Civil Air Patrol and knifes

[Ned]

What does NESA have to do with this?

Because it was developed as part of the curriculum (if the cover is to be believed.)

The GT / UDF book is the bible of Groupd ops in the same way that the aircrew task book is the bible of air ops.  That is where the detail of all the tasking is found, your sign-offs are supposed to be tracked, and is required equipment for both types of crews.

Of course it is regulatory.

Obviously schools like NESA can set any curriculum and standards they would like.

But if I am not in the school and not engaged in an AFAM or even a local emergency services mission, why should I reasonably believe that I am bound by a "task guide."?

IOW, if I am not engaged in "ground ops" and trying to get something signed off, why would I think I was somehow regulated by a "task guide?"

If a senior brought a double-edged knife or other knife purportedly restricted by the task guide on a squadron bivouac, a commander could certainly tell them to put it away or whatever.

But I'm not understanding how a "task guide" for GTLs can be regulatory in nature, especially for folks who are not GTL's engaged in the tasks described in the guide.

What am I missing?

[N Harmon]

But if I am not in the school and not engaged in an AFAM or even a local emergency services mission, why should I reasonably believe that I am bound by a "task guide."?

I thought you were talking about ground ops outside of NESA. If you are talking about non-ES activities, then there is no reason to believe the task guide applies.

[GroundHawg]

An excellent knife that falls within all CAP regs is the Quartermaster Knife by Ontario. Exactly 6 inch blade, and under the overall length. It has 2 restraints on the sheath and is a tough knife. I have carried one on all of my deployments and if I loved it anymore, my wife might take issue.

[PhotogPilot]

An excellent knife that falls within all CAP regs is the Quartermaster Knife by Ontario. Exactly 6 inch blade, and under the overall length. It has 2 restraints on the sheath and is a tough knife. I have carried one on all of my deployments and if I loved it anymore, my wife might take issue.

That's not a knife...


Now THAT'S a knife!

Sorry, nobody's gone there yet, I couldn't resist.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

An excellent knife that falls within all CAP regs is the Quartermaster Knife by Ontario. Exactly 6 inch blade, and under the overall length. It has 2 restraints on the sheath and is a tough knife. I have carried one on all of my deployments and if I loved it anymore, my wife might take issue.

That's not a knife...


Now THAT'S a knife!

Sorry, nobody's gone there yet, I couldn't resist.

Oh, we have already played knifey spooney.

[Eclipse]

An excellent knife that falls within all CAP regs is the Quartermaster Knife by Ontario. Exactly 6 inch blade, and under the overall length. It has 2 restraints on the sheath and is a tough knife. I have carried one on all of my deployments and if I loved it anymore, my wife might take issue.

That's not a knife...


Now THAT'S a knife!

Sorry, nobody's gone there yet, I couldn't resist.

See page 2, we won't mind if you read the whole thread...

[Larry Mangum]

The GT / UDF book is the bible of Groupd ops in the same way that the aircrew task book is the bible of air ops.  That is where the detail of all the tasking is found, your sign-offs are supposed to be tracked, and is required equipment for both types of crews.

Of course it is regulatory.

It is not regulatory as it is neither a regulation or manual. It is simply a practical standard, that should be used to to determine if a person minimally demonstrates the knowledge required to carry out a task, no matter what part of the country they are from. Why minimally, because someone in Alaska needs to know how to dress for cold weather more than someone in Florida does, for example.
As a side note, the task guides were developed as part of the ES curriculum project and not by NESA. 

[Eclipse]

The GT / UDF book is the bible of Groupd ops in the same way that the aircrew task book is the bible of air ops.  That is where the detail of all the tasking is found, your sign-offs are supposed to be tracked, and is required equipment for both types of crews.

Of course it is regulatory.

It is not regulatory as it is neither a regulation or manual.

I would agree with that if CAP was consistent in their documentation, however there are any number of places where an "R" or "M" is missing from a document which requires compliance.

Possession of, and adherence to, the Task guide is required for both initial qualification and ongoing participation.  That sounds pretty regulatory to me.

[Larry Mangum]

CAPR 60-3 paragraph 2-3d: "All personnel will conduct training using the standardized National task guides.  Evaluators must ensure that trainees satisfactorily pass all requirements of a task contained in the task guide before certifying completion for the SQTR." 

So as you can see they are required for training according to CAPR 60-3, but nowhere does it say they must be adhered to for participation. Of course the old adage "that we should train as we fight" should be adhered to, but no one can ever forsee all of the possible missions or situations we might wind up in. 

Semper Gumby!

[manfredvonrichthofen]

CAPR 60-3 paragraph 2-3d: "All personnel will conduct training using the standardized National task guides.  Evaluators must ensure that trainees satisfactorily pass all requirements of a task contained in the task guide before certifying completion for the SQTR." 

So as you can see they are required for training according to CAPR 60-3, but nowhere does it say they must be adhered to for participation. Of course the old adage "that we should train as we fight" should be adhered to, but no one can ever forsee all of the possible missions or situations we might wind up in. 

Semper Gumby!

Beat me to the punch. I would say that constant aherance to the training would be a requirement as well would it not?

[Larry Mangum]

I would hope so, but tactical flexibility, means we must not becomes so rigid in our training that we lose the ability to think outside of the box.   Which means we need to plan FTX and SAREX's that are challenging and not just the same old thing time after time.

[Eclipse]

Not adhered to for participation?

So we train people to a standard and then say "now go do whatever you want to maintain flexibility?"

You train to the book, and refer to it in the field.  If it isn't in the book, 99% of the time you should not do it.

Our approved operations do not vary so much as to need "audibles" very often, and there are few, if any, members who
have such a high ops tempo that they should be looking to get "creative". 

"Creative" in CAP ES is usually the first step in "Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

[Larry Mangum]

Not adhered to for participation? So we train people to a standard and then say "now go do whatever you want to maintain flexibility?" You train to the book, and refer to it in the field.  If it isn't in the book, 99% of the time you should not do it. Our approved operations do not vary so much as to need "audibles" very often, and there are few, if any, members who have such a high ops tempo that they should be looking to get "creative".  "Creative" in CAP ES is usually the first step in "Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

Never said that we not adhere to our training while in actual missions nor that they should go go do whatever you want. What I said is that we must not become so rigid, we cannot see a way to accomplish the mission. The ability to think outside of the box is why the us military has been so successful.  We train to high standards and hold people accountable to those standards, but we must also teach them to not be afraid to make suggestions or to think outside of the box.

[Eclipse]

Well of course not, but what has that got to with whether the GT Task manual is regulatory?

[ol'fido]

I do have issues with some of the material in the task guide but the biggest problem I see with it and our current GT training is that I see too many train "up" to the standard of the task guide and then say "Done!". They believe because they have reached that plateau that their training is over. They are "qualified". The training should never stop. You need to train to a standard beyond the task guide.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I do have issues with some of the material in the task guide but the biggest problem I see with it and our current GT training is that I see too many train "up" to the standard of the task guide and then say "Done!". They believe because they have reached that plateau that their training is over. They are "qualified". The training should never stop. You need to train to a standard beyond the task guide.

You are right, we should train above the standard but that does not mean that because you are trained above the standard of the manual, that your blade length can go above the manual. Certain things need to be kept the standard and common sense should dictate what can and can't be messed with or added to.

[ol'fido]

^^
What one has to do with the other, I don't know. Blade length? On what?

[N Harmon]

I do not know what the technical definition of "regulatory" means. However, the task guide is worded as though it has the authority to "regulate" knives, and not just during training:

You may only wear a sheath knife if authorized by your team leader. Sheath knives cannot have a blade longer than 6" or a total length of greater than 11". The sheath must adequately secure the knife and protect the wearer from the blade. If authorized, sheath knives will be worn only on the pistol belt or carried inside the pack. The following knife types are not authorized: boot knives, butterfly knives, switch blades, double edged knives, "Rambo" style survival knives, or knives with retracting sheaths. Machetes or hatchets can only be carried by senior members when needed for that specific sortie. No knives may be visible when the member is performing crash sight surveillance duty.

Seems pretty clear, with no room for "outside the box" thinking, at least when it comes to knives.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

^^
What one has to do with the other, I don't know. Blade length? On what?

We're talking about knives. A couple of the posts suggest they think that if you can train above the standard, then you can have a longer knife. I was stating that it is not so, some standards cannot and should not be messed with. You can train above the standard of a ground team in aspects like search patterns, CPR (ie: infant CPR), hot and cold weather injuries, training above the standard is good, but just because you are trained above the standard doesn't mean that you can alter the uniform, or carry a Rambo knife or anything of the sort.

[Larry Mangum]

Please note, I was not endorsing the use of large knives, rather the statement that of course "task guides are regulatory" by Eclipse.