Cadets not allowed to fly other cadets. Period

Started by Eclipse, January 11, 2009, 05:30:27 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Timbo

Quote from: Ned on January 12, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Uncle Sam has cadets above and below the age of 18.  He doesn't care, and there is no reason we should either.

So true, but those Cadets that "Uncle Sam has" are contractually obligated to the Military Service.  CAP Cadets have no contract with the Federal Government.  We are only speaking of Cadets at Service Academies, ROTC (not JROTC) and Officer Training Programs (although they rarely call them "Cadet", usually "Officer Candidate")

Cadets in prep schools etc, have no contract, unless they are also in ROTC (then they fall under the ROTC).

Before someone brings it up, YES....I know you can be a Cadet in ROTC without having a military obligation, so technically you are not counted on the rolls. 

We need to stop thinking of CAP as a military program.  It looks like one, it smells like one, but like others have said here, it is not one.  Our Cadets, carry the title Cadet but are MOST absolutely not like a military Cadet.  They may do similar things, but in the end they are not off to War as Officers.....are they? 

In this country (no matter what Wikipedia says) Cadets in military training are future Officers.  CAP is not training young men and women for military service.  Some may enter the military, but that is NOT our mission.......is it?!?!     

NED....I am not at CAP historian, but I do believe the CAP Cadet program of 60 some years ago was a program to train children for military service.  Our modern program is not. 

BillB

I'll go back to the arguement that at age 18 the cadets becomes a Officer Training Corp member. This allows him/her to continue cadet training to earn the Spaatz, while at the same time allows senior trainin and responsibilities. This is not a new concept, CAP in the 60's had the OTC program, but it did not allow the OTC member to continue completing achievments. That was the downfall of the OTC program. Cadets did not want to end their training and wanted to continue to be able to earn the Spaatz. Since it was voluntary, few took part. If the transfer to OTC membership was manditory at age 18 and still allowed cadet progression, the idea should fly.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

lordmonar

Sure there are lots of over 18 cadets...and I am not advocating making them all go gray.....but by that same token....why are we trying to force the thousand of OPS personnel to accept a situation they are not comfortable with (cadets flying cadets) to accomidate the handful of cadets who are also CFIs?

Cadets can't be O-ride pilots.  They can still be MPs and TMPs...they just can't have other cadets on board.

If a cadet has heart burn about that....then, as I am constantly reminded, he can always cross over.  It is called choice.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2009, 06:05:23 PM
The fix is simple.....eliminate the gray area....when you turn 18 you are no longer a cadet. 

Why is that simpler? I wouldn't be surprised to find that most coverages out there are only concerned with a person over the age of 18 years old. The simple fix would be to say "members over the age of 18". Problem solved. So what if they have cadet status instead of senior status.

Quote from: Timbo on January 12, 2009, 10:10:16 PM....I am not at CAP historian, but I do believe the CAP Cadet program of 60 some years ago was a program to train children for military service.

I don't think our program ever had that as a goal. The original program was designed to educate young people on the military, and to "build better citizens". I don't think CAP membership ever obligated a person to join the military anymore than Junior ROTC did or does.

Many gravitate toward our program because they are interested in the military later, but not to incur an obligation. I have a few cadets in my unit that have no plans for entering the military. They enjoy it for the here and now, and potentially, the near future. I like giving those cadets a place where they feel that. And I make it clear to those that have military service aspirations that not everyone does, and make certain that they don't think less of those that don't.

Ned

Quote from: Timbo on January 12, 2009, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 12, 2009, 09:44:33 PM
Uncle Sam has cadets above and below the age of 18.  He doesn't care, and there is no reason we should either.

So true, but those Cadets that "Uncle Sam has" are contractually obligated to the Military Service.  CAP Cadets have no contract with the Federal Government.  We are only speaking of Cadets at Service Academies, ROTC (not JROTC) and Officer Training Programs (although they rarely call them "Cadet", usually "Officer Candidate")

Well, as you yourself point out, ROTC and JROTC have thousands of cadets over and under 18 that are not under contract to Uncle Sugar.  But I think the "contract" thing is a bit of a  distractor that doesn't focus on the key issue -- that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.

Quote
We need to stop thinking of CAP as a military program.  It looks like one, it smells like one, but like others have said here, it is not one.  Our Cadets, carry the title Cadet but are MOST absolutely not like a military Cadet. 

I think the single most defining aspect of our program is the military model used for our leadership training.

We can argue for a long time whether we are "military", "para-military", or some other description.  But ever since our program was founded during the early days of WWII our cadets have worn military uniforms (with distinctive insignia), used military customs and courtesies, and engaged in military drill and ceremonies.

Sounds kind of military to me.

Sure, we our cadets are not members of the Armed Forces of the United States.  And that is surely an important distinction to all concerned. 

But the term "military" is far broader and more inclusive than simply members of the Armed Forces.  And it seems to me that our cadets look like, act like, and most importantly learn like cadets in the military.

Quote
They may do similar things, but in the end they are not off to War as Officers.....are they? 

Most aren't.  (Many do, of course, but only after additional training from Uncle Sam.) Remember, Uncle Sam does credit portions of the cadet program towards what you would call "Officer off to War training."  For me, the Army was kind enough to waive the first two years of ROTC based simply on my cadet training.

It's also worth noting that during the majority of our history, most officers in the Armed Forces didn't go off to war, either.  Most have served honorably in peacetime.
Quote
In this country (no matter what Wikipedia says) Cadets in military training are future Officers.  CAP is not training young men and women for military service.  Some may enter the military, but that is NOT our mission.......is it?!?!     

I guess I disagree with your premise here.  Most cadets in this country are not currently in the armed forces.  I don't have the numbers here, but if we were to add up all the JROTC, USAC, non-contracted ROTC, military school, USN sea cadets, etc., the number would likely be larger than the contracted folks on their way to commissioned service in the armed forces.

Our mission is to provide leadership training to our cadets so that they can become Dynamic American Aerospace Leaders.  Some in the military, but most will be leaders in their communities.

Quote

NED....I am not at CAP historian, but I do believe the CAP Cadet program of 60 some years ago was a program to train children for military service.  Our modern program is not. 

Neither am I a historian, but I share your understanding that our program started as a direct training and indoctrination program for the Air Corps.  Those cadets learned basic military skills, wore unifoms, and practiced drill and ceremonies.  Cadets were not obligated to join, but received benefits and advanced placement if they did so.

Is it really so different now?

Ned

lordmonar

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2009, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2009, 06:05:23 PM
The fix is simple.....eliminate the gray area....when you turn 18 you are no longer a cadet. 

Why is that simpler? I wouldn't be surprised to find that most coverages out there are only concerned with a person over the age of 18 years old. The simple fix would be to say "members over the age of 18". Problem solved. So what if they have cadet status instead of senior status.

I think the problem is that we have failed to understand what the "problem" is.

On the cadet side of things...they see that they are being excluded from things.
On the Ops side of things they have a problem with cadets being in charge of cadets.

What some in CAP are scared of is a bunch of cadets going rogue on us with not senior supervision.  However, how do you write the rules that puts a SM in charge of the cadets but one of the cadets is the PIC.

Cadets want to be cadets and at the same time have all the rights and privileges of a senior member.

So there are the two view points.

So we got a simple fix for both problems....no over 18 cadets....no cadet PICs....no all cadet aircrews...no cadets flying other cadets.   The over 18 individual becomes a SM and gets all the rights and privileges of a SM.

Is it a win-win?  No of course not....but it is simple.

Am I advocating it?  No.  All I am saying to the cadets who are all upset about it....is cross over to the gray and the problem goes away.  If that does not fit into your plans...then make the choice.

NOTE.....we are not completely excluding cadets from being MPs or TMPs....they just have to have SM crews/passangers.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Timbo

Ned... After reading the "other" thread that this one has seemed to transform itself into, I see things from your point of view more so now than a few minutes ago.  

Cadets are Cadets, Senior Members are the "trainers and overseers".  There is a distinction.  I can see where not allowing Cadets to fly other Cadets is both fair and unfair.  Fair in that it would eliminate any chance that the Cadet Pilot decides to take his or her friends for a "joyride" on Cap's dime and eliminating the distraction scenario.  It is unfair because they have the experience, education and training to do something but are told they can't because of an arbitrary title they hold.

This can only be solved by either eliminating the restriction (very unlikely, given the fact that Cadets can't even drive vans in most situations) or getting around the restriction by transferring to Senior Member status.  This is very unfortunate, because (and I am not ashamed to say it) there are some Cadets that are more capable pilots than I could ever be.

This is an issue (not important to many out there) that should be looked into because it limits our capabilities, even in the smallest way.  I would personally allow the Cadet to fly other Cadets.  I know before I was against it, but after thinking about it for a few minutes, that was the wrong choice.  I say this because that same Cadet Pilot can change their status to Senior Member in as little as one week.  What is the major difference between an 18 year old Flight Officer and an 18 year old Cadet??  Only a title.  

   

rightstuffpilot

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2009, 10:24:47 PM

Sure there are lots of over 18 cadets...and I am not advocating making them all go gray.....but by that same token....why are we trying to force the thousand of OPS personnel to accept a situation they are not comfortable with (cadets flying cadets) to accommodate the handful of cadets who are also CFIs?

NCAC and personal in this forum advocating for cadets flying are not advocating for two new solo pilots to go up flying together.  We are talking FAA licensed CFI's.  I do believe there should be some regulations for cadets flying.  By the same token, why discourage CFI's?  Isn't that a group of people who the organization is trying to encourage?  Are our OPS personal more uncomfortable with a  SM private pilot (without an instrument rating) who has an 80% mortality rate upon entering inadvertent IMC or a 20 yearold ASMEL Commercial Instrument with a CFI?  I do agree the situation warrants some regulation, but I think most would unanimously agree that they would feel an increased safety of flight with a licensed CFI(or even commercial or instrument rated pilot).  Really we need to be reasonable by separating the idea of being a cadet from how we related it to aviation and other areas( ES has been doing it for years, some how, cadets are trusted to be AOBD or GBD at AF Evaluated missions entrusted with what could be well over a million dollars in assets).

Cadets can't be O-ride pilots.  They can still be MPs and TMPs...they just can't have other cadets on board.

Believe it or not, up until January 05 they could--all they needed was a CFI certificate.

If a cadet has heart burn about that....then, as I am constantly reminded, he can always cross over.  It is called choice.

There does not have to be a choice.  Why do we want to force the future leaders of our organization (who should be encouraged, not discouraged) into an uncomfortable position because they have excelled beyond what is standard.  This should be a group we try and encourage.  Why take away their ability to lead their peers, apply for scholarships, be members of National Cadet Advisory Council, work towards the epiphany of cadet milestones(Spaatz), and restrict their ability to attend IACE with peers their age from other countries?  A cadet is a cadet.  A CFI is still a CFI even if they are in a cadet uniform.
HEIDI C. KIM, Maj , CAP
CFI/CFII/MEI
Spaatz # 1700

Cedar Rapids Composite Squadron- Commander

lordmonar

Ned,

When I said cadets are not "adults" I used it in the military sense of being fully ready to take on responsibilty.

"Military students" are not really "adults" in the military sense.  Sure they fly planes and shoot guns but not operationally.  They do them in a training environment.

In CAP we are talking about operational environment.  

I don't doubt that these cadets can do the job....but many in CAP are leary of the concept of an all cadet crew. (PRWG had a big news article about it a few months back).  I heard argued that with no seniors then we are in a CPP violation area.  No supervision.  So how do you write the rules that puts a SM on the plane being incharge of the cadets...and under the PIC who is also the cadet?  So the fix was to simply eliminate the possibilty.

A cadet can be a PIC....he just has to have an all SM crew.

Is this the best fix?  No....it is a simple fix to a complex problem.  Is there a fix to the cadets who feel they are not being take seriously? Sure...go gray.  Is the best fix?  No...it is just a simple one.

The problem is that for every good example of how cadets are mature and capable there are atleast two of how a cadet screwed up and got someone killed or hurt.  (FLWG and the ATV....and the CAP cadet who crashed his plane joy riding with his student pilots ticket and a passanger or two IIRC).  Is this right?  No...not really....but we are dealing with perceptions.

Alot of SM don't know cadets.  The are scared of them, of the responsibilties that come with them and the liability they have to be delt with.  I can't fix that.  I don't have the time/mone/energy to take it on.

I can fix the belly aching on the cadet side of things.

We either eliminate all cadets over 18 (not a good choice) or we just allow our cadets to make an adult choice.  Pick which goals you want to pursue and take the appropriate action.

If your thing is to fly cadets around the sky......go gray.  If you want to finish your Spaatz and fly missions....stay a cadet...just don't try to put another cadet on your crew.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: Timbo on January 12, 2009, 11:15:38 PM
What is the major difference between an 18 year old Flight Officer and an 18 year old Cadet??  Only a title.  

I don't have any problem with wholly cadet aircrews, so that is not why I'm addressing this. I don't agree that the only difference is a title. The cadet program and the senior programs are different. Different objectives, different means, different goals. The difference is far more than a title, and minimizing the difference between the two with that is false logic.

As I said above, I don't see any reason that things could be changed to address members over 18. In this case, the liability would apply to either a cadet or a senior. The status there wouldn't be relevant in the eyes of the law if they are aware that a member could hold either status at those ages. The law of the land considers an 18 year old an adult, regardles of status in CAP.

Internally, there is a great deal of difference in the programs. Externally, there probably isn't any to someone not familiar with our program.

davidsinn

Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

rightstuffpilot

in rare cases, one can be a senior member under the age of 18,


Say what?

- Pregnant and under 18, but we really don't need to talk about that under Aviation and Flying :)
HEIDI C. KIM, Maj , CAP
CFI/CFII/MEI
Spaatz # 1700

Cedar Rapids Composite Squadron- Commander

davidsinn

Quote from: rightstuffpilot on January 12, 2009, 11:45:07 PM
in rare cases, one can be a senior member under the age of 18,


Say what?

- Pregnant and under 18, but we really don't need to talk about that under Aviation and Flying :)

Last time I checked that was on the 2b and does not a senior member make.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

heliodoc

If I was a cadet and a CFI.....

I'd either turn a senior Member and get moving on building hours rather than worrying about flyin other cadets

CAP MAY be somewhat "cheaper" and Sometimes aircraft are available

But live with the current regs........ Cadets will NOT fly cadets .......let it be

Cadets are great people but I will tell you,  just because a cadet has his /her CFI and whatnot and a whopping 300 hours doesn't mean they have seen alot of the possibilities in flying and that goes for the seniors too.

This reg I can see some merit......

Timbo

Here is another (albeit unnecessary) way to relate this to other things in CAP.  The USAF stops funding a Cadets O-Rides when they turn 18.  So to the Air Force an 18 year old Cadet is in a totally different category of membership than say a 17 year old.  I don't find that fair at all, and have not for a very long time.

What does this mean?  Not totally sure, but seems like someone on the AF side decided 18 year old CADET members don't have the same rights as Cadets younger.  

Sucks......yes.  So, should 18 year old Cadets be allowed to fly other Cadets?  Yes.  Perhaps it was a personal feeling  from the person who proposed this regulation.  They were most likely a pilot who believed Cadets flying was outrageous, or they were taken off a plane and replaced by a Cadet with more experience, and they felt slighted.  This is an all too common scenario!

Either way, it is an issue I hope is pushed up the channels to the next national meeting.  We can then see the what, why and by who reasons...... from the person/group that either shoots it down or allows it.  My guess.....shot down, and that will be very unfortunate.    

Ned

#35
Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2009, 11:28:39 PM
Ned,

When I said cadets are not "adults" I used it in the military sense of being fully ready to take on responsibilty.

"Military students" are not really "adults" in the military sense.  Sure they fly planes and shoot guns but not operationally.  They do them in a training environment. [. . .]

Patrick,

It is a mild understatement to say that we probably know and understand our respective positions on this issue, if for no other reason that we have been able to productively discuss it on several occasions in this very forum.  ;D

And I know we agree on far more than we disagree on in this area.  Your CP credentials and support are unquestioned and, in fact, greatly appreciated.


But if you would all accept a gentle suggestion,  I would simply like us to avoid using the word "adult" in this discussion because it clouds and obscures the issues.  Let us use "cadet" when we mean "cadet" and "senior member" when we mean "senior member".


You are all welcome to debate whether it is appropriate to have such a restriction in the 60-1.

As a staff officer, for me the time for debate has passed.  Like everyone else, I was asked to provide input on the change to my CAP boss, and did so.  The national leadership debated this very issue and reached a decision.  

It is done, at least for now.

My job is to support the national leadership and help subordinate commanders and other leaders implement the regulations as written.

When and if there is an official proposal to change the regulation, I will again provide my input.  Until then, let's drive on and focus on issues where we can meaningfully improve CAP.


Ned Lee

Timbo

Quote from: heliodoc on January 12, 2009, 11:56:07 PM
Cadets are great people but I will tell you,  just because a cadet has his /her CFI and whatnot and a whopping 300 hours doesn't mean they have seen alot of the possibilities in flying and that goes for the seniors too.

This reg I can see some merit......

So the 18 year old CFI that joined CAP one year ago is automatically more capable than the 20 year old Cadet who has been a CFI for 2 years and has many, many more flight hours??

My opinion......bad reg.

Hawk200

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2009, 11:28:39 PM
I heard argued that with no seniors then we are in a CPP violation area.  No supervision.  

An interesting point. It should be mentioned that cadets over 18 are required to receive CPPT. Why is it required if it doesn't seem to count? It could be argued that it's just a legalistic formality if it doesn't count for them but does for seniors.

Quote from: rightstuffpilot on January 12, 2009, 11:18:49 PMA cadet is a cadet. A CFI is still a CFI even if they are in a cadet uniform.

I would have to agree with this. The qualification doesn't alter because of the status of the individual. The FAA doesn't care. If the individual has the appropriate qualifications to fly an aircraft, cadet status is meaningless to them.

I could even understand having a cadet qualified to fly o-rides. We're supposed to administer the program, but cadets should be able to run it themselves with minimal supervision. Something like this would give cadets far more credibility on that account. And it would certainly take a load off the senior side of the house, and eliminate any scheduling conflicts. Want O-rides? Sign out the keys, file your flight plan, have the FRO release you. It's not like a cadet can't do that.

Honestly, I don't see a case of a cadet crew joyriding. Anyone with a license is usually pretty aware of the responsibility. There is a major difference between the younger teenager who had little more than a solo and a few hours, and an 18 year old with a CFI. The one dedicated and motivated to go that far certainly has the brains to realize the responsibilities.

stillamarine

I thought there was an article awhile ago about an all cadet aircrew that had a find down in PR. All 3 were over 18 but still cadets.
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com

heliodoc

Hey Timbo

Life's not fair anywhere.  I agree about CAP regs....... ALOT more than this needs an overhaul