New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[antdetroitwallyball]

I'm new to the organization, so maybe my question is naive:

But:

If CPP is already very clear on the obvious rules of "no cadets and SMs in same changing room/sleeping room/shower facilities," Why the heck does having both genders of chaperons even matter?

As I understand it, our current policy never, under any circumstances, allows for ANY ADULT to be in a "compromising" situation with a cadet of any gender. If a female cadet was on a squadron trip, and started having "female issues" (whatever that may be), even a female SM would be banned from doing anything to assist the cadet that a male SM could not also do. Solution: Have the cadet directly phone her mother, explaining the problem, and then have the SM talk to the mother to work out the solution as two adults.

I fail to understand why it's inappropriate to have single gender chaperons, even if its still always ideal to have both male and female SMs.

[SunDog]

You better get a grip on that nasty streak of common sense - it's not gonna serve you well in this organization. . .

[PHall]

If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?

Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?

I stand corrected.  I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.

It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others.    And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.

They better understand they need input - they better start figuring that out real soon.

Why, what's going to happen?

[Grumpy]

At first glance, looks like a lot of training coming up.   Can you get away with using the current lesson plan to do the refresher training and get it over with before Oct?

[a2capt]

That's another thing that bugs me. The way they publish regulations and guidelines without the education sections in place first. "Okay, we'll say this has to be done by XXX-XX, so that we can get the course/curriculum done by NNN-XX, and then everyone can take it".

That effectively lowers the time to comply considerably, but on paper an auditor doesn't see that, and says,  "look, they had six whole months!"

[Grumpy]

That's what I've been complaining about Tony.  They put cart before horse every time, not to mention there's no warning.  One day it's not there the next, the whole system's changed.  Grrrr

[SunDog]

If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?

Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?

I stand corrected.  I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.

It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others.    And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.

They better understand they need input - they better start figuring that out real soon.

Why, what's going to happen?

Oh, geez, I think membership numbers will continue to rocket upwards, along with participation rates.  People love buying a product from a well organized vendor, one that has such streamlined and well ordered business practices, and works so hard at making the experience one that respects the time, contributions, and energy of its membership.  We won't be able to find meeting locations large enough to hold us all; it could precipitate an international shortage of blue blazers and BDUs.  But I could be wrong. I often am.

[lordmonar]

That's what I've been complaining about Tony.  They put cart before horse every time, not to mention there's no warning.  One day it's not there the next, the whole system's changed.  Grrrr

The whole system as not changed!

Let's look at it really.

They upped the supervision from one to two senior members.
They changed the overnight activity supervisions to CO-ED.
They added training for cadets.
The added advanced training for Seniors who work with cadets.

The cleared up a lot of gray area stuff.....and marked out lines in the sand on "thou shall not pass"

They have not really made all that many changes.

The two member supervision.....is not a bad idea.
The co-ed supervision.....is not a bad idea.
The different training......is not a bad idea.

The world has not ended.
Sure we are going to have to do some work to get up to speed.

And that is what I am seeing right now......a bunch of supposed leaders who would rather doom and gloom.....instead of looking for way to meet this leadership challenge and get on with doing a great Cadet Program.

If people want to quit.......good bye....don't let the door hit you on your butt on the way out.

[/rant]

[Eclipse]

The co-ed supervision.....is not a bad idea, however it is also not practical in today's CAP.

FTFY.

[lordmonar]

The co-ed supervision.....is not a bad idea, however it is also not practical in today's CAP.

FTFY.

You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it.   Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.

[Panache]

The thought processes at NHQ, apparently:

[Eclipse]

You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it.   Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.

Yes, six months...

First step is to change societal attitudes about females in the military, their interest
in aviation, not to mention the general decline of volunteerism in the US.

So that's probable May, or June at the latest.

In July we can rebuild the decades-long declining infrastructure of most wings, including
forcibly renewing the thousands of members who have left CAP, and undoing 15+ years of the BRAC
to insure we have the military support and resources to handle the influx of all the new members.

In August we can simply "recruit" the hundreds of female members who were disinterested
in CAP up until this point, but are not flocking to recruiting tents because...reasons.

That still leaves two open months in case the above runs a little long.

I'm excited!  Let's roll!

[PHall]

If NHQ really thought this was a great super-dooper idea, why did they sneak it into the regs without any chance of input from the membership?

Didn't everyone scream about this in the draft too?

I stand corrected.  I didn't remember seeing that in the draft.

It was there and it was discussed on this board and several others.    And National does not need any kind of input at all from the "membership" when they write regs.
It's nice when they ask for it, but it's not required.

They better understand they need input - they better start figuring that out real soon.

Why, what's going to happen?

Oh, geez, I think membership numbers will continue to rocket upwards, along with participation rates.  People love buying a product from a well organized vendor, one that has such streamlined and well ordered business practices, and works so hard at making the experience one that respects the time, contributions, and energy of its membership.  We won't be able to find meeting locations large enough to hold us all; it could precipitate an international shortage of blue blazers and BDUs.  But I could be wrong. I often am.

Okay, I see where your thinking might be a little off track. You're attempting to use logic. Logic does not apply when you're dealing with National. Never has and never will.

[lordmonar]

You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it.   Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.

Yes, six months...

First step is to change societal attitudes about females in the military, their interest
in aviation, not to mention the general decline of volunteerism in the US.

So that's probable May, or June at the latest.

In July we can rebuild the decades-long declining infrastructure of most wings, including
forcibly renewing the thousands of members who have left CAP, and undoing 15+ years of the BRAC
to insure we have the military support and resources to handle the influx of all the new members.

In August we can simply "recruit" the hundreds of female members who were disinterested
in CAP up until this point, but are not flocking to recruiting tents because...reasons.

That still leaves two open months in case the above runs a little long.

I'm excited!  Let's roll!

If you don't want to try.....and you don't think we are capable.....and you don't have any respect for either your leaders or your members.........maybe it is time for you to find a different organization to work with.

I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S.   I don't have a lot of female SM's and I don't have any who have yet shown in interest in going and spending the night in the field.

But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.

So.......If I think I can at least give it a try.....why can't you?
Maybe its because I'm an NCO.

[Panache]

If you don't want to try.....and you don't think we are capable.....and you don't have any respect for either your leaders or your members.........maybe it is time for you to find a different organization to work with.

I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S.   I don't have a lot of female SM's and I don't have any who have yet shown in interest in going and spending the night in the field.

But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.

So.......If I think I can at least give it a try.....why can't you?
Maybe its because I'm an NCO.

Well, the new 52-10 sure is promoting teamwork and unity alright.  Nice to see that NHQ thought this through.

Now, BRING OUT THE SHAMING CHAIR.

[Tim Day]

You are right....that's why we got six months to fix it.   Now stop belly aching and get to fixing it.

Yes, six months...

First step is to change societal attitudes about females in the military, their interest
in aviation, not to mention the general decline of volunteerism in the US.

So that's probable May, or June at the latest.

In July we can rebuild the decades-long declining infrastructure of most wings, including
forcibly renewing the thousands of members who have left CAP, and undoing 15+ years of the BRAC
to insure we have the military support and resources to handle the influx of all the new members.

In August we can simply "recruit" the hundreds of female members who were disinterested
in CAP up until this point, but are not flocking to recruiting tents because...reasons.

That still leaves two open months in case the above runs a little long.

I'm excited!  Let's roll!

If you don't want to try.....and you don't think we are capable.....and you don't have any respect for either your leaders or your members.........maybe it is time for you to find a different organization to work with.

I got one of the largest squadrons in the U.S.   I don't have a lot of female SM's and I don't have any who have yet shown in interest in going and spending the night in the field.

But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.

So.......If I think I can at least give it a try.....why can't you?
Maybe its because I'm an NCO.

MSgt,

You're assuming folks aren't simultaneously making plans to make it work as best as they can while also working to propose a more reasonable, executable, and effective policy. You're making a classic leadership mistake, which is to assume that complaining is a mark of laziness versus a sign of people that actually care about the organization enough to point out issues they believe will have a negative impact on our mission.

Since you played the NCO card, I'll mention here that it was a senior NCO who once drew my attention to the way this principle was at work on my crew while deployed in combat. That was a "Sir, request permission to speak bluntly" moment that taught me a lot about my own leadership flaws and helped me become an effective mission commander - a lesson for which I'm still grateful.

Our cadets actually learn about this in their leadership syllabus, which might be worth a re-read (or first-time read for those of us who haven't read through it). There's actually some really good material in there.

As Colin Powell said:
"The day the soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership."

[Eclipse]

But I have already met with my commander and we are formulating a plan and will be implementing this plan in the next two weeks.

And what, exactly is your "plan" to recruit new female senior members?

[lordmonar]

Col Day....you are of course, correct.....complaining is not the same as just quitting.

I apologizes to anyone who took offense. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Talked to my wife. She said hell no.

[Brit_in_CAP]

That approach made sense. Likewise, the two-deep rule in the drafts provided for some exceptions for short-duration activities, with accompanying risk mitigation procedures (limited duration, parental notification, open meetings, etc).

To add to this, the exceptions to the two deep rule in the drafts allowed solo leadership during the regular weekly meetings.  I asked for clarification on this since that language is missing in the published requlation, and the answer was that the two deep rule applies to the regular weekly meetings, too.

IMHO, that's gonna break a lot of CAP.  Go out and recruit more SMs doesn't help when one of the two scheduled leaders has to miss a cadet meeting on short notice due to work or other unforseen circumstances.

I agree; this (the re-written 52-10) started out well and ended badly.  The drafts were good 9finally) and quite encouraging but the final version misses so many points that I can't help thinking it did not take into account most of the feedback or even the experience of other organizations.

We're planning a senior staff meeting to discuss the local implementation of the news regs - **not** a discussion on how to end run them but on how to work within them and admitting to ourselves what we can do and what we are no longer willing or able to do.  Recruiting female Senior Members has been a problem here for several years which hasn't caused collateral problems as we only had one female cadet who, with help from our neighboring squadrons   :clap:   , was able to participate fully in all aspects of the CAP program.   We're going to write some contingency plans for those occasions when you are that person on your own!

The suggestion of more CSMs doesn't wash with me (personal and very biased viewed - YMMV).  My experience has been universally bad.  Again, very personal and YMMV.