New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Storm Chaser]

So, the new CAPR 52-10 states the following:

     d. Two Deep Leadership. CAP's general policy is that every cadet activity must be supervised by at least two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status in eServices (see CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership). CPP training materials explain how that principle is put into practice. There are two exceptions to the "two deep leadership" rule:
          (1) Cadet Flying, explained in 2-6a, and
          (2) Real-World Operational Missions (not training) conducted under CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.

How is this policy going to affect ground team training? Do we need to have "two adult leaders who are in "Approved" status" on every ground team training sortie, especially during field training or exercises?

The cadet activity has to be supervised by at least two leaders. This doesn't mean that two adult leaders have to be within line of sight of every cadet at all times. See the proximity rule:

2-3.e. e. Proximity of Supervisor. Because each physical environment, mixture of cadets' grades and ages, and nature of activity is different, CAP does not set a firm rule regarding the proximity between a group of cadets and their adult leader supervisor. If supervisors do not have direct line of sight contact with cadets, they must nevertheless be aware of where the cadets are and what they are doing, and check up on them periodically.

So while it will affect activities, I'd say the impact of the two-deep leadership rule on ground team training will be minimal. Even an all-adult ground team needs to be checked on periodically.

Of course, my understanding may change whenever the new training materials come out.

That point makes sense too. I was actually coming to the same conclusion after re-reading CAPR 52-10, even before seeing this post.

[NIN]

The cadet activity has to be supervised by at least two leaders. This doesn't mean that two adult leaders have to be within line of sight of every cadet at all times. See the proximity rule:

2-3.e. e. Proximity of Supervisor. Because each physical environment, mixture of cadets' grades and ages, and nature of activity is different, CAP does not set a firm rule regarding the proximity between a group of cadets and their adult leader supervisor. If supervisors do not have direct line of sight contact with cadets, they must nevertheless be aware of where the cadets are and what they are doing, and check up on them periodically.

So while it will affect activities, I'd say the impact of the two-deep leadership rule on ground team training will be minimal. Even an all-adult ground team needs to be checked on periodically.

Of course, my understanding may change whenever the new training materials come out.

I like this definition.  Beats  "Sir, we're going out onto the parking lot behind the armory for drill..." followed by 4-5 senior members scrambling all over each other to "supervise."

The cadets are 35 feet away outside an open door. You can see them most of the time if you turn your head. 

(Someone had gotten this idea that they needed to have "eyes on" the troops if they went *anywhere*. Like even the drinking fountain in the hallway.. That was getting a tad ridiculous...)

Plus, without 2-3 seniors standing there "supervising," there is no longer the example being set where the cadets just "do what the seniors are doing" and stand there "supervising" in a little knot in the middle of the parking lot.

*sigh*

[Grumpy]

I'm a little confused here, maybe someone can help me out. 

The current 52-16 states,

"Cadets and CPPT. Completion of CPPT is required of all cadets within 6 months following their 18th birthday, or if a promotion is due during that period, prior to the promotion. Cadets become eligible to participate in CPPT upon turning 17 years of age."

The new 52-10 states:

Non-compliance.  Cadets who do not complete the training before their 18th birthday are ineligible to earn cadet promotions until they complete the training.

(Notice they removed the wording about becoming eligible at 17 to take it)

Required Participants.  All cadets will complete this course as part of their training during Achievement 1 of the Cadet Program. It is delivered via the Achievement 1 character "foundations module" requirement.

So what is National saying?  That now ALL cadets have to take CPPT and if they don't do it by their 18th birthday they can no longer participate?

[coudano]

Yes, there is now a "wingman" course
that all cadets will take as part of achievement 1

However, cadets will be required to take cppt basic before their 18th birthday.

I think that it being available when the cadet turns 17 will still be in effect, even though it isn't explicitly written here.

CAPR 52-10

3-2.a. Required Participants. All adult members must satisfactorily complete the Cadet Protection Basic Course. New members will complete this course in conjunction with the Level I Orientation Course, but the course is also available as a stand-alone module. To make it easy for cadets to comply with the training requirement, cadets become eligible to participate in the course upon reaching age 17.

c.  ...Cadets who do not complete the training before their 18th birthday are ineligible to earn cadet promotions until they complete the training.

3-4. Cadet Protection Wingman Course. This course informs cadets of CAP policies regarding abuse and prepares them to become "effective wingmen" who know how to look out for a fellow cadet's well-being and how to respond to a potentially abusive situation.
a. Required Participants. All cadets will complete this course as part of their training during Achievement 1 of the Cadet Program. It is delivered via the Achievement 1 character "foundations module" requirement.

[a2capt]

There's no tick box in there for Achievement 1, yet.

They might as well call that one, "Hurry, check all the boxes" instead of "Curry".

[lordmonar]

I'm a little confused here, maybe someone can help me out. 

The current 52-16 states,

"Cadets and CPPT. Completion of CPPT is required of all cadets within 6 months following their 18th birthday, or if a promotion is due during that period, prior to the promotion. Cadets become eligible to participate in CPPT upon turning 17 years of age."

The new 52-10 states:

Non-compliance.  Cadets who do not complete the training before their 18th birthday are ineligible to earn cadet promotions until they complete the training.

(Notice they removed the wording about becoming eligible at 17 to take it)

Required Participants.  All cadets will complete this course as part of their training during Achievement 1 of the Cadet Program. It is delivered via the Achievement 1 character "foundations module" requirement.

So what is National saying?  That now ALL cadets have to take CPPT and if they don't do it by their 18th birthday they can no longer participate?

There are now three levels of training.

Basic Cadet Training all cadets during Achievement 1
Basic Senior Member for all senior members during level I training and cadets after they turn 18.
Advanced Senior training for seniors who work closely with cadets.

[Grumpy]

And I take it that "The checks in the mail" when it comes the course material.

[a2capt]

Absolutely! Just like those PD certificates from Wing.

[Pingree1492]

I'm surprised that in a lot of the hysteria about the new gender requirements in the reg that no one from RMR has chimed in yet.  It's been in the Region Supplement for YEARS that overnight activities be chaperoned by at least two seniors, and with at least one senior of each gender (if a co-ed activity).

I can say that it was honestly a bit of an issue at times when I first took over as Deputy Commander for Cadets.  I had an all male squadron, and myself and the other CP senior are both female.  Getting the 'token male senior' to want to come out and play in the woods with us, or go to drill team competitions was challenging at first.  Luckily, there's a bit of a larger population of male seniors to try to bribe to come be a chaperone for a night. 

We also started to heavily recruit for male seniors and CSM's to help us out, and we were fortunately very successful (in getting both male and female parents to join).  Once parents understand why they are very much needed to join, and the relative ease of being a CSM, and just hit up a few activities a year, I think you'll be surprised at the response. 

Mainly though, it just required a bit more effort on our part in the planning phases, and a bit of networking with other seniors and parents to make activities happen.  We never had to cancel an activity due to a male senior not being able to participate.

[Brit_in_CAP]

This may already have been discussed in this thread, in which case I apologize in advance.

This point came up in discussion tonight.

Please review the new version of 52-10, 2-3 (g) - Transportation.  The words read:

"Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10)."

The discussion tonight hinged on the piece about private cars.  My opinion was that the reg forbids us to transport cadets in parties of less than 3 people unless they are family members, irrespective of who owns the vehicle (unit van or private).  The note about insurance simply means that transport to and from CAP activities via own own vehicles has to be covered by our insurance.  My reading is that this effectively prevents us from using the van or own cars to bring cadets to a meeting or to take them home afterwards UNLESS the last cadet in the vehicle is a family member OR we always use two Adult Leaders for the transport.

My colleague maintains that he can transport non-family cadets to and from meetings in his own vehicle, and that the 'rule of three' does not apply.

Opinions?

[a2capt]

I don't see anything in that text at all prohibiting anything to do with non corporate vehicles.

What I do see is NHQ saying "not our problem", you are on your own. Transport who you want to.

[coudano]

Let's try to break this into two sentences...

Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet).

Adult leaders can not transport non family member cadets, TO FROM OR DURING CAP activity unless the party numbers 3.   Period.  Dot.




Oh, and by the way, here is a tidbit about what happens when you get in a car crash on the way to or from a meeting (regardless of who is riding in the vehicle) which does not belong in the cadet protection reg, at all.

Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

It doesn't mean you are green light to place yourself in a situation where integrity could be questioned by being one on one with a non member cadet. 

You can not do it in a car. 
You can not do it at a coffee bar. 
You can not do it in a wing conference hotel room.
You can not do it in the squadron's closet of brooms.

[Garibaldi]

Let's try to break this into two sentences...

Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet).

Adult leaders can not transport non family member cadets, TO FROM OR DURING CAP activity unless the party numbers 3.   Period.  Dot.




Oh, and by the way, here is a tidbit about what happens when you get in a car crash on the way to or from a meeting (regardless of who is riding in the vehicle) which does not belong in the cadet protection reg, at all.

Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

It doesn't mean you are green light to place yourself in a situation where integrity could be questioned by being one on one with a non member cadet. 

You can not do it in a car. 
You can not do it at a coffee bar. 
You can not do it in a wing conference hotel room.
You can not do it in the squadron's closet of brooms.

You cannot violate CPPT
You cannot do it, rule of 3.

[Storm Chaser]

Insurance is irrelevant when it comes to Cadet Protection Policy. The reason CAPR 900-5 was quoted is because it addresses the fact that transportation to and from CAP activities in POV is not considered part of the activity and it's conducted at the member's risk. CAPR 77-1 has similar wording:

Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP members and their passengers. CAP assumes no right of control, liability or responsibility for such transportation.

Base on CAPR 77-1 and CAPR 900-5, my interpretation of CAPR 52-10 regarding transportation is more liberal. If Senior Member X, gives a ride to Cadet Y, who happens to be his neighbor and who knows his parents, then both Senior Member X and Cadet Y are doing this outside of CAP, at their own risk. Within a CAP activity and CAP transportation (including POV approved for use IAW CAPR 77-1), this scenario would be prohibited.

[Eclipse]

I can't agree on this.

The policy makes it clear that the CPPT rules apply at all times.

POV or not does not change the CPPT.  NHQ disavows to/from because of accident liability, but you'll still get disciplined if you give a
non-family member a ride by yourself.

[LSThiker]

I can't agree on this.

The policy makes it clear that the CPPT rules apply at all times.

POV or not does not change the CPPT.  NHQ disavows to/from because of accident liability, but you'll still get disciplined if you give a
non-family member a ride by yourself.

This is correct.  In fact, there is a thread about this very section between Ned and me.  Reading this section could be confusing for some members.  I was hoping they would have rewritten it to make it clearer, but apparently not.  The subject of the paragraph starts off about transportation, but ends with liability.  Risk refers to the insurance and not cadet protection.  I agree with Storm Chaser that the liability section does not belong in the reg about CPPT.  If compelled to include it, I think a better transition between the two subjects would have been more appropriate as it will save in some confusion among members.

[Storm Chaser]

Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?

I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.

[LSThiker]

Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?

I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.

While true that CAP has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor, but our membership is a privilege and not a right.  Therefore, they can terminate it for violation of their rules. 

1-1. Policy. Membership in Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a privilege reserved for those individuals who desire to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP and who meet the eligibility requirements outlined herein.

1-4. Membership Conditions. All persons agree by applying for initial, or membership renewal, to the following continuous conditions of membership:
a. To obey the decisions of those in authority and to follow and adhere to the appropriate regulations and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol.

[Storm Chaser]

We must be in different CAPs. Some of the things I read here in CAP Talk are nothing like the positive experience I've had in CAP. Not even the military is like that. Oh, well. Good night.

[Eclipse]

Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?

I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.

Yes, the regulation about transportation, which does not speak to, or negate the other rules regarding CPPT.  I'd be willing to bet the relevent transport regs will be amended to synch with the CPT ones, but even if they aren't, that doesn't change anything.

People can do mental gymnastics about "personal time", but a ride to a CAP meeting or other activity
is clearly covered by CPPT.

I've had a positive experience in CAP as well, but that doesn't change the fact that those very
rides to a meeting could be considered the grooming behavior discussed in the updated regs.