CPPT ?

[Eclipse]

The point here is not to encourage seniors to put themselves at risk from a legal or liability standpoint, as we mentioned above, there are common sense CYA steps that very member should take.

In regards to the IANAL nonsense, the discussion of CAP regulations certainly falls within the purview of even the newest member.  Whether and how they may intersect with external laws is irrelevant to an internal CAP discussion, just as CAP's regs on "duty to report" cannot exempt or change a member's DTR based on local laws.

For the record on that, btw, I'm not aware of any law in any state which would prohibit a single adult from giving a single child, of any age, a ride in a vehicle, assuming it is not a kidnapping or similar situation. It is especially silly to indicate that two members of the same organization could not ride together, regardless of age or gender, assuming the parents approve. (YMMV on risk tolerance)

However, all CYA aside, we can't be paralyzed by a misunderstanding of a given regulation.  I have had discussions with members who believe they are basically stranded in the woods if "the other senior has to leave or is hurt".  Obviously this is silly and not even what the regs dictate.

Extrapolate the above from there.

[Nathan]

All citings above are correct.

However, the vehicle regulations refer to vehicle accidents/incidents and not to possible CPPT violations while in a vehicle. Context is important.

Fine. Context.

Where's yours?

I honestly don't have a CPPT publication within range (at work), so if you would be so kind (as Maj Williams already has), could you please provide where the regulations REQUIRE the "rule of three"?

Since you are worried about legality and everything, I thought it would be appropriate to at least lay your cards on the table so we can then begin to compare syntax and so on.

[Flying Pig]

Let me clarify...I thought it was pretty obvious.  These members came to me and gave me the scenario and asked if this could be done.  This was 3 days ago.  As the Commander, I said "Stand-by, let me do some research."  And here we are.   
Now it has degraded into people telling others they are going to be reported and who can and cant give legal advice. 
Lets tone this down and try and find the answer because it obviously isn't as crystal clear as we all thought. My initial action was to consult CPPT policy.  Not really clear on the topic is it?  My next step was to put a call into people in CAWG.  Honestly, I should have left it at that.  But, I thought it would be an informative topic of discussion,  so I brought it here. 

[Ned]

I am seeing nothing in CPPT that prevents this member and the parents from making arrangements to get their son to the meeting because travel to and from a meeting is not a CAP activity. 

Let me see if I can help.  I am a lawyer, and have even played one on TV.   

I am also the Region DCP responsible for California.


And Robert, your instincts are correct.  There is certainly no rule that would forbid the scenario you have described.

Continue to employ your common sense and you will be fine.

Thank you for your work with our cadets.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[afgeo4]

Let me clarify...I thought it was pretty obvious.  These members came to me and gave me the scenario and asked if this could be done.  This was 3 days ago.  As the Commander, I said "Stand-by, let me do some research."  And here we are.   
Now it has degraded into people telling others they are going to be reported and who can and cant give legal advice. 
Lets tone this down and try and find the answer because it obviously isn't as crystal clear as we all thought. My initial action was to consult CPPT policy.  Not really clear on the topic is it?  My next step was to put a call into people in CAWG.  Honestly, I should have left it at that.  But, I thought it would be an informative topic of discussion,  so I brought it here. 

As a measure of CYA, you should just follow what CAWG DCP tells you. If you get the authorization to do so, then they'll take the hit if it goes sour on you.

I personally would never do this simply because I don't want to put people in a questionable situation (I have dealt with a very similar issue before and it wasn't pretty).

The point of CPPT is to protect cadets and senior members from abuse. If you feel you are doing that, go ahead. If you feel that the protection is inadequate... make it adequate.

[Flying Pig]

OK...Ill do that

[BlackKnight]

[snip]
I suggest this question be run up through NHQ, and we await a decision.  

Normally that's good advice, but beware of asking a question that generates a "CYA answer" from NHQ with unexpected regulatory consequences.  Remember a few years back when someone asked the wrong question of the FAA and IRS, resulting in a ruling and policy memo stating that only CAP pilots with commercial ratings could receive cost reimbursement for cadet O-flights?  What a mess that was.

[Eclipse]

[snip]
I suggest this question be run up through NHQ, and we await a decision. 

Normally that's good advice, but beware of asking a question that generates a "CYA answer" from NHQ with unexpected regulatory consequences.  Remember a few years back when someone asked the wrong question of the FAA and IRS, resulting in a ruling and policy memo stating that only CAP pilots with commercial ratings could receive cost reimbursement for cadet O-flights?  What a mess that was.

Everyone has their own risk threshold, but I have no idea what further information anyone would need...

The regs are clearly written and posted above for personal reading, the Region DCP has come on and said everything is fine as described.

If that's too much risk for personal tolerance, just don't do it.  No one needs any further justification than "I'm not comfortable doing ./ allowing that."

What further would be gained by runnig this through 'Bama?  I get this all the time:

"Can we do this?"

"Yes, CAPR OU812 clearly says you can."

"We better check with NHQ, just to be sure."

((*sigh*))

[afgeo4]

[snip]
I suggest this question be run up through NHQ, and we await a decision. 

Normally that's good advice, but beware of asking a question that generates a "CYA answer" from NHQ with unexpected regulatory consequences.  Remember a few years back when someone asked the wrong question of the FAA and IRS, resulting in a ruling and policy memo stating that only CAP pilots with commercial ratings could receive cost reimbursement for cadet O-flights?  What a mess that was.

Everyone has their own risk threshold, but I have no idea what further information anyone would need...

The regs are clearly written and posted above for personal reading, the Region DCP has come on and said everything is fine as described.

If that's too much risk for personal tolerance, just don't do it.  No one needs any further justification than "I'm not comfortable doing ./ allowing that."

What further would be gained by runnig this through 'Bama?  I get this all the time:

"Can we do this?"

"Yes, CAPR OU812 clearly says you can."

"We better check with NHQ, just to be sure."

((*sigh*))

On the other hand, the gov't has a history of saying "sure, you can do that" only to find out that doing it causes you great harm or death. CAP has a history of old regulations that make no sense when applied in real life too. Sometimes, getting clarification is the best advice. I think, when it comes to members' safety, there's no such thing as too much worrying.

[Eclipse]

I think, when it comes to members' safety, there's no such thing as too much worrying.

Actually, there is.

Its called "Analysis paralysis" 

Analysis paralysis is an informal phrase applied when the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits.

[Fifinella]

FWIW: the (NON-CAP) policy on base when transporting children (who are not yours) one-on-one is to have the minor ride in the back seat.  Less opportunity for mischief.  Protects both minor and adults from some allegations/actions.  [This policy applies to youth workers, child care providers, etc., NOT every car pool Mom]

[SarDragon]

Kids with me ALWAYS ride in the back seat, mine or not, regardless of numbers. Safer there.

[afgeo4]

I think, when it comes to members' safety, there's no such thing as too much worrying.

Actually, there is.

Its called "Analysis paralysis" 

Analysis paralysis is an informal phrase applied when the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits.

Please apply "opportunity costs" to goods/services, not people's lives. The opportunity cost of a human life is not something you can make up for afterwards. As such, analysis paralysis is I believe, an inappropriate concept in this case. It can, certainly, be used  to analyze mission capabilities and/or resources (humans can be a resource, but it is their mission value that is the resource, not their lives).

[floridacyclist]

If the Opportunity Cost includes causing a member to not participate for whatever reason (transportation, money issues etc), then that can have a direct negative impact on their lives...unless you believe that participating actively as a member has no real value in which case we all might as well stay home on meeting nights.

If that were true, then I would have to say "Thank you sir for just freeing up more time for me to spend with my children."

[afgeo4]

If the Opportunity Cost includes causing a member to not participate for whatever reason (transportation, money issues etc), then that can have a direct negative impact on their lives...unless you believe that participating actively as a member has no real value in which case we all might as well stay home on meeting nights.

Thank you sir for just freeing up more time for me to spend with my children.

Absolutely, we always face difficulties in recruiting and retention. However, if you weigh in a cadet's loss in ability to be an active member of CAP vs. a cadet's well-being... I think the choice should be clear. I think our first priority has to be the safety of our members, not our membership numbers. We also cannot change our organization to suit everyone. CAP isn't for everyone.

[floridacyclist]

Then we all need to stay home...we might have a wreck on the way to the meeting.

Seriously, the point is that there is a line to be drawn where you make a decision regarding the amount of acceptable risk you are willing to take in order to gain a defined benefit. This is basic risk/benefit analysis, and the final hand doesn't always come down on the side of "no-go" or we would be paralyzed. You make that decision every time you climb in an airplane or get in a car....or get up off of the couch. I'm not so much saying where that line should be as much as I am pointing out that it isn't as clearly defined as some might like, and "Opportunity Costs" are not so narrowly-defined as to only cover "Goods and Services" as was implied; they include many human "Quality of Life" issues as well.

Even sitting on the couch has it's own risks as seen by the heart disease rates in this country....and not participating in CAP (or other character-developing programs) has it's share of risks when you consider how many kids without access or motivation to be here end up in gangs or dead on the street.

Would I let this SM ride alone with the cadet? I honestly can't say.....perhaps I would try to find someone else to ride with them...or ask that they log their times on and off the road. Or I might say no. I'm in the middle of an incident right now that has me wondering exactly who can anyone trust, but I'm not sure how relevant something like this would be to the current situation. I just won't pretend that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of managed risk if the benefits are worth it either.

[afgeo4]

Then we all need to stay home...we might have a wreck on the way to the meeting.

Seriously, the point is that there is a line to be drawn where you make a decision regarding the amount of acceptable risk you are willing to take in order to gain a defined benefit. This is basic risk/benefit analysis, and the final hand doesn't always come down on the side of "no-go" or we would be paralyzed. You make that decision every time you climb in an airplane or get in a car....or get up off of the couch. I'm not so much saying where that line should be as much as I am pointing out that it isn't as clearly defined as some might like, and "Opportunity Costs" are not so narrowly-defined as to only cover "Goods and Services" as was implied; they include many human "Quality of Life" issues as well.

Even sitting on the couch has it's own risks as seen by the heart disease rates in this country....and not participating in CAP (or other character-developing programs) has it's share of risks when you consider how many kids without access or motivation to be here end up in gangs or dead on the street.

Would I let this SM ride alone with the cadet? I honestly can't say.....perhaps I would try to find someone else to ride with them...or ask that they log their times on and off the road. Or I might say no. I'm in the middle of an incident right now that has me wondering exactly who can anyone trust, but I'm not sure how relevant something like this would be to the current situation. I just won't pretend that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of managed risk if the benefits are worth it either.

I agree with you. One can never manage all the risks. However, we must do our best to manage risks like child abuse, right? As far as vehicular accidents... that's not covered in this thread.

[John Bryan]

I love these type debates...even though the reg is black and white is plan english there are still those who think it means something else. I think too many people read things into ALL of our regs not just 52-10......

Having said that, let me add another what if....real question that came up from a new member in my squadron about 8 or 10 years ago...reg was about the same then.

This lady joined a few months after her 13 yr old son. She went through CPPT and was very concerned about how much "trouble" she could get into. Here was her concern. along with her son the 12 yr old next door also joined. They had been best friends since around age 6 or 7....as is the case many times the 2 boys would stay over at each others houses and go places with each others families. She came to me and asked if CAP was really going to require that the kid next door stop coming over, spending the night or going places with her family. I of course laughed and said no CAP does not hold control over your life , your car or your house. I understand this is different then the post above....BUT other officers had tried a number of times to explain how CPPT meant she would have to stop allowing her sons friend to come over or one of them would have to quit.

In the orginal question and my story I think the rule of read and follow the regs would work :angel:

My 3 cents