CPPT 52-10 "Transportation"

[lordmonar]

There is no option or wiggle room here, by design. An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself.

Actually, a strict reading of the regulation is that an adult leader may not transport a non-family cadet without another CAP member being present.

So...

An adult leader and two unrelated prospective cadets is allowed, BUT;
An adult leader, a cadet, and the cadet's non-member sibling is not allowed, AND;
An adult leader, a cadet and a non-member adult (including the cadet's parents) is also not allowed.

Maybe I should stop pulling at that thread!

No...the parenthetical is not directive in nature....simply examples....not necessarily complete.  The rule is "If an adult leader transport cadet other then his or her family members.....the party must number at least three."

You, the cadet and ONE OTHER.

Transport of non-members is not covered at all.....so you are free to transport them in any way you want.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

Maybe I should stop pulling at that thread!

I think that the fact there are so many 'treads' to pull on this matter highlights how much we need to get official (i.e.: NHQ) clarity.  It will then allow all of us to go back to other pressing topics; ABUs, saluting etiquette, etc.  <grin>

-r

[Eclipse]

There's nothing to "clarify".  It's spelled out literally verbatim what the expectation is.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

Hi Eclipse,

If you're intending not to continue to debate this topic with me, I acknowledge your point of view and thank you for your feedback and you don't have to reply to my follow-up question below.  Seriously, this isn't sarcasm.  I've been a lurker on CT for several years and regard your posts and comments here a some of the most compelling and contributive.

On the other hand, if you're up to continuing to debate this to help me see your point of view, awesome, I'm totally up for that, and that's why I originally weighted in on this post to begin with.  So, if your still up for it, here's my reply to your last post:

There's nothing to "clarify".  It's spelled out literally verbatim what the expectation is.

verbatim is:

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).

So I suggest that while the first sentence is clear, as you point out, I feel the second sentence provides an exception to the first sentence by stating that POV travel is not covered by the first sentence.   

Could that have been written better? Of course.
Could I be wrong?  Of course.

But I don't see it as a simple as you're seeing it, especially when you consider the CAPR 77-1 paragraph 1-8(b), the comments from NHQ on the CAP Knowledge Base and what I believe is the underlying intent of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Protection Policy. 

Of course it would be 'safe' and 'easy' to just take it at "An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself." but that has real-world impacts on our programs, our members and ultimately our results.  How much of an impact, I can't say, but enough that I am willing to press-in for clarity from an official source.  And I'm guessing you are too.  After all, people like us join the Civil Air Patrol to make a difference, and I assert that the level of difference we make matters. So I'm looking for the balance.

Thoughts?

-r

[lordmonar]

So I suggest that while the first sentence is clear, as you point out, I feel the second sentence provides an exception to the first sentence by stating that POV travel is not covered by the first sentence.   

Could that have been written better? Of course.
Could I be wrong?  Of course.

But I don't see it as a simple as you're seeing it, especially when you consider the CAPR 77-1 paragraph 1-8(b), the comments from NHQ on the CAP Knowledge Base and what I believe is the underlying intent of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Protection Policy. 

Of course it would be 'safe' and 'easy' to just take it at "An adult member may not transport a non-family cadet by himself." but that has real-world impacts on our programs, our members and ultimately our results.  How much of an impact, I can't say, but enough that I am willing to press-in for clarity from an official source.  And I'm guessing you are too.  After all, people like us join the Civil Air Patrol to make a difference, and I assert that the level of difference we make matters. So I'm looking for the balance.

Thoughts?

I don't see what you are seeing?

Are you suggesting that because CAP does not cover to and from travel insurance purposes.....it can't dictate member's conduct in relation to cadets during that time?

I read the quoted reg as saying........You will have a party of three......and we remind you that you are NOT covered by CAP insurance.  Which by understanding perfectly clear and allowable.

[Luis R. Ramos]

A long time ago I used to think that transportation via personally owned vehicle was exempt from CAP rules... This was ten years ago.

Now when I re-joined 2011 and reading responses from everyone here I read this regulation and sentences as Lord points out.

If you are using POV, you shall have three people on board. Yourself and either two cadets, or yourself, an SM and the cadet. You do so at your own risk, if you have an accident CAP insurance will not cover you.

The two are not related...

[Eclipse]

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).

So I suggest that while the first sentence is clear, as you point out, I feel the second sentence provides an exception to the first sentence by stating that POV travel is not covered by the first sentence.   

The reason it is there, actually, is to specifically insure members don't connect the two concepts by believing that
since CAP is asserting some authority over your actions as a member during a POV ride to/from, they are also
asserting some authority, and therefore liability for your actions as a driver. People, especially lawyers, would
definitely try and connect those.  Even as it is we still get people who try and submit damage claims when driving POVs
on missions and to get to meetings under that very idea.

So put simply.

CAP has no responsibility for you as a POV driver.

They have full authority over you as a member, and as such have directed 3-up anytime an adult member is in a car with
cadets who are not in his family.

[Salty]

I think people are forgetting that the 3+ party protection works in both directions.  People are taking offense and are feeling like they are being looked at as predators.  There have been plenty of instances out there in the news where children are making false accusations and ruining the lives and reputations of the accused.  Typically those scenarios are one-on-one situations.  I choose to believe that regs like that are there to protect me as much as the cadet.

I've read the current threads on this topic since I've been back on CT and I've gone back and forth on whether or not I think the new rules are overly restrictive.  After reading the regulations and pamphlets in question I have the same take as Panzer.  I view the restrictions through the lens of protecting me along with the stated desires to protect cadets.

[Robb Ottenhoff]

Are you suggesting that because CAP does not cover to and from travel insurance purposes.....it can't dictate member's conduct in relation to cadets during that time?

No, what I'm seeing is that CAPR 77-1 paragraph 1-8(b) states: (Emphasis mine)

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.

So, then the question might be what does "CAP assumes no right of control" mean?

Again, for the record, I might be (and I'm willing to be) totally wrong and the rule could be as strict as CAP SMs should never find themselves alone with a CAP cadet, at anytime time, in or outside of CAP activities, ever and if so, leave.   I doubt that it's that black and white, as life isn't.  I also know that it can't be wide open or left up to individuals to make their own judgments, which is again why I'm looking for an official word on the balance of the intent and the real world impacts.

I want to say that I fully support and actively reinforce every principal of the new CAPR 52-10 (2014) and consider our cadets and their experiences to be well represented by the new CAPR 52-10.  I just want to find a bit of flexibility (within the intent of the regulations) to mange real-world needs, like a cadet's parents (who live by me) asking me to drive their child home at the end of a meeting. (this is truly one of my situations -- we live about 40 minutes from the unit and from time to time the cadet's parents have asked for help in which the cadet would otherwise not be able to attend those meetings/events.  I'm fighting for the workability within the regulation -- not agaist the regulation itself.


Wait! --- it just hit me...  Perhaps my answer lies in the self reporting of boundary validations when they arise.  Kind of a reverse 'waiver' since the reporting happens after the fact, but at least with that mechanism, I can be confident that I'm not going be in a situation where at the last minute I tell a cadet that I can't give them a ride to or from an event because the planned third didn't make it.   From my understanding, in a case like this,  I would take care of the cadet (i.e.: get them to the event/home) and then self-report the boundary validation to my Group CC who can independently and objectivity evaluate the circumstances and take any corrective action as needed.

In fact, I'm thinking that (self reporting of boundary validations) is the best answer.  I get that now that I've worked though this process in my posts here.  (See CAPTalk can be useful! -- <grin>)  Of course I would like to have NHQ tell us that "CAP assumes no right of control" means that on non-CAP time, cadet's parents are the final authority on who they trust with their child but I also recognize the need to have regulations that can cover wide ranges of situations, people, local community norms, etc.

Whatever the outcome from National HQ (or my chain of command) I'm going to get in line and follow the regulations and do so with integrity.  Anyone that knows me knows that I love regulations. The best ones are black & white in their directives and provide mechanisms to manage situational needs.  The worst ones are the ones that say one thing, everyone knows that it doesn't really go like that in real life and then people wonder why there's upset and frustration in the membership.   Let's fight for workability and integrity.  What an example we would set for our cadets and for our fellow Americans.

Thank you to everyone that participated with me in this post to get to this place.  I did email National HQ and I will, as promised, post back their response if appropriate.   

Respectfully,

-r

[Eclipse]

77-1 has no bearing on 52-10, you're mixing regulations that are not connected which is introducing the ambiguity.

...the rule could be as strict as CAP SMs should never find themselves alone with a CAP cadet, at anytime time, in or outside of CAP activities, ever and if so, leave.   I doubt that it's that black and white

It is, literally and intentionally, that black and white.

In fact, I'm thinking that (self reporting of boundary validations) is the best answer.

Not violating the reg is the best answer.  Self reporting is a consequence of violating the regulation
and mitigating the circumstance, and your best bet in that case is calling people as it happens, not after.

Have it happen too often and there could be consequences anyway.

I get that now that I've worked though this process in my posts here.  (See CAPTalk can be useful! -- <grin>)  Of course I would like to have NHQ tell us that "CAP assumes no right of control" means that on non-CAP time, cadet's parents are the final authority on who they trust with their child but I also recognize the need to have regulations that can cover wide ranges of situations, people, local community norms, etc.[/quote]

That answer would also contradict 52-10 and essentially negate it.

[FloridaCaptain]

^ What an insightful comment  "Not violating the reg is the best answer.". 

Good job buddy, way to advance the discussion.  :clap: