McGuire AFB Air Show

[mikeylikey]

They were working and assigned to a Region activity, so yes, they were, at the time, an asset of NER. Everyone had a chance and a choice to withdraw their cadets from the activity if they felt it was the right thing to do. Those still attached to NER for the activity were the assets of NER for the duration of said activity.

For those referencing the IG... please cite regulations and examples of violations of said regulations that you would report to an IG or stop putting threats on this board please.

I'm not even a member of NJWG and I'm starting to feel offended.

When the member transferes to NER thorugh e-services then they can be an asset of NER.  Until then, they are only a participant, thus the reason for having Participation Letters.  

I am offended that the majority of people I speak to/ read about say this activity was a mess.  I hope it is managed better next year.  

[afgeo4]

They were working and assigned to a Region activity, so yes, they were, at the time, an asset of NER. Everyone had a chance and a choice to withdraw their cadets from the activity if they felt it was the right thing to do. Those still attached to NER for the activity were the assets of NER for the duration of said activity.

For those referencing the IG... please cite regulations and examples of violations of said regulations that you would report to an IG or stop putting threats on this board please.

I'm not even a member of NJWG and I'm starting to feel offended.

When the member transferes to NER thorugh e-services then they can be an asset of NER.  Until then, they are only a participant, thus the reason for having Participation Letters. 

I am offended that the majority of people I speak to/ read about say this activity was a mess.  I hope it is managed better next year. 

Alright, I'll bite. Describe to me the limitations of a "participant" as in what makes a participant with a letter not responsible to the event commander?

While at it, please let me know who is responsible for the said "participant" at the event (I'm gonna guess the event CC is). If I'm right on that guess then I'm going to guess that if the event CC is responsible for the member then the member is tasked by the CC as well since it's a 2 way street (remember, we work in a military command structure).

IF A COMMAND ELEMENT IS DESIGNATED AND A CAP MEMBER IS ASSIGNED (by choice or otherwise) TO SUCH AN ELEMENT, THAT MEMBER BECOMES A HUMAN ASSET (not property, but asset) OF SAID ELEMENT. THE ASSIGNMENT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REFLECTED ON CAP.GOV OR THE MML. IT CAN BE REFLECTED ON AN ORDER OR A PARTICIPATION LETTER.

In the Air Force we get to go TDY. We are still members of our units, but while on TDY we are assigned (temporarily) to other units. We answer to those units' commanders and for the duration of the assignment we are their assets. It's the same way in CAP. It CANNOT work otherwise.

Not a complex concept... at least it's not for most.

[mikeylikey]

They were working and assigned to a Region activity, so yes, they were, at the time, an asset of NER. Everyone had a chance and a choice to withdraw their cadets from the activity if they felt it was the right thing to do. Those still attached to NER for the activity were the assets of NER for the duration of said activity.

For those referencing the IG... please cite regulations and examples of violations of said regulations that you would report to an IG or stop putting threats on this board please.

I'm not even a member of NJWG and I'm starting to feel offended.

When the member transfers to NER through e-services then they can be an asset of NER.  Until then, they are only a participant, thus the reason for having Participation Letters. 

I am offended that the majority of people I speak to/ read about say this activity was a mess.  I hope it is managed better next year. 

Alright, I'll bite. Describe to me the limitations of a "participant" as in what makes a participant with a letter not responsible to the event commander?

While at it, please let me know who is responsible for the said "participant" at the event (I'm gonna guess the event CC is). If I'm right on that guess then I'm going to guess that if the event CC is responsible for the member then the member is tasked by the CC as well since it's a 2 way street (remember, we work in a military command structure).

IF A COMMAND ELEMENT IS DESIGNATED AND A CAP MEMBER IS ASSIGNED (by choice or otherwise) TO SUCH AN ELEMENT, THAT MEMBER BECOMES A HUMAN ASSET (not property, but asset) OF SAID ELEMENT. THE ASSIGNMENT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REFLECTED ON CAP.GOV OR THE MML. IT CAN BE REFLECTED ON AN ORDER OR A PARTICIPATION LETTER.

In the Air Force we get to go TDY. We are still members of our units, but while on TDY we are assigned (temporarily) to other units. We answer to those units' commanders and for the duration of the assignment we are their assets. It's the same way in CAP. It CANNOT work otherwise.

Not a complex concept... at least it's not for most.

Sure.....whatever.  I don't care anymore either way.  I have been doing the military thing for many years, most of which has been as an officer.  I completely understand TDY, but please don't compare anything military to CAP.  Perhaps 30 years ago you could relate the military and CAP, but CAP has moved SO FAR AWAY from the military system, it is completely its own monster. 

I was not there......so I will shut up after this. To answere your first question, of what makes a participant with a PL not responsible to the event commander.  My response......when the Event Commander and his "staff" have no regard for the well-being of the particpants as demonstrated.  When he and his "staff" fail to acknowledge problems before hand, and when those issues arise, completely ignore them.  THAT IS MY ANSWERE.

[CASH172]

I don't know for sure, but I think that Sea Cadets and JROTC weren't required to sign the participation letters.  So they couldn't be considered a NER asset that way.  While CAP had overall command of the airshow from all of the cadet side, outside organizations don't have the same kind of jurisdictional authority as say a TDY. 

[afgeo4]

I don't know for sure, but I think that Sea Cadets and JROTC weren't required to sign the participation letters.  So they couldn't be considered a NER asset that way.  While CAP had overall command of the airshow from all of the cadet side, outside organizations don't have the same kind of jurisdictional authority as say a TDY. 

Joint command rules apply. They are an asset of the command authority if they agreed to joint command. The other agencies' CC has the right to withdraw from the agreement at any time to my knowledge.

[Sgt. Savage]

I guess, to elaborate on the story, that our squadron / wing cadets were dispersed between 4 barracks'. One of our officers was given medication that a cadet needed and couldn't find that cadet. Likewise, form 60's are great but, I know which of my cadets are allergic to bee stings, medications and what have you; to remove local command control over our cadets posed numerous safety issues.

These are kids. It's not the same as treating the SM's as assets, it's DEFFINATELY not the same as treating them like AD w/TDY orders. Parents trust that we are caring for their children when they are away. They are not likely to approve of dropping their kids off with a bunch of people they don't know and trusting that they will be cared for in a consistent manner.

[Pumbaa]

These are kids. It's not the same as treating the SM's as assets

Yep, darn toot'n, this difference is, if I was treated this way, I would strip off  my butter bars, and drive my posterior home, post haste. Or go to the beach whichever is closer...

Regardless, if the cadets were part of the 'wing assets' or not.  I am still the one who has to answer to the parents.

"Oh no, Mrs Smith your son Billy was just part of the wing assets, I am so sorry he INSERT HERE, and is scarred for life. but I was no longer responsible."

Horse puckey!

If one of my cadets is is need, he/she is still MY RESPONSIBILITY.  If I feel that being a 'wing asset' is detrimental because of P.P.P. then I take them the heck out of there!

I am the one who is going to bring him/her home to mom and dad. And they are expecting them to come back the way they left.

And that includeds close calls and potential caca hitting the fan too.

[mdickinson]

did anyone think of using an Incident Command System type structure for this event?  ICS is usuable for just about anything nowadays, not just disasters and ES. Just a thought.

Good point. I was there with about 10 seniors and 20 cadets from my local group, and there were a few things we kept saying to each other during the weekend:
- This is a great idea, having CAP come out en masse to support the show, and opening it up to CAP members from all over.
- It was neat the way they mixed the cadets together (each flight had cadets from several different wings, plus a few sea scouts, etc.). It gave them a chance to get to know people from different states.
- What a great airshow!
- Logistical and organizational preparations were completely inadequate.
- This operation would have been a perfect chance to test out ICS on a really big scale!

I'm sure some dedicated people put in a lot of time preparing for this event - and the level of advance planning and organization would probably have been fine if 200 people were coming. But when over a thousand are descending upon you on Friday evening, it requires a lot more organization, a lot more staff, etc. Meaning...

ICS would have been perfect for this. Each staff area (food, housing, finance, transportation, etc.) could have been handled by a section chief / branch director, with a few people on his/her staff. Each section/branch/team/squad could have had a desk and a radio, located in an ICP for easy inter-branch communication... it would have been very neat to see!

Although many of this year's logistical arrangements were too-little-too-late, it was still a good experience. We got to help the Air Force, see the airshow (twice!), and hang out with our CAP colleagues from other wings, always a rare treat.

And we got to see how CAP folks react when things don't go right. Some grin and bear it, some wait patiently, some find the "pain point" and jump in to help (whether they are wanted or not  ), some choose to moan and groan, and some hop back in their vans and head home.

I hope they do it again! I would offer to serve on staff, help with the advance planning, etc... It would be interesting to see how good we might be able to make it. Maybe next time the event can be run by a huge ICS team made up of members from all the different wings, instead of all the pressure resting on the folks who happen to live nearby.

[SarDragon]

Well, now that this (first of its kind at this scale) event has been thoroughly thrashed, I'd like to ask - how many of you have offered the constructive criticism items to either the folks who did this year's event, or folks who might be planning the next event?

[CASH172]

Unfortunently, the next McGuire Airshow won't be until 2009.

[afgeo4]

Well, now that this (first of its kind at this scale) event has been thoroughly thrashed, I'd like to ask - how many of you have offered the constructive criticism items to either the folks who did this year's event, or folks who might be planning the next event?

I spoke to the NJWG CV at the very end of the event personally (he engaged me) and although I didn't offer any advice on how to improve in the future, he did ask me what I thought may have been problems and he seemed to have been very attentive to what I had to say. I found him to be very receptive to suggestions and opinions in general and I think this type of event would be much better organized next time around, but that's just my personal feeling.

[SarDragon]

Unfortunently, the next McGuire Airshow won't be until 2009.

That gives the organizers twice as long to fix the things that went wrong.

Well, now that this (first of its kind at this scale) event has been thoroughly thrashed, I'd like to ask - how many of you have offered the constructive criticism items to either the folks who did this year's event, or folks who might be planning the next event?

I spoke to the NJWG CV at the very end of the event personally (he engaged me) and although I didn't offer any advice on how to improve in the future, he did ask me what I thought may have been problems and he seemed to have been very attentive to what I had to say. I found him to be very receptive to suggestions and opinions in general and I think this type of event would be much better organized next time around, but that's just my personal feeling.

Good on you, George. How many others out there have done the same thing? That's what should be happening now, instead of the bashing that continues half a month after the event.

[Capt M. Sherrod]

Having been one of the officers that brought cadets and BTDT, I can't say that I agree with all of the bashing.  I'm not ashamed to say that we did leave on Saturday night in the interests of applying CPPT after the blatant violations that occurred with one of my cadets.  I will not go into specifics here. 

However, while I think things were poorly executed, I am taking that poor execution and turning it into a training tool for my cadets so that they can understand how to change things. 

I have asked each of my participants to write up their own AAR with constructive criticism that we will submit as a Squadron.  I look forward to seeing the AAR that comes out from the C/Col and the Maj. so that there can be an open dialogue.

Feel free to flame away...  Everyone learns from failures more than they do successes.