New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Mitchell 1969]

Has anyone considered that IACE is an "overnight activity?"

[SunDog]

You folks commited to CP are stellar, really carry the ball. So sorry the human reproductive plumbing system is such a central issue now.  I think it takes some courage, in this climate, to devote time to CP.  My sqdn is small, composite, with two female cadets. No female SMS.  Not sure where this leaves CP for us.

I do O rides, but that's it as far as CP.  No time, but truth be told, I'd stay clear, regardless.  What a minefield.

[Eclipse]

It doesn't change anything day-to-day, but your unit would be precluded from unit-centric overnight activities.

Here's another unforeseen consequence...

Units are going to be disinclined to invite members from other units to participate in their activities if they have
female cadets.

By Lordmonar's reasoning, Unit 1's bivouac, which was all females, has to be canceled, because a male cadet from
Unit 2 decides on a whim he wants to go.  (See what I did there?)

Next the "Just get more CSMs!" attitude leads to more trouble, because by design these parents
are there specifically for their children, and not invested or indoctrinated in the organization itself.

[lordmonar]

By Lordmonar's reasoning, Unit 1's bivouac, which was all females, has to be canceled, because a male cadet from
Unit 2 decides on a whim he wants to go.  (See what I did there?)

Okay....I run my program for my cadets.....so no I don't need to cancel and I can exclude this cadet from my activity.....not because he is male...but because he is not no in my unit and I did not offer this event to everyone....just my cadets.

But either way.......it is a leadership obstacle that needs to be managed.

You all are out there dooming and glooming and saying this is not going to work.   The thing is.....we have already been teaching this as a good rule of thumb for years and years.

Sure it was not a requirement in the past.....but it is and always has been a good idea.

Now it is a requirement.   Deal with it.   Move on.

[Eclipse]

There's a difference between a best practice that can be relaxed when necessaarty and an untenable mandate.

[ZigZag911]

Quite the lead time on this. Effective 1 Oct 2014.

Just in time to affect the NER Conference

Not a problem...NER established very similar processes and used them for 2010 and 2012 conferences...in fact, some of the text on special events sounds like drafters of the new reg saw NER's guidelines.

[lordmonar]

There's a difference between a best practice that can be relaxed when necessaarty and an untenable mandate.

Well....I guess that's the rub......who gets to determine if it is untenable?

Because that's where we are right now.   Two days into the mandate and we get a lot of people saying "I just can't do it"!   However, if I were a group or wing commander and you were saying this to me personally.......I might just have to say "Oh....okay.  Maybe I just have to find someone who can".

Look....I know this is going to be a pain in the FPOC.  I know that there are a lot of units out there that are now going to have to do some work to get into compliance.    But....the subject matter experts say this is the best way of keeping or cadets safe....let's do it this way.

Sure it sucks......sure it is going to cause problems.....sure we could have had a better transition period......but it is all just excuses right now.

Units have six months to get compliant.    Commanders need to get cracking and doing their job of manning, equipping and training their units to perform assigned missions.

This is no different than all the other mandates came down the pike.........IS 300 and 400, Aircraft Ground Handling, CPP training for all seniors and cadets over 18, safety compliance.........these are all obstacles that leaders have to meet to do their jobs.

Now we can (and do) complain about them not being necessary, being bad ideas, being a waste of time......but there they are.....we overcome and move on.......or we just move on.

I still have not heard a valid argument about not having the co-ed supervision....beyond "It means I'm going to have to do some more work to pull off these overnight events".

If you having trouble......go to group and wing and ask for help....that's one of the reason why they are there.

[Eclipse]

There's a difference between a best practice that can be relaxed when necessaarty and an untenable mandate.

Well....I guess that's the rub......who gets to determine if it is untenable?

The membership.

Maybe I just have to find someone who can".

Good luck with that - there's such an abundance of members, especially those with the ability to be good commanders, that should be no problem.

Commanders need to get cracking and doing their job of manning, equipping and training their units to perform assigned missions.

Yes, this will be the siren "call to arms" to get commanders to "do their jobs".  Good intentions, regulations, SUIs, and common sense haven't worked
to this point, but a reg that makes their life more difficult, that's the answer!

[Eclipse]

This is no different than all the other mandates came down the pike.........IS 300 and 400, Aircraft Ground Handling, CPP training for all seniors and cadets over 18, safety compliance.........these are all obstacles that leaders have to meet to do their jobs.

This is 100% different.

These are all mandates which are, in fact, "manageable", not to mention accomplishable on an individucal basis, with no ramifications for anyone else,
or the unit as a whole.  Want to be an ICS staffer?  Great go do ICS 300, but that doesn't stop the rest of the unit from going to a mission while we wait for you.
Nor does it even stop >you< from being there in trainee status.  Not to mention a unit CC can bring in whatever training they need.

Haven't done your GHV?  Sorry, you can't fly, but these other cadets still don't go.

We have zero control over who joins, where they join, or what they are interested in doing.  That's the problem with these mandates,
they pre-suppose a military staffing model where none exists, and worse, they require a level of command imperative and intestinal fortitude
which is essentially the opposite of NHQ's actual posture on member relations.

"You must and will do 'x', 'y', and 'z', however we have no way to help you get the resources or manpower to do it, and oh, by the way
making people sad makes them quit, so don't do anything that sounds like being "bossy".

A commander could spend a year
recruiting females adults, only to find a unit with a 50/50 demographic and no one interested in doing overnights, and there is no way
to mandate otherwise.  None.

....go to group and wing and ask for help....that's one of the reason why they are there.

We are all ears on how group or wing is going to "help".

[Eclipse]

Units have six months to get compliant.   

And again, if this is a legitimate safety issue, which it is most certainly >NOT<, then why isn't is effective immediately?
We are going into the main part of the year where overnight activities occur.

"Sorry, that would make people sad, so you cadets will just have to risk it until October."

If it's necessary, it's necessary TODAY, and if it's not necessary TODAY, it's not necessary at all.

Legitimate safety issues don't get ignored because of manpower issues, but ill-conceive, last minute "good ideas", do
so that the landing is softer and there won't be as much push back.

[lordmonar]

And there we are.

You have decided.....with out even trying......that there is now way to recruit, train, and lead the personnel necessary to perform the mission.

I don't want to turn this into a personal attack....but really....these are just excuses.

I don't know how group and wing are going to help......because I'm not there. 
But that is not the issue.   
When training a new guy to do his job........we say....if you run into trouble.....ask for help.
Sometimes the next guy up doesn't know what to do....so he goes up the chain as well.

When we actually try to solve the problem....we may still fail.....but we tried.

But today......April 18, 2014 (two days into the untenable mandate) the "membership" has decided that we can't do it.  I guess we should just close up shop and all join the Boy Scouts and move on.

Oh Snark!   The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years!   Why aren't their units folding left and right?

[Eclipse]

Oh Snark!   The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years!   Why aren't their units folding left and right?

Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?

Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.

[lordmonar]

Units have six months to get compliant.   

And again, if this is a legitimate safety issue, which it is most certainly >NOT<, then why isn't is effective immediately?
We are going into the main part of the year where overnight activities occur.

"Sorry, that would make people sad, so you cadets will just have to risk it until October."

If it's necessary, it's necessary TODAY, and if it's not necessary TODAY, it's not necessary at all.

Legitimate safety issues don't get ignored because of manpower issues, but ill-conceive, last minute "good ideas", do
so that the landing is softer and there won't be as much push back.

Because the leadership knows that we have been operating under the old rules for years.....and they know that we are entering the period where most wings and units are doing lots off overnight activites.......and that they understand that this is going to be a pain in the butt and that a lot of planning, recruiting and training is going to have to be done to make this happen.

So they have us time to get it done.

The risk has always been there.....we have just been ignoring it.   
The subject matter experts talked to other subject matter experts.....including CAP members.....and this is what they think is the best way of doing it.

At some point we are just going to have to say  "Shut up and color".     So  you got two jobs right now....if you truly feel this is a bad idea....then you got to a) start doing what you need to do to get your program into compliance....and b) you need to start going through channels to challenge what you think is a bad idea.

I see a lot of belly aching....and I get it......it is going to be a lot of work for a lot of squadrons.  We are going to have to either change what events we do, or we are going to have to find way to convince more women to join and then go to these overnight events.  That is going to such big time.......I'm with you.   

But as a group leader.......you saying it is "untenable" with out even trying, and that is not painting a good picture.

[Eclipse]

But as a group leader.......you saying it is "untenable" with out even trying, and that is not painting a good picture.

Call a "spade" a "heart" to make people feel better doesn't change what it is.

[lordmonar]

Oh Snark!   The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years!   Why aren't their units folding left and right?

Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?

Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.

It is not meaningless....it is exactly what I am talking about.   The BSA venture program has been Co-Ed for since forever!   With pretty much the same same rules as we are talking about here.    And the venture program is still going strong.

My point is........it is possible to recruit women.  It is possible to convince these women to do the necessary training to be qualified to be supervisors for overnight activities.   

So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.

[Eclipse]

So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.

It's a different demographic entirely.  You turn Venture into a paramilitary organization vs the social
organization it is today and see how long it takes to make them look like CAP.

GA flying is decidedly a male endeavor.

The military is a decidedly male endeavor.

And while it might be to their detriment, and there are plenty of people trying to change that, the simple
fact is that the majority of woman and girls simply aren't interested in either.

Wishing that changes someday doesn't change it today, nor maybe ever.

The current policy allows for anyone interested to join with no back-pressure.  The new policy adds more
pressure to the very situation NHQ professes to be seeking to change, namely diversity in the ranks.

If Cadet Charlie knows two awesome girls in his school who would "love CAP" but he also is aware that
if they join his beloved annual bivouac would probably be canceled, is he going to be inclined to seek them
out as members?  You think 13 year olds think in abstract terms?  No, they want to go camping.

Same goes for the adults.  Human nature is to avoid pain, not invite it into your life when it isn't necessary.

The fact remains that it is easy for the BOY Scouts of America to say that co-ed supervision i s
required on any activities which are co-ed when they know darn well that for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority
of their membership, that is nothing more then meaningless rehtoric.

[Storm Chaser]

Oh Snark!   The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years!   Why aren't their units folding left and right?

Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?

Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.

It is not meaningless....it is exactly what I am talking about.   The BSA venture program has been Co-Ed for since forever!   With pretty much the same same rules as we are talking about here.    And the venture program is still going strong.

My point is........it is possible to recruit women.  It is possible to convince these women to do the necessary training to be qualified to be supervisors for overnight activities.   

So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.

It was my understanding that not every Venture crew is co-ed; that they can also choose to be all-male or all-female. If that's true, then that would give them more flexibility than what we have in CAP. Their membership numbers are also much, much higher than CAP's. And so are their resources.

[Eclipse]

http://www.hoac-bsa.org/venturing  (This verbiage is in a number of other sources, this one was handy.)
"Venturing crews and Sea Scout ships can be coed, all-male, or all-female.  The chartered organization and the leadership make that decision." 

Boy Scouts - no female Scouts, ergo rhetoric only.

Venture Crews - local decision, ergo, best practice only.

Also, being a nonsecular, religiously involved, if not based organization, the BSA has pretty much shown it
can do whatever it wants in regards to the separation of genders, etc., up to and including prohibiting
females leaders from participating in over night activities if the Committee so deems.

[lordmonar]

Oh Snark!   The Boy Scouts have had this rule for years and years!   Why aren't their units folding left and right?

Um, you do know what the term "Boy" in "Boy Scouts" means, right?

Venture doesn't count as it is such a small portion of the program that it is meaningless in the conversation.

It is not meaningless....it is exactly what I am talking about.   The BSA venture program has been Co-Ed for since forever!   With pretty much the same same rules as we are talking about here.    And the venture program is still going strong.

My point is........it is possible to recruit women.  It is possible to convince these women to do the necessary training to be qualified to be supervisors for overnight activities.   

So.......why can BSA Venture units succeed in manning, training and equipping their units to accomplish their assigned missions......but CAP CP units can't.

It was my understanding that not every Venture crew is co-ed; that they can also choose to be all-male or all-female. If that's true, then that would give them more flexibility than what we have in CAP. Their membership numbers are also much, much higher than CAP's. And so are their resources.

True...but if they are Co-Ed...then they got to have Co-Ed supervision.

[Eclipse]

True...but if they are Co-Ed...then they got to have Co-Ed supervision.

Their ability to self-select removes them from relevance in this context.

Allow a CAP Unit CC the same choice and this conversation is over.