Mandatory Safety Training and the CSM

[majdomke]

Here's a topic I haven't seen yet. How do the regulations deal with mandatory safety training and Cadet Sponsor Members? I realize every member must now undergo the Safety Training for New Members on eServices but what about the monthly safety meetings held at the squadron levels? CAPR 62-1 certainly makes it clear that members are to receive at least 15 mins a month and that anyone who missed will not be allowed to participate until they make it up somehow. Seems odd since CSM's aren't regular members who attend meetings, or at least are not required to since they hold no official duty position in the squadron. Yet, here in CAWG, we are being sent reports indicating they are non-compliant and not allowed to attend any CAP activity or meetings until they make this up. Seems rather odd to me. Any thoughts for the brain trust out there?

[a2capt]

Are they not just as involved in meetings and activities as any other?

IE, they are hands on deck. Why should they not do it?

The "Introduction to CAP Safety" is to get people to see the testing system online, to know where it is so when they need to use it later at a moments notice, or such, they can.

They are getting logged/recorded for the monthly safety presentation, right?

[Eclipse]

Lots of members don't have staff positions but are still required to be current on safety.

The reports are correct - they are required to participate in regular briefings like everyone else, and if they don't, they aren't "current".
The fix is simple, if they aren't current, but intend to chaperon an activity, they have to get current before they get to play.
And that means "before they arrive" or "when they hit the deck", not "later, after things dies down"

Considering the fact that CSM's are primarily separate from day-to-day program interaction, these members, especially, have to be
made aware and reminded about CAP's safety issues and policies.

This is another area where ambiguity causes us issues and we would be better off eliminating the membership classification altogether.
Just join, or don't.

[Pylon]

This is another area where ambiguity causes us issues and we would be better off eliminating the membership classification altogether.
Just join, or don't.

Or instead of just dismissing entire classes of members, how about our headquarters just gets more thorough when they publish directives.


NHQ does this all the time.  They publish directives with vague terms like "members" and forget we have senior members, cadet members, CSMs, life members, honorary members, patron members, aerospace education members, etc., etc.   Much like when the Corporate Service Uniform was unveiled and fully approved before they realized they forget we have Senior Member NCOs and they never specified configuration for them.

If instead HQ were more thorough on which classes of member requirements pertained to, we'd not run into this.

[Eclipse]

^ If we didn't have unnecessary member classifications, and grade structures that don't fit our model, they would not be "forgotten".

[Pylon]

^ If we didn't have unnecessary member classifications, and grade structures that don't fit our model, they would not be "forgotten".

They also forgot to make a female version of the CSU or even specify if females could wear it when they approved it.  Should we eliminate them as "unnecessary" too? 


I think the bigger problem is haste and shoddiness at the highest levels, though I would agree that perhaps it's time our membership model gets a review as well.

[Eclipse]

Point taken on the CSU, though for the record I didn't turn this into a uniform thread.

[majdomke]

I appreciate all the discussion. It brings to light another area that needs to be addressed in our vague regulations. The CSM's I'm used to working with generally only come to special activities where they are needed. Since all activities should have a safety briefing at the beginning they essentially get covered. My personal feeling on this is that mandatory monthly safety briefings should only be required of regular members... by this I mean Cadets and Senior Members. Members who are CSM, Patron, etc... should be excluded from this. If you read the reports for safety compliance, they already leave off the Patron members so we are part way there. And we all need to be honest about the monthly safety briefings too. I've been a CAP member for going on 10 years so I've had my share of safety meetings. Most of the time very little pertained to anything in my life. My previous squadron most of the briefings pertained to pilots. The cadets dozed off quite a bit there. I had meetings regarding BBQing and proper use of propane tanks, Halloween candy safety, etc... I hope you get the point. I would say about 90% of what is covered in the safety meeting never pertains to most of the audience in attendance. I'm not trying to give our safety officers a hard time, I'm trying to point out how difficult it is to have a meeting every month with material that will have lasting meaning. If we are to exclude members from attending meetings or activities because they missed last months briefing on how to avoid pilot fatigue, when no one in the squadron is even a pilot, then we need to re-evaluate our requirements.

[arajca]

1. The only activities Patron members go to are social events, and they have to be invited to them.
2. The required activity safety briefing does not meet the requirements for safety currency, since it is not interactive or have an evaluation.
3. CSMs generally are fairly involved with the unit. The ones I've worked with were parents who would sit in back or in their car during the meetings until we talked them into joining. Many moved to full membership after a year of two.
4. Units are encouraged to develop appropriate safety education presentations.
5. If some misses a monthly safety education, they can always do one online.
6. If you have no pilots, why are you doing pilot safety education?

[snpotratz]

If we are to exclude members from attending meetings or activities because they missed last months briefing on how to avoid pilot fatigue, when no one in the squadron is even a pilot, then we need to re-evaluate our requirements.

No, we need to re-evaluate why the Safety Officer is a dolt.  Every Safety Officer should be considering their audience when composing their monthly safety briefing, not just reading the latest Beacon and calling it good.  The whole purpose of a safety briefing is to provide relevant information to those in attendance.  Otherwise, what's the point?  If you want to talk about pilot fatigue, make the topic broader to fatigue in general and how that applies to each population segment in the room - pretty simple.