We hear a lot about the advantages the BSA has over the CP in that the BSA
owns their own camps and has FTEs to deal with the administrativia of a large organization.
Every few years there are "brick and mortar" initiatives intended to get facilities for CAP,
often with no real idea what it would take to buy and maintain a building suitable for
a CAP unit, let alone a Wing HQ or ICP.
In all but a few cases, the only reason to dual-charter with a BSA unit is access to
BSA resources and facilities.
The issue I'm referring to is "risk", as in lots of it.
My kids' BSA Council just sent us a note indicating they are down over $500,000 already this
year in regards to fundraising and camping and activities revenue.
$500k.
In one district.
That doesn't even encompass the most populous counties in my state.
They've had a 25% RIF and it's surely only going to get worse as it's popcorn season
soon and I have to imagine that's going to be a train wreck.
The engine that keeps that ship moving is essentially shut down with no real
timeline on getting it started.
This is one situation where having little real property and most activities running
at net zero (ish) is an advantage.
BSA's troubles are, well, they exist on several fronts. That COVID-19 came in and spanked everybody is just icing on their cake.
But yeah, $500,000 down is a real showstopper. I'm not sure how you recover from that if you don't already have a $3-5M endowment fund as a buffer.
So the one time it is advantageous to not own property for a non-profit activities-driven org is when the government shuts the country down for half a year and restricts gatherings for the second half of it.
Quote from: Holding Pattern on July 27, 2020, 06:19:39 PMSo the one time it is advantageous to not own property for a non-profit activities-driven org is when the government shuts the country down for half a year and restricts gatherings for the second half of it.
There are others. Incompetent leadership being one, no M&O plan is another.
There are many other times when property holdings can be an albatross around one's neck, not just that example.
Ned and I sat in Kentucky one April evening (circa 2009?) and commiserated over this very subject. And we've discussed it any number of times hence.
The difficulty of training facilities are that they cost money, often _lots_ of money, whether they're in use or not. And for an organization like CAP, the usage percentage is, well... it could be abysmal.
We have semi-national facilities in PA, Indiana and Wisconsin. Probably have some wing-owned facilities elsewhere (Washington Wing comes to mind) that I'm not familiar with. Most of those facilities probably sit vacant 30 weekends out of 52. (I'm generalizing a little) In most instances, I'm betting the ownership/lease/use agreements and the maintenance cost of these facilities is advantageous to CAP. Which is why they're successfully maintained year over year.
Not every facility would be similarly advantageous to own outright.
I'm the first guy who would be standing in line for three old barracks buildings, a DFAC plus an admin & logistics building at a BRAC'd AFB if I thought it wouldn't be a money pit. Believe me. But even if you get the facility for "free," things like environmental abatement, decades of deferred maintenance, modern code standards and where the money comes from to keep the lights & water on are gigantic showstoppers.
I have a 60 year old wing headquarters building that belongs to us. This past year it got a roof, new carpet, heat & AC, modern desk chairs that don't fall apart and a new network. That took years of work on the part of my predecessors to position us for that work. And we still need ADA accessibility, a backup generator, doors, interior work, etc. And it's not like a wing HQ is a real revenue generator. (We charge the local RC club a nominal yearly fee to meet there. Very nominal.)
My Wing has two hangars that a foundation built and lets us use rent-free as a Thank You" for a search from the 1980s. They pay the M&O, they allow other AE groups occasional access, but the beauty is we do not own them and they are well funded.
CAP needs to build a multi-generational, long term planned giving campaign focussed on this type of endowment and foundation structure set to enable us to be ready for the austerity from Congress that is likely as we emerge into a post-COVID world with a massively larger national debt.
At least, imho - ymmv.
Quote from: NIN on July 27, 2020, 11:15:10 PMThe difficulty of training facilities are that they cost money, often _lots_ of money, whether they're in use or not. And for an organization like CAP, the usage percentage is, well... it could be abysmal.
Didn't you work with the Army Cadets (I apologize, I don't recall the program name) that had a large training facility? They seemed smaller than CAP but must have outspent CAP significantly in facility acquisition and maintenance.
The struggles of finding suitable facilities for cadet activities, especially encampments, have lead to the occasional discussion amongst cadets and seniors about some super-facility that could be used for nationwide activities. Transportation costs for the cadets would be tough (unless it's in your backyard of course) and then what to do with the facility the rest of the time. NESA training, staff colleges, and flight academies could perhaps be co-located, but just how many millions would it take for such a place? Even if you rent the place out to the sea cadets, young marines, or even guard units looking for training locations, it just starts to sound insurmountable.
It's always a bit hilarious that an organization with a $40 million dollar operating budget can't afford office supplies for a squadron, let alone a national facility. It's also a tough sell to raise the kind of cash the Scouts do when people find out get $40 million in taxpayer money allocated to your organization.
Our current CEO has said a few times that he hasn't decided on his post-CEO plans, but has hinted that the foundation is a big interest of his. Perhaps he'll be the change agent for fundraising CAP desperately needs.
I'm sure Colonel Ninness has much more detailed info the Army Cadets (variously known as American Cadet Alliance and United States Army Cadet Corps), but here's what I know.
The former Millersburg Military Institute became their home in 2008. These were 1920s buildings. In 2014, fire marshal inspections declared at least one of the buildings totally unusable, and several more unsatisfactory. Shortly afterward, operations were ceased, and the school was shut down.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 28, 2020, 11:15:41 AMI'm sure Colonel Ninness has much more detailed info the Army Cadets (variously known as American Cadet Alliance and United States Army Cadet Corps), but here's what I know.
The former Millersburg Military Institute became their home in 2008. These were 1920s buildings. In 2014, fire marshal inspections declared at least one of the buildings totally unusable, and several more unsatisfactory. Shortly afterward, operations were ceased, and the school was shut down.
You should see it now.
https://mustardseedhill.events/
Quote from: Fubar on July 28, 2020, 08:17:01 AMDidn't you work with the Army Cadets (I apologize, I don't recall the program name) that had a large training facility? They seemed smaller than CAP but must have outspent CAP significantly in facility acquisition and maintenance.
So yeah, that was both a benefit and a downfall to the ACA/USAC.
Without delving too deeply into the (sometimes sordid) history, we can just say that a lot of that was the "dream" of one or two people, and when you had to choose between the dream and reality, they tended to side with the dream.
In 2008, we were at Annual Training at Fort A.P. Hill when Millerburg Military Institute (MMI) was listed on eBay. My friend George Berghorn (also former CAP, Spaatz cadet) noticed it and sent it to the National Commander, and they very quickly organized an impromptu road trip from Fredricksburg, VA to Millersburg, KY (a non-trivial 8+ hr one-way drive across rural West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky) for that week. Everybody was jazzed, it seemed they could make it happen, that it could be paid for, etc. And it was really what the vision of the organization was all about: a training site to call home where you could conduct cadet training year-round, with full control over the environment. Barracks, DFAC, admin spaces, training areas, PT track, indoor gym, etc.
Reality, however, is a harsh mistress. And the reality is that "heads in beds" are key. The marketing angle was that Millersburg was within a 10hr drive of something like 2/3 of the US or something. But Lexington was a 3rd tier spoke airport, getting there was always a pain, and apart from summer ATs, there really was nothing to keep the place open the other 9 1/2 months of the year.
Tack on 90 year old buildings, literally 10 years of decay and deferred maintenance, a literal coal-fired steam heat plant, and some folks at the top that spent money unnecessarily like a sailor on liberty (no offense to my sea-going brethren) with no plans, its no wonder than it did the old "base-to-final stall/spin" into the ground eventually.
And yes, GroundHawg, the Mustard Seed Hill people have been a much better custodian of the facility, with a vision, a plan, and funding, than the USAC every would have been...
QuoteThe struggles of finding suitable facilities for cadet activities, especially encampments, have lead to the occasional discussion amongst cadets and seniors about some super-facility that could be used for nationwide activities. Transportation costs for the cadets would be tough (unless it's in your backyard of course) and then what to do with the facility the rest of the time. NESA training, staff colleges, and flight academies could perhaps be co-located, but just how many millions would it take for such a place? Even if you rent the place out to the sea cadets, young marines, or even guard units looking for training locations, it just starts to sound insurmountable.
There's a reason why we've opted over the years to borrow military facilities like any other tenant org: cost. We pay for what we need/use, not everything else.
We've looked at the "super facilities" a lot. Even with BRAC'd bases, there are few. Even if you think about existing military facilities, the USAF has eliminated what we'd consider "troop barracks" in lieu of "airmen accommodations." Unless they're deployed, AF folks don't stay in open-bay anything anymore. Which leaves Army facilities.
A perfect facility, IMHO, that exists right now is Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Large amount of Army troop barracks and facilities like DFACs (because its a reserve facility), co-located with an AFB, not a horrific distance from civilian airfields in Philly & Newark, and plenty to see/do.
But its on the East Coast. There aren't too many other places like that around the country, either. Fort McCoy (near Volk Field)... and then I start to run out of ideas. Sure there are places like Cp Atterbury and Cp Shelby, but get west of the Mississippi and the so-called "deployment facilities" with open troop barracks waiting for us dry up. There's other reserve component facilities that could be used, but they lack proximity to AFBs for the AF component or airlift (ie. Fort Devens could serve Northern New England, or Fort A.P. Hill or Fort Pickett could serve MAR, but there's no easy access, really)
I could see moving to a "semi-Regional Encampment" model, but there would have to be changes in how its accomplished to not disadvantage cadets from "non-home wings" for staff opportunities, allow for staff training, etc. You couldn't entirely take today's encampment model and just lay it and stretch it into a regional encampment without changes.
Ah good old Fort McCoy, spent a few summers there in AJROTC summer camp. Lots of good memories.
Speaking of AJROTC summer camp, that was a regional camp, we had 6 companies of roughly 150-160 Cadets each. The model differed in that there was no prior staff training, you showed up not knowing if you would just be a basic Cadet or the Battalion CC. My first year there I was selected for Platoon Sergeant, the second year I was a Company Commander, neither time did I know beforehand what I was going to be doing. Had I gone a third year I could have been a basic again. Your SAI (Senior Army Instructor) sent a list of Cadets who held leadership positions, and once the Cadets were divided into Companies, the Tac for each Company got a list of their Cadets and who held leadership positions back home, and they decided who the leaders would be.
The Tacs knew the program for the week, the Company CC's knew how to lead a Company from prior experience back home, everyone followed the chain of command and it all worked out. We were too busy having fun to really care if we were in a leadership position or not.
The one caveat which would never work in CAP, all of our rank was pinned on in AJROTC, so you removed your rank before going, and pinned on new rank for the week when it was given, so if you were a basic Cadet you wore no rank, Platoon Sergeants were C/SFC, First Sergeants were C/1SG, Platoon Leaders C/2nd Lt, Company CC's were C/Capt.
Quote from: Capt Thompson on July 29, 2020, 05:36:53 PMThe one caveat which would never work in CAP, all of our rank was pinned on in AJROTC, so you removed your rank before going, and pinned on new rank for the week when it was given, so if you were a basic Cadet you wore no rank, Platoon Sergeants were C/SFC, First Sergeants were C/1SG, Platoon Leaders C/2nd Lt, Company CC's were C/Capt.
That's exactly how Army ROTC was. You pinned on the rank insignia commensurate with your duty position. It was a system that worked.
If you were the Platoon Leader, you had C/2LT or C/1LT insignia. If you were a Squad Leader, you wore C/SGT insignia. If you were the Operations Officer or Battalion XO, you wore C/MAJ insignia. If a second-year cadet was wearing C/PFC insignia, and we needed a Squad Leader, they ripped off the C/PFC chevron and put on C/SGT chevrons.
And we never called anyone "Lieutenant Smith" or "Sergeant Jones." Everyone was still "Cadet Name" (and maybe a little too much last-naming than we should have used).
Here, everyone promotes at a different pace since it's respective to your testing abilities, rather than time and participation in the program.
CAP brick and mortar isn't much different from any business or residential model.
Put it somewhere God intended people to live and it's too expensive to be viable.
Put it out where land is cheap and it's too empty to be viable.
Add in that most Wings, let alone units, are not equipped to manage a
commercial-type building project that costs multipliers of its normal
annual budget and has a 5-figure operating cost.
There was a plan about 10 years ago to build a mid-sized hangar / Unit HQ / EOC
type building at a major GA aiport in my AOR. Even had buy-in from the airport that
they would pay for the pad and taxiway to the runways.
$1MM build cost with an operating budget of $3-500K a year, from a unit that
normally had a budget of a few hundred dollars a year if all the members paid their dues
made their voluntary donation.
They even had an architect do the plan for free with a cool 3d rendering.
Seemed like a good idea at the time.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 29, 2020, 06:07:02 PM$1MM build cost with an operating budget of $3-500K a year, from a unit that
normally had a budget of a few hundred dollars a year if all the members paid their dues
made their voluntary donation.
Seemed like a good idea at the time.
Glad they didn't.
I'd hate to be telling that story in corporate learning courses.
From a organizational resource perspective, regional encampments make a lot of sense. All of the regions (IIRC) have at least one suitable facility for a large encampment. Being able to draw cadre and senior staffers from multiple wings allows both a deep bench and a lot of inter-wing training and standardization. I commanded a PCR encampment at Camp Roberts, a base blessed with a lot of open bar barracks, dining halls, staff buildings, and classrooms. And precious little else. Oh, and an average summer temp north of 95 degrees.
But pleasant memories aside, the primary issue for regional encampments remains transporting students and cadre to the site. It's one thing to ask Mom to drive two hours each way to drop of and pick up Cadet Tim (and maybe his squadron buddies), and a whole 'nother thing to ask her to drive two states over. Or pay airfare in addition to the encampment fee. Or ask SM Bob to do the same two state drive in the squadron van.
We had a few outside the box ideas to get troops there, but nothing that turned out to be remotely practical. (I did really love my "troop train." I was gonna put a senior on the Amtrak Coast Starlighter, and collect cadets from Washington, Oregon, and California. Would have been glorious.)
"Open bar barracks"?
Sign me up!
Cheers
Spam
At the risk of drifting the topic too far, the RAF ATC do something similar for their camps: You get off the plane at RAF Bruggen, and some Warrant says "Oi! You! You're senior! Take charge!" And if you're the highest ranking cadet for the (week? two weeks?) then you're in charge. For better or for worse. And then it trickles down to the other ranks as well.
If you're Airman Higgenbotham at your first camp, you're not going to be in charge. Easy as that.
But if you're Flight Sergeant Biggles, you're likely as not to be a Flight Sergeant at camp. And so on.
Takes away a little of the set-piece disconnect between "the other 51 weeks out of the year" and "encampment."
It worked very well for JROTC, and would eliminate some of the Encampment Tourism. It would also eliminate the need for prior staff training for the Cadets that will be in charge, as we don't know who that will be until they show up, and would make Regional Encampments easier to pull off.
Staff is still going to need some training. How many of your local squadrons can put together a 15 or 16 member flight? C/SSgt Bagadonuts is probably going to need a bit of instruction before we turn them loose on the unsuspecting students.
Quote from: PHall on July 29, 2020, 11:31:32 PMStaff is still going to need some training. How many of your local squadrons can put together a 15 or 16 member flight? C/SSgt Bagadonuts is probably going to need a bit of instruction before we turn them loose on the unsuspecting students.
See this is my point Phil: The encampment model and the encampment mindset might have to change a little bit. Instead of building encampment to be like encampment, why don't we work to build units to be more like encampment? Or build units and the cadet program to have the kinds of leadership skills so that you don't need additional training just to handle a flight at encampment.
The theory being is I should be able to take your average tech sergeant/master sergeant and make him or her a flight sergeant. Make your staff sergeants element leaders. Senior NCOs can be first sergeants.*
And you know what? Too bad if they don't come from a squadron with 60 cadets where they've become accustomed to drilling as a squadron. The first couple days is probably going to be a little bit of trying to figure it out. That's called training. On the job training.
That's how things work in the real world. You go to war with the army you have not the army you want.
* Edit: The unintended consequence might be that you have a lot of cadets hanging out at senior and chief master sergeant because they want to go to encampment and be the big cheese in the squadron. Everybody hops off the C-130 at McGuire to discover you have 150 junior airmen and 250 Senior & Chief Master Sergeants. And six cadet officers. A lot of pushing and shoving for three squadron first sergeant slots. LOL
Quote from: PHall on July 29, 2020, 11:31:32 PMStaff is still going to need some training. How many of your local squadrons can put together a 15 or 16 member flight? C/SSgt Bagadonuts is probably going to need a bit of instruction before we turn them loose on the unsuspecting students.
We have almost 70 cadets, Alpha Flight, Bravo Flight, Tango (Training) Flight and a robust staff. Just saying!
Quote from: NIN on July 30, 2020, 01:07:24 AMThe encampment model and the encampment mindset might have to change a little bit. Instead of building encampment to be like encampment, why don't we work to build units to be more like encampment? Or build units and the cadet program to have the kinds of leadership skills so that you don't need additional training just to handle a flight at encampment.
For discussions sake, CAP already does, however few units have the scale, proper progression,
properly trained and experienced adult leaders, and lack of "well this is how >we< do it"
to properly prepare cadet leaders for what encampment (is supposed to) expect(s) of them.
That would also move the needle on the model somewhat from a learning lab for all to
a more pure training environment for the students.
One of the more fun and gratifying experiences for those involved in the encampment
program is seeing wide-eyed new cadre who come from the typical 30-cadet, 2-flight
squadron and think they "got this", find they aren't even sure how to herd the other cadre,
let alone 85-100+ students (many with wet Currys and no clue), turn into good managers and
often excellent leaders.
That goes for the adults involved as well.
You got 70? Great, you're 1/3rd there, but they all know each other, which makes it different.
You're never going to consistently crank out trained cadets from the units in the way you are discussing.
The Region-level encampment is an interesting idea, but the necessary scale is never going to happen.
It's hard enough (and I hazard it's going to be WAY worse in 2021) to find venues that can support hots, cots,
activities and personnel now for "just" 150, you move things to Region-level and now you need a venue that can
support 500-800 easy, in some Regions more.
That causes havoc with activity cycle times, cohesion of the training, and worse it reduces the
cadet opportunities for the higher jobs from 45ish (s/b 52) to 8.
Like the idea at 50k, fails at ground level.
As a unit CC I have always looked to the cadet programs that have required summer training
because I would think it cranks out more consistency among the ranks, however those programs
don't have an operational component, cadets aren't going to NESA (etc.), and the adults are
all focused on the cadets, not their own thing as well.
Just to really stir up debate here:
What with the Cadet Program look like if it was based on a semester-to-semester type curriculum as opposed to a personal progression program?
Rather than Little Jimmy joining in March and Little Johnny joining in May, and Little Savannah joining in August, and running three Great Starts (I know of some units that run them consecutively throughout the year), what if you had a hard start date where everyone in that class pushed through at the same pace? At the end of the time period, everyone moves up to the next phase.
I'm saying that with a complete rework of the entire program model, and this is purely conversational (not a "let's go do it!" chant).
Then it would look exactly like a school squadron, which we already have.
Quote from: jeders on July 30, 2020, 01:27:34 PMThen it would look exactly like a school squadron, which we already have.
Do cadets at school squadrons advance at their own rate?
Quote from: jeders on July 30, 2020, 01:27:34 PMThen it would look exactly like a school squadron, which we already have.
We need more of these!
Quote from: JohhnyD on July 30, 2020, 02:39:20 PMQuote from: jeders on July 30, 2020, 01:27:34 PMThen it would look exactly like a school squadron, which we already have.
We need more of these!
No, CAP
absolutely DOES NOT.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 30, 2020, 02:40:21 PMQuote from: JohhnyD on July 30, 2020, 02:39:20 PMQuote from: jeders on July 30, 2020, 01:27:34 PMThen it would look exactly like a school squadron, which we already have.
We need more of these!
No, CAP absolutely DOES NOT.
Why not? We are talking about this with local schools. What are the issues that we ought to be aware of?
Quote from: PHall on July 29, 2020, 11:31:32 PMStaff is still going to need some training. How many of your local squadrons can put together a 15 or 16 member flight? C/SSgt Bagadonuts is probably going to need a bit of instruction before we turn them loose on the unsuspecting students.
Not really, a Flight Sergeant who can command a 10 person flight should be able to lead a 40 person flight just the same, in the two years I went to JROTC summer camp I never saw an issue, and the amount of Cadets involved far surpassed any numbers I've ever seen at one of our Encampments, which was really cool at pass in review marching in battalion formation with more than 800 Cadets.
The key was the Tac officers were very well trained and knew the program, they didn't just push C/SSgt Bagadonuts out on his own, they were there coaching the whole way, and each platoon had a good mix of experience, since the basics during summer camp could very well be Captains, Majors or Lt Col's back home, it wasn't necessarily up to C/SSgt Bagadonuts to worry about C/Amn Smith, when Smith was bunked next to C/Capt Jones and C/Lt Col O'Brien, who were also basics at that summer camp and had C/Amn Smith's back all week.
It's not necessarily a bad thing for an Earhart or Eaker Cadet to step back and be a Basic for a week, and help pass along their knowledge at the ground level to other Basics, while allowing some Junior NCO's a chance to learn to lead a larger group than they're used to.
We have a real struggle with seniors who are not only experienced at cadet mentoring but actually want to get involved in a proactive manner.
I've seen way too many seniors show up at cadet activities, and when they're asked to hold feedback sessions or talk with a cadet on his/her performance, they hesitate and even sometimes flat out say "Nope; I'm just here to supervise." Individuals like that not only have no role at the activity, but they're essentially useless in our mission to develop leaders.
If units (and activity directors) got into the habit of rejecting that sort of opinion/attitude, you'd see less senior members attending activities where they have no ability to get their hands dirty when it comes to mentoring and coaching.
If you, as a unit commander, has a senior who has never demonstrated themselves as anything other than a chaperon, please don't send them to Encampment.
Quote from: Capt Thompson on July 30, 2020, 05:51:56 PMNot really, a Flight Sergeant who can command a 10 person flight should be able to lead a 40 person flight just the same
CAP doesn't have all that many units who have flights with 10 cadets, and 40 is well outside reasonable span of control.
Quote from: Capt Thompson on July 30, 2020, 05:51:56 PMIt's not necessarily a bad thing for an Earhart or Eaker Cadet to step back and be a Basic for a week, and help pass along their knowledge at the ground level to other Basics, while allowing some Junior NCO's a chance to learn to lead a larger group than they're used to.
[petty nitpick]
In CAP they are students, not basics.
[/petty nitpick]
Within the existing paradigm where an encampment is not BCT, but more akin to A-School, this doesn't
work. Putting a Phase III or IV cadet in ranks robs the cadres of their mentoring ability, robs the
C/Officers of learning anything, and the number of pips and diamonds who would ever be interested in the
idea would be statistically zero. As it is we can't get cadets to step up when their plum job is taken but
someone else, let alone put them back in flight.
I know this thread has moved to discussing a revamp of encampments, but this idea would literally require
a full-reboot, and move away from the direction of STEM career exploration that the encampments have been
pushing towards in the last ten years.
You'd also run afoul of all sorts of CPT policies and issues in regards to berthing and hygiene
with mixing ages that much.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on July 30, 2020, 07:18:47 PMIf units (and activity directors) got into the habit of rejecting that sort of opinion/attitude, you'd see less senior members attending activities where they have no ability to get their hands dirty when it comes to mentoring and coaching.
At least not in TAC or similar cadet supervisory roles. Cooks, medical, drivers, etc are needed at Encampment too.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 30, 2020, 07:34:59 PMCAP doesn't have all that many units who have flights with 10 cadets, and 40 is well outside reasonable span of control.
Agreed, there aren't that many units currently that big, which is why Encampment provides a unique opportunity to experience leadership at a higher level. I wouldn't say 40 is outside of a reasonable span of control for a Flight Sergeant, when the Flight is broken up into smaller Elements with Element Leaders. I would argue that our Leadership training far surpasses the JROTC curriculum, and there it wasn't at all unheard of for a Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant to have 40+ cadets underneath them, broken up into 5 or 6 Squads with Squad Leaders and Assistant Squad Leaders.
Quote from: undefinedWithin the existing paradigm where an encampment is not BCT, but more akin to A-School, this doesn't
work. Putting a Phase III or IV cadet in ranks robs the cadres of their mentoring ability, robs the
C/Officers of learning anything, and the number of pips and diamonds who would ever be interested in the
idea would be statistically zero. As it is we can't get cadets to step up when their plum job is taken but
someone else, let alone put them back in flight.
This is the only reason it wouldn't work, because you wouldn't get the buy in from Cadets who are used to the way we've always done things, but that doesn't mean the idea couldn't work. You have NCSA's where Cadets in charge may not outrank the Cadets they are in charge of, it's just never been done at an Encampment.
QuoteYou'd also run afoul of all sorts of CPT policies and issues in regards to berthing and hygiene
with mixing ages that much.
In fairness, JROTC ended at 18, and a Cadet couldn't go to summer camp the summer after graduation, so the age ranges were much closer.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on July 30, 2020, 07:46:51 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on July 30, 2020, 07:18:47 PMIf units (and activity directors) got into the habit of rejecting that sort of opinion/attitude, you'd see less senior members attending activities where they have no ability to get their hands dirty when it comes to mentoring and coaching.
At least not in TAC or similar cadet supervisory roles. Cooks, medical, drivers, etc are needed at Encampment too.
"TACs" haven't been a thing for years.
There isn't a "Medical" at Encampment.
Many Encampments don't employ cooks, and drivers are often interchangeable with Training Officer duties.
Like any cadet role we offer, if you're a senior member at the Encampment, you should be prepared to be able to step into a mentoring role at any time, whether for cadets or other subordinate seniors. It's not uncommon for a Flight Sergeant or First Sergeant to leave or be pulled out of a role during the Encampment; and we have to resort to taking someone from Logistics or other support role.
Encampment doesn't need more supervisors. It needs trainers: people who can take time out of the day to sit with their respective cadre and discuss the dos/don'ts/sustains/improves.
Really, this should be the expectation of
any senior member that bears the titular stamp of "Cadet Programs Officer." If you want to work with cadets, but don't want to learn anything about it or actually do that pesky mentoring bit, go away. I have enough issues to deal with without needing to combat someone who constantly shows up and never helps, or constantly opines and gets in the way of the learning objectives.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 30, 2020, 07:34:59 PMCAP doesn't have all that many units who have flights with 10 cadets, and 40 is well outside reasonable span of control.
Why?
A flight of 4
3l3m3nts elements of 10 is totally inside of the "span of control", no?
[let's try proofreading next time]
Actually, no. Proper span of control would dictate 5-7 person elements, which is what I always saw in units big enough to have two or more flights. Six also works very for doing drill.
No - 10 cadets is far too much for an element leader, who is also presumably not an NCO, and therefore new
themselves, to deal with. Also, some encampments use element leaders and others don't.
The encampment flight ratio is 18:1 to the TO, and experience shows that as you move towards
13+, they can get unwieldy, because for starters the odds are everyone involved is doing whatever job
they have, from student to the C/xCC, and even the EXE Cadre as well, for the first (and maybe only time).
C/xCCs & C/CCFs from typical squadrons learn very quickly how different it is to get cadets they have never met
and who have disparate experience and proficiency, to just all look in the same direction, let alone
accomplish the mission of the activity.