CAP Instruction Versus Regulation

MIKE · January 16, 2007, 05:25:36 PM

Was just looking at AFI33-360 because I was interested to find out what makes an instruction different than a regulation. Come to find out they don't even list AFRs anymore.

Would it be beneficial for CAP to transition from CAPRs to CAPIs? Is there some reason why we need it to be in a regulation as opposed to an instruction?

Are there other types of USAF publications that CAP could/should adopt that it hasn't already?

lordmonar · January 16, 2007, 05:33:45 PM

The move from regulations to instructions was a part of the USAF's implementaiton of Total Quality Managment. The idea was that, instead of spelling out how you cross every T and dot every I, you give broud guide lines and objectives and allow the worker bees to create their own OI's based on their actual working conditions, mission requirments and customer needs.

Well it did not work. You can't inspect to guidlines and accountability was totally lost because even the MAJCOMs did not have a firm grasp of what the work objectives were.

Overtime....AFI's have become the same exact thing as AFR's.

IMHO...it would be just a waste of time to change to CAPRs to CAPI's. The only benifit (and a small one at that) would be to match the USAF's numbering system. But at this time...I don't think the value added would be worth the cost to make the cange.

Major_Chuck · January 16, 2007, 06:26:22 PM

Not to mention the need for CAP to have to staff the change and run it through the multi layer committee system before running it to the BoG to be debated for countless hours and wasting valuable time.

mikeylikey · January 16, 2007, 06:40:55 PM

How about updating the Reg's instead. Make them clearer and add references where needed. How come 39-1 has yet to be republished?

Eclipse · January 16, 2007, 08:12:02 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2007, 06:40:55 PM
How come 39-1 has yet to be republished?

Which time?

Chappie · January 16, 2007, 09:36:42 PM

IMHO I believe the 39-1 will continue to be written on whiteboard until the TPU is finalized -- it has undergone a few modifications since its inception

Major_Chuck · January 17, 2007, 03:07:13 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2007, 08:12:02 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2007, 06:40:55 PM
How come 39-1 has yet to be republished?

Which time?

Now now, we must remember that the standard time between updates and publishing of CAPM 39-1 is no less than 11 years. Twelve on the outside barring no more changes to the TPU.

Next time however they'll proof read it and correct all the photo and contradicting errors.

MIKE · January 17, 2007, 04:26:15 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2007, 05:33:45 PM
IMHO...it would be just a waste of time to change to CAPRs to CAPI's. The only benifit (and a small one at that) would be to match the USAF's numbering system. But at this time...I don't think the value added would be worth the cost to make the cange.

Maybe if they rolled CAPIs out as they revised CAPRs and CAPMs? I would think it would be worth it if made them take a look at some of the publications that haven't been updated in a very long time.

I was also looking for something that would be not quite a regulation/manual/instruction... but be more directive than a pamphlet.

SJFedor · January 17, 2007, 04:31:30 AM

Quote from: Chappie on January 16, 2007, 09:36:42 PM
IMHO I believe the 39-1 will continue to be written on whiteboard until the TPU is finalized -- it has undergone a few modifications since its inception

Next time it'll be updated and republished will be 3 months prior to our switching to ABU's. Then we can get countless memo's on that!

SarDragon · January 17, 2007, 05:28:28 AM

Quote from: MIKE on January 17, 2007, 04:26:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2007, 05:33:45 PM
IMHO...it would be just a waste of time to change to CAPRs to CAPI's. The only benifit (and a small one at that) would be to match the USAF's numbering system. But at this time...I don't think the value added would be worth the cost to make the cange.

Maybe if they rolled CAPIs out as they revised CAPRs and CAPMs? I would think it would be worth it if made them take a look at some of the publications that haven't been updated in a very long time.

I was also looking for something that would be not quite a regulation/manual/instruction... but be more directive than a pamphlet.

But why do you need to change the label on the directive in the first place?

What's broke that needs fixed?

Even if everything got changed to CAPI, all the oldtimers would still call them CAPRs for half of forever, and we'd have yet another way to confuse the new folks with incorrect terminology. We need to get past Class A's and LevelI/CPPT first, methinks.