Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2018, 08:35:53 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

 91 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:57:07 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Honestly, I think the point of the post has been reached. We discussed why ES is generally a lower priority and a few possible fixes. There's not a whole lot we can do other than start planting bugs in ears about revamping our ES program, because the ultimate reason people aren't interested or involved is because CAP's ES program is outdated and needs to be reconstructed before it can be effective again.

 92 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:54:22 PM 
Started by CAP_truth - Last post by Spam

You'd be surprised at where peoples heads are these days. Just five years ago, I was at the bar with a bunch of senior pilots [from a joint aircraft program] who were seriously debating combining the brown shoe Naval Aviation and USAF pilot communities and doing away with separate air services. These were both Air Force and Navy officers.


I moved a couple of stools down, switched away from what they were drinking, and started eyeing the nearest exit...


Cheers
Spam


 93 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:48:23 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by Spam

Yeah... ok. I'm out.

Y'all have fun with this one.
Prediction: locked by midnight.

-  Spam


 94 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:45:38 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by CAPSOC_0pur8ur
It seemed to be diverging, to me, into a "Cadets do/don't belong in the ES mission" thread, versus what appeared to me to be your original proposal to add ES tasks for cadet Achievements.

Suggest you make a clarification and press on, unless you just want a furball.

V/R
Spam


The purpose of the thread is to discuss why ES has been given a lower priority than the other missions, as well as possible remedies.

 95 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:37:49 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by Holding Pattern
CAPSOC,


respectfully suggest that you need to define your terms more closely. When you paint with a broad brush, e.g. "ES as a prerequisite" you will get broad brush responses "No and no". Since you ask, my response to your overly broad question is also "no and no", exactly because I will by default vote no on undefined, unbounded, poorly thought out proposals to change what has been refined by a 70 year process of trial and experimentation. Yeah


If you were to put forward specific proposals, you might merit a better, more thoughtful response. Were you to draw some comparison between 13 year old cadets taking AE tests although they're not Aerospace Engineers or pilots - and thus proposing similar training to teens who will not be certified first responders.  Try thinking about the CP framework within which you'd ask such questions: would you propose, for example, linking a first aid class to the Wright Bros. award, or the completion of communications training to the Mitchell (both of which awards have applicability well beyond the ES mission, which might be very limited for cadets as stated on a state by state basis). I think you'd get more traction.


So... can you think this through, and give us a better question set before hitting a reflexive reply all?  Give us some specific ideas.

V/r
Spam

(Obviously I'm in my Socratic mode today... I just mentored a new PhD in aircraft flight test methodology and the mood is still there..)






Itís not a proposal, itís a discussion. Iím not trying to implement change here, Iím just trying to define the problem and outline possible courses of action. If I wanted to implement change right now, an anonymous Internet forum is the last place Iíd go to do so.

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?

Thatís a fair argument, but there comes a point when we canít continue to live in fear. If we never take risks, weíll never get anything done.

The tombstone of CAP's ES mission will read precisely that.

 96 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:36:38 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by Spam
It seemed to be diverging, to me, into a "Cadets do/don't belong in the ES mission" thread, versus what appeared to me to be your original proposal to add ES tasks for cadet Achievements.

Suggest you make a clarification and press on, unless you just want a furball.

V/R
Spam

 97 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:30:19 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by CAPSOC_0pur8ur
The name is a joke, specifically intended to make light of situations that CAP members tend to take far too seriously. But letís not get off topic here, we were just getting to the meaningful discussion.

 98 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:27:35 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by Spam
Follow on thought: this isn't the first time someone has taken a jibe at your screen name, "CAPSOC Operator".


It doesn't bother me personally, but in the light of being taken seriously, and since you appear to be in earnest with putting your thoughts forward re: ops and CP training, you might want to think about modifying your screen name to one less, shall we say, juvenile and amateurish. It would make you look far less like a wanna be kid and more like a person of sincere consideration.


Or at least phrase it in Cyrillic perhaps (grin and hat tip to MAJ Hatkevitch).


R/s
Spam

 99 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:27:24 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by CAPSOC_0pur8ur
CAPSOC,


respectfully suggest that you need to define your terms more closely. When you paint with a broad brush, e.g. "ES as a prerequisite" you will get broad brush responses "No and no". Since you ask, my response to your overly broad question is also "no and no", exactly because I will by default vote no on undefined, unbounded, poorly thought out proposals to change what has been refined by a 70 year process of trial and experimentation. Yeah


If you were to put forward specific proposals, you might merit a better, more thoughtful response. Were you to draw some comparison between 13 year old cadets taking AE tests although they're not Aerospace Engineers or pilots - and thus proposing similar training to teens who will not be certified first responders.  Try thinking about the CP framework within which you'd ask such questions: would you propose, for example, linking a first aid class to the Wright Bros. award, or the completion of communications training to the Mitchell (both of which awards have applicability well beyond the ES mission, which might be very limited for cadets as stated on a state by state basis). I think you'd get more traction.


So... can you think this through, and give us a better question set before hitting a reflexive reply all?  Give us some specific ideas.

V/r
Spam

(Obviously I'm in my Socratic mode today... I just mentored a new PhD in aircraft flight test methodology and the mood is still there..)






Itís not a proposal, itís a discussion. Iím not trying to implement change here, Iím just trying to define the problem and outline possible courses of action. If I wanted to implement change right now, an anonymous Internet forum is the last place Iíd go to do so.

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?

Thatís a fair argument, but there comes a point when we canít continue to live in fear. If we never take risks, weíll never get anything done.

 100 
 on: April 20, 2018, 01:24:28 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by Holding Pattern
Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [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 0.358 seconds with 15 queries.