Oaths of Office

[jb512]

The speed restriction came from Group, not Wing? 

Yep.

[Flying Pig]

So, because your group set the speed limit at 60 your not going to get a CAP DL

[mikeylikey]

We were sent an email from our group level a month or so ago stating that we are prohibited from driving CAP vehicles over 60mph as a blanket rule with no stated exceptions. 

HAHAHHA......I know for a fact that if you drive under 60MPH on some interstate highways in some states that have speeds above 70MPH, you may actually get a tciket!  Reference OKLAHOMA.  I was pulled over and given a verbal warning for going "too slow", I never knew they could do that! 

[jb512]

So, because your group set the speed limit at 60 your not going to get a CAP DL

At this point, no.  I've sent very respectful emails just for my own clarification and I can't personally hold myself to the rule when I believe that it conflicts with the Texas Traffic Code.  I'm just not going to put myself in the situation. 

TXDOT studies show that differences in speed higher, or lower are what cause differences in conditions.  Also, the increase in fatalities in the vans cited for the memo were not related only to speed, they had to do with tire pressure, load distribution, seat belt usage, etc...

The two statutes that have relevance deal with impeding traffic, and the requirement for slower traffic to keep right.  It seems to limit us to the rightmost lane unless the car in front of us is going 59 mph or lower in a state with 70 and 80mph speed limits.

Yes, I am a cop.

[Flying Pig]

It may have to do with insurance.  What is the speed limit for tour vans and limos in Tx.  Could they have based it on that?

[jb512]

It may have to do with insurance.  What is the speed limit for tour vans and limos in Tx.  Could they have based it on that?

It could be insurance related, but I don't see how insurance would effect only one group in the wing.  Again, I don't want to sound disrespectful to what comes down to an order issued and which has to be obeyed.

Texas mostly did away with different speed limits for different types of vehicles a few years ago.  Now everyone is equal at 70 in most places and even higher in west Texas.

[Hawk200]

HAHAHHA......I know for a fact that if you drive under 60MPH on some interstate highways in some states that have speeds above 70MPH, you may actually get a tciket!  Reference OKLAHOMA.  I was pulled over and given a verbal warning for going "too slow", I never knew they could do that! 

They get you under the clause of "not maintaining traffic pace." It's funny, but in a lot of places the traffic pace exceeds the speed limit, but people get pulled for the traffic pace issue.

[SAR-EMT1]

HAHAHHA......I know for a fact that if you drive under 60MPH on some interstate highways in some states that have speeds above 70MPH, you may actually get a tciket!  Reference OKLAHOMA.  I was pulled over and given a verbal warning for going "too slow", I never knew they could do that! 

They get you under the clause of "not maintaining traffic pace." It's funny, but in a lot of places the traffic pace exceeds the speed limit, but people get pulled for the traffic pace issue.

Totally agree. In my work as an EMT, Ive had an Ambulance on a 65mph Interstate, been rolling at 80-90 with lights and still didnt pass anyone.

[Psicorp]

Reminds me of driving in Atlanta on the I-285 loop.  The posted speed limit all around the loops is 55 mph.  You will literally get killed (or kill someone else) doing 55 mph.  I found out that my truck has a governor on it.  At 96 mph the engine quits...and I felt like I was keeping up with traffic (at least until the truck slowed to 85 and the engine came back on).

[ELTHunter]

It makes me wonder why this became an issue in the first place and the necessity of it.  Surely there has to be a logical explanation.

How much of what NHQ does is logic based?  Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc.

[ZigZag911]

How much of what NHQ does is logic based?  Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc.

I believe there is great concern over our shrinking membership numbers, especially since most of us realize that the numbers on paper are far larger than the force we can actually field.

This has resulted in a certain amount of grasping at straws in the name of retention, even before recruiting.

What we need first is an organization-wide strategic vision & goals, concurrently with an agreement with USAF, DHS and the rest as to what exactly we're going to do.

[Dragoon]

Yup.  Rather than being "as big as possible," I think we'd be better off being "as big as we need to be."

Someone determines the requirements, and then tasks each Wing to provide certain capabilities.  Wings divvy these taskings amongst their units, and then units recruit to that level.   And then stop - mission accomplished.

Much of our QA problem on members could be solved if we limited who we let walk in the door in the first place.

[jb512]

How much of what NHQ does is logic based?  Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc.

I believe there is great concern over our shrinking membership numbers, especially since most of us realize that the numbers on paper are far larger than the force we can actually field.

This has resulted in a certain amount of grasping at straws in the name of retention, even before recruiting.

What we need first is an organization-wide strategic vision & goals, concurrently with an agreement with USAF, DHS and the rest as to what exactly we're going to do.

I think you're summed it all up in one post.  I'm not concerned so much about the numbers as the number of people we have who can do the job.  If you set your standards high, recruit qualified people, and train them to a higher degree of proficiency, then we can begin to get a more definite role in DHS and polish up everything else.  If we lose a few in the process who should've never been involved in the first place then that's ok.

[sparks]

It has finally come full circle. If missions, needs and requirements are clearly identified it will be easier to decide whether an "oath" is appropriate or flight suits, or mess dress uniforms etc. The way things are now we have a mix of guesswork and regulations that the National Commander changes on a whim. At one time I thought CAP was chasing ELT's, CN/CD and an occasional assist to the local sheriff. Now I'm not so sure.

[jb512]

By the way, did we ever get a clear answer on how to administer the oaths?  Someone said they got an email from NHQ that they were official, but no guideline on the how...

[SeattleSarge]

Has anyone actually seen a copy of the directive from National Headquarters on these new oaths?  Can we get it posted please?

Where's the beef?

-SeattleSarge

[RogueLeader]

Where's the beef?

-SeattleSarge

In my belly, and boy was it heavenly.

[SARMedTech]

It makes me wonder why this became an issue in the first place and the necessity of it.  Surely there has to be a logical explanation.

How much of what NHQ does is logic based?  Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc.

Very, VERY true. I would say the same applies to anything to do with any branch of armed forces, any governmental agency, office or body and a WHOLE bunch of laws (local, state and federal).

[SARMedTech]

Yup.  Rather than being "as big as possible," I think we'd be better off being "as big as we need to be."

Someone determines the requirements, and then tasks each Wing to provide certain capabilities.  Wings divvy these taskings amongst their units, and then units recruit to that level.   And then stop - mission accomplished.

Much of our QA problem on members could be solved if we limited who we let walk in the door in the first place.

That's any interesting prospect and I assume you mean who you let apply or who gets approved for membership. In addition to the current regulations in this regard, what else would you add that might be good in terms of helping to "police" the new membership.

[Hawk200]

Yup.  Rather than being "as big as possible," I think we'd be better off being "as big as we need to be."

Someone determines the requirements, and then tasks each Wing to provide certain capabilities.  Wings divvy these taskings amongst their units, and then units recruit to that level.   And then stop - mission accomplished.

Much of our QA problem on members could be solved if we limited who we let walk in the door in the first place.

That's any interesting prospect and I assume you mean who you let apply or who gets approved for membership. In addition to the current regulations in this regard, what else would you add that might be good in terms of helping to "police" the new membership.

I don't think we should necessarily "police" the membership, but just be a little more cautious in who we let in. I remember the website of the CAP guy who had the big Chevy painted red, and sounded like some kind of rabid militaristic survivalist. We don't need people like that.

We should pay more attention to what people are looking for when they first attend a meeting, and recommend other avenues if they're looking into some kind of shoot-em-up, knife in teeth, "living off wild animals that you killed with your bare hands" kind of organization. That's not what we are, and we shouldn't entertain any fantastic ideas of that kind.

We should also explain the requirements of membership, such as uniforms, regular meeting attendance, and job performance. If people know that from first meeting, and they're not inclined to work with the team, they probably won't come back anyway. Which means we don't have problems with them in the first place.