader may not transport a non-family cadet without another CAP member being present.

So...

An adult leader and two unrelated prospective cadets is allowed, BUT;
An adult leader, a cadet, and the cadet's non-member sibling is not allowed, AND;
An adult leader, a cadet and a non-member adult (including the cadet's parents) is also not allowed.

Maybe I should stop pulling at that thread!

[lordmonar]

There is no option or wiggle room here, by design. An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself.

Actually, a strict reading of the regulation is that an adult leader may not transport a non-family cadet without another CAP member being present.

So...

An adult leader and two unrelated prospective cadets is allowed, BUT;
An adult leader, a cadet, and the cadet's non-member sibling is not allowed, AND;
An adult leader, a cadet and a non-member adult (including the cadet's parents) is also not allowed.

Maybe I should stop pulling at that thread!

No...the parenthetical is not directive in nature....simply examples....not necessarily complete.  The rule is "If an adult leader transport cadet other then his or her family members.....the party must number at least three."

You, the cadet and ONE OTHER.

Transport of non-members is not covered at all.....so you are free to transport them in any way you want.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

Maybe I should stop pulling at that thread!

I think that the fact there are so many 'treads' to pull on this matter highlights how much we need to get official (i.e.: NHQ) clarity.  It will then allow all of us to go back to other pressing topics; ABUs, saluting etiquette, etc.  <grin>

-r

[Eclipse]

There's nothing to "clarify".  It's spelled out literally verbatim what the expectation is.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

Hi Eclipse,

If you're intending not to continue to debate this topic with me, I acknowledge your point of view and thank you for your feedback and you don't have to reply to my follow-up question below.  Seriously, this isn't sarcasm.  I've been a lurker on CT for several years and regard your posts and comments here a some of the most compelling and contributive.

On the other hand, if you're up to continuing to debate this to help me see your point of view, awesome, I'm totally up for that, and that's why I originally weighted in on this post to begin with.  So, if your still up for it, here's my reply to your last post:

There's nothing to "clarify".  It's spelled out literally verbatim what the expectation is.

verbatim is:

Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member’s risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

So I suggest that while the first sentence is clear, as you point out, I feel the second sentence provides an exception to the first sentence by stating that POV travel is not covered by the first sentence.   

Could that have been written better? Of course.
Could I be wrong?  Of course.

But I don't see it as a simple as you're seeing it, especially when you consider the CAPR 77-1 paragraph 1-8(b), the comments from NHQ on the CAP Knowledge Base and what I believe is the underlying intent of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Protection Policy. 

Of course it would be 'safe' and 'easy' to just take it at "An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself." but that has real-world impacts on our programs, our members and ultimately our results.  How much of an impact, I can't say, but enough that I am willing to press-in for clarity from an official source.  And I'm guessing you are too.  After all, people like us join the Civil Air Patrol to make a difference, and I assert that the level of difference we make matters. So I'm looking for the balance.

Thoughts?

-r

[lordmonar]

So I suggest that while the first sentence is clear, as you point out, I feel the second sentence provides an exception to the first sentence by stating that POV travel is not covered by the first sentence.   

Could that have been written better? Of course.
Could I be wrong?  Of course.

But I don't see it as a simple as you're seeing it, especially when you consider the CAPR 77-1 paragraph 1-8(b), the comments from NHQ on the CAP Knowledge Base and what I believe is the underlying intent of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Protection Policy. 

Of course it would be 'safe' and 'easy' to just take it at "An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself." but that has real-world impacts on our programs, our members and ultimately our results.  How much of an impact, I can't say, but enough that I am willing to press-in for clarity from an official source.  And I'm guessing you are too.  After all, people like us join the Civil Air Patrol to make a difference, and I assert that the level of difference we make matters. So I'm looking for the balance.

Thoughts?

I don't see what you are seeing?

Are you suggesting that because CAP does not cover to and from travel insurance purposes.....it can't dictate member's conduct in relation to cadets during that time?

I read the quoted reg as saying........You will have a party of three......and we remind you that you are NOT covered by CAP insurance.  Which by understanding perfectly clear and allowable.

[Luis R. Ramos]

A long time ago I used to think that transportation via personally owned vehicle was exempt from CAP rules... This was ten years ago.

Now when I re-joined 2011 and reading responses from everyone here I read this regulation and sentences as Lord points out.

If you are using POV, you shall have three people on board. Yourself and either two cadets, or yourself, an SM and the cadet. You do so at your own risk, if you have an accident CAP insurance will not cover you.

The two are not related...

[Eclipse]

Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

So I suggest that while the first sentence is clear, as you point out, I feel the second sentence provides an exception to the first sentence by stating that POV travel is not covered by the first sentence.   

The reason it is there, actually, is to specifically insure members don't connect the two concepts by believing that
since CAP is asserting some authority over your actions as a member during a POV ride to/from, they are also
asserting some authority, and therefore liability for your actions as a driver. People, especially lawyers, would
definitely try and connect those.  Even as it is we still get people who try and submit damage claims when driving POVs
on missions and to get to meetings under that very idea.

So put simply.

CAP has no responsibility for you as a POV driver.

They have full authority over you as a member, and as such have directed 3-up anytime an adult member is in a car with
cadets who are not in his family.

[Salty]

I think people are forgetting that the 3+ party protection works in both directions.  People are taking offense and are feeling like they are being looked at as predators.  There have been plenty of instances out there in the news where children are making false accusations and ruining the lives and reputations of the accused.  Typically those scenarios are one-on-one situations.  I choose to believe that regs like that are there to protect me as much as the cadet.

I've read the current threads on this topic since I've been back on CT and I've gone back and forth on whether or not I think the new rules are overly restrictive.  After reading the regulations and pamphlets in question I have the same take as Panzer.  I view the restrictions through the lens of protecting me along with the stated desires to protect cadets.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

Are you suggesting that because CAP does not cover to and from travel insurance purposes.....it can't dictate member's conduct in relation to cadets during that time?

No, what I'm seeing is that CAPR 77-1 paragraph 1-8(b) states: (Emphasis mine)

Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP members and their passengers. CAP assumes no right of control, liability or responsibility for such transportation.

So, then the question might be what does "CAP assumes no right of control" mean?

Again, for the record, I might be (and I'm willing to be) totally wrong and the rule could be as strict as CAP SMs should never find themselves alone with a CAP cadet, at anytime time, in or outside of CAP activities, ever and if so, leave.   I doubt that it's that black and white, as life isn't.  I also know that it can't be wide open or left up to individuals to make their own judgments, which is again why I'm looking for an official word on the balance of the intent and the real world impacts.

I want to say that I fully support and actively reinforce every principal of the new CAPR 52-10 (2014) and consider our cadets and their experiences to be well represented by the new CAPR 52-10.  I just want to find a bit of flexibility (within the intent of the regulations) to mange real-world needs, like a cadet's parents (who live by me) asking me to drive their child home at the end of a meeting. (this is truly one of my situations -- we live about 40 minutes from the unit and from time to time the cadet's parents have asked for help in which the cadet would otherwise not be able to attend those meetings/events.  I'm fighting for the workability within the regulation -- not agaist the regulation itself.


Wait! --- it just hit me...  Perhaps my answer lies in the self reporting of boundary validations when they arise.  Kind of a reverse 'waiver' since the reporting happens after the fact, but at least with that mechanism, I can be confident that I'm not going be in a situation where at the last minute I tell a cadet that I can't give them a ride to or from an event because the planned third didn't make it.   From my understanding, in a case like this,  I would take care of the cadet (i.e.: get them to the event/home) and then self-report the boundary validation to my Group CC who can independently and objectivity evaluate the circumstances and take any corrective action as needed.

In fact, I'm thinking that (self reporting of boundary validations) is the best answer.  I get that now that I've worked though this process in my posts here.  (See CAPTalk can be useful! -- <grin>)  Of course I would like to have NHQ tell us that "CAP assumes no right of control" means that on non-CAP time, cadet's parents are the final authority on who they trust with their child but I also recognize the need to have regulations that can cover wide ranges of situations, people, local community norms, etc.

Whatever the outcome from National HQ (or my chain of command) I'm going to get in line and follow the regulations and do so with integrity.  Anyone that knows me knows that I love regulations. The best ones are black & white in their directives and provide mechanisms to manage situational needs.  The worst ones are the ones that say one thing, everyone knows that it doesn't really go like that in real life and then people wonder why there's upset and frustration in the membership.   Let's fight for workability and integrity.  What an example we would set for our cadets and for our fellow Americans.

Thank you to everyone that participated with me in this post to get to this place.  I did email National HQ and I will, as promised, post back their response if appropriate.   

Respectfully,

-r

[Eclipse]

77-1 has no bearing on 52-10, you're mixing regulations that are not connected which is introducing the ambiguity.

...the rule could be as strict as CAP SMs should never find themselves alone with a CAP cadet, at anytime time, in or outside of CAP activities, ever and if so, leave.   I doubt that it's that black and white

It is, literally and intentionally, that black and white.

In fact, I'm thinking that (self reporting of boundary validations) is the best answer.

Not violating the reg is the best answer.  Self reporting is a consequence of violating the regulation
and mitigating the circumstance, and your best bet in that case is calling people as it happens, not after.

Have it happen too often and there could be consequences anyway.

I get that now that I've worked though this process in my posts here.  (See CAPTalk can be useful! -- <grin>)  Of course I would like to have NHQ tell us that "CAP assumes no right of control" means that on non-CAP time, cadet's parents are the final authority on who they trust with their child but I also recognize the need to have regulations that can cover wide ranges of situations, people, local community norms, etc.[/quote]

That answer would also contradict 52-10 and essentially negate it.

[FloridaCaptain]

^ What an insightful comment  "Not violating the reg is the best answer.". 

Good job buddy, way to advance the discussion.  :clap: