The New CAPM 39-1 Now Available

Started by MisterCD, June 26, 2014, 05:25:56 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

LSThiker

Quote from: Ned on June 30, 2014, 05:10:47 PM
and probably some others that I can't recall just now.

Thanks.  Was curious as to the justification  I have no intention of debating or otherwise discussing them as the decision was already made. 

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 06:16:02 PM
I have always said that you want people to follow the rules....then it must come from above.
The CAP/CC on down must set the example and expect their subordinates to do the same.

That's what I do at my level.

Agreed - but this discussion is not about "your level".  Honestly, is that literally the NCO mentality?
"Not my problem."?  Just because it might make your life "harder" doesn't mean it wouldn't make your
Commander's life easier.

We're talking about this on an organizational scale, and at that level, because of inconsistent training
and lack of command imperative, enforcement is going to be an issue until HEADCAP says "knock it off"
and means it.
I'll ignore the NCO snark.

But you are right......about enforcement is the issue.....but you are mistaking regulation with enforcement.   More regs (in this case mandatory weigh ins) is not going increase compliance.   Only oversight will do that.

NHQ makes sure that region meets the regs, region watches the wings, wings the group and group the units.

That means they have to get out of their chairs and go and see what is going on.

Take the Command Master Chief insignia or the smokey bear hats.....if higher head quarters was visiting these encampments....then they could nip that BS in the bud.  But as usual they don't get found out until they show up of Face Book.

More mandatory work at the unit level does not replace wing/group staff visiting the units and having those hard conversations with the commanders involved.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 06:02:12 PM
The same goes even moreso to for the Air Guard and Reserve.

I suppose a very weak and spurious argument could be made in the instance of Guard personnel that "my state has its own standards, and until/unless I'm brought on FAD that's all I have to worry about."
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

JeffDG

I'm just waiting for Eclipse to tell me whether, if he were a commander, would he would staple a 2B to every SMV award that came across his desk.

Because, it's a clear violation of CAP safety regulations to risk one's own life, so they should be outta here.

lordmonar

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ZigZag911

Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2014, 06:36:27 PM
I'm just waiting for Eclipse to tell me whether, if he were a commander, would he would staple a 2B to every SMV award that came across his desk.

Because, it's a clear violation of CAP safety regulations to risk one's own life, so they should be outta here.

Safety = Operational Risk Management -- does not mean that one avoids risk, simply that we try to minimize it as much as humanly possible.

If you simply must pic on Eclipse, please do it about something less serious!

JoeTomasone

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 30, 2014, 07:02:28 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2014, 06:36:27 PM
I'm just waiting for Eclipse to tell me whether, if he were a commander, would he would staple a 2B to every SMV award that came across his desk.

Because, it's a clear violation of CAP safety regulations to risk one's own life, so they should be outta here.

Safety = Operational Risk Management -- does not mean that one avoids risk, simply that we try to minimize it as much as humanly possible.

If you simply must pic on Eclipse, please do it about something less serious!


+1.   I was about to say the same thing.   


JoeTomasone

And how is it that every thread NOT about uniforms becomes a uniform thread, but threads ABOUT uniforms become something else?


<pushes the "Back On Topic" button>

I'm glad that I at least get to wear my brown BDU undershirts a while longer.  I strongly prefer them to black.


Garibaldi

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 30, 2014, 07:02:28 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2014, 06:36:27 PM
I'm just waiting for Eclipse to tell me whether, if he were a commander, would he would staple a 2B to every SMV award that came across his desk.

Because, it's a clear violation of CAP safety regulations to risk one's own life, so they should be outta here.

Safety = Operational Risk Management -- does not mean that one avoids risk, simply that we try to minimize it as much as humanly possible.

If you simply must pic on Eclipse, please do it about something less serious!
Ecl
This feud has been going on for a while now. It's not picking on Eclipse, really. It's more of a difference of opinion. Eclipse has some very good points, which Lord Monar wants him to defend with facts, which usually happens, but not in the way LM would like.

I try to stay out of it, collateral damage and whatnot. I just grab a bowl of popcorn and watch blood pressures rise.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

JeffDG

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 30, 2014, 07:02:28 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2014, 06:36:27 PM
I'm just waiting for Eclipse to tell me whether, if he were a commander, would he would staple a 2B to every SMV award that came across his desk.

Because, it's a clear violation of CAP safety regulations to risk one's own life, so they should be outta here.

Safety = Operational Risk Management -- does not mean that one avoids risk, simply that we try to minimize it as much as humanly possible.

If you simply must pic on Eclipse, please do it about something less serious!

As I said, we need to see evidence that they went through a risk assessment before undertaking heroic actions at the risk to their lives, otherwise it's a 2B for them.

I'm more picking on the concept that NHQ must regulate ever aspect of every activity, and leave commanders and other leaders with zero discretion.

SunDog

Regs that are enforceable (or enforced) tend to be followed, more or less.  Those that can't be (or aren't) enforced, you are free to ignore, depending on your mind-set and point of view. It doesn't matter how things should be; that's just how they are, really, in the real world. 

I stopped and faced the music on the flightline when no one was there, as retreat sounded. A little corny, but it felt right to me.  Wouldn't have bothered me if someone else had been there and kept walking, though. . .

I blew off the "sortie" rule routinely, when I had reason to land and stop the prop.  No way for anyone to enforce it, and it didn't matter to me if it showed as one or two sorties in WMIRS. I often went straight to the questions on "safety" training, and so lied about reviewing the material.  You could excuse me by saying I tested out. But I just didn't care, knowing it was nonsense.

if a porker walks by in blues or green Nomex, I do not give a single "darn".  If being within H/W in USAF dress was important to NHQ, they'd deal with it.  They don't, so don't get wrapped around the axle about it.  If your personal integrity requires you to be in H/W limits, that's cool. If the bowling ball disguised as a Wing Commander has a diffrent point of view, let it go, Louie. . .the boss(es) don't care. . .

Eclipse

Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2014, 07:19:03 PMI'm more picking on the concept that NHQ must regulate ever aspect of every activity, and leave commanders and other leaders with zero discretion.

Which is fine, except in the situation we're actually discussing, CAP commanders, on the whole (or at least the average), have been shown
to abdicate that responsibility.  When that happens, NHQ needs to intervene.

NHQ has historically shown that it is not the least bit shy about command imperative for things it believes are "important" -
usually related to some perceived risk of liability.  ICLs, required training and reporting, remedial training, are all rolled out
quickly in those cases.

So it's not a stretch to infer that NHQ, in fact, does not believe the issue of adhering to 39-1 as "important" enough to
actually do anything about requiring compliance, which is fine, I suppose, except it's somewhat disingenuous,
for a paramilitary organization with a military service that espouses core values and mentor youth.

Ask the average cadet how they feel about the appearance of the average senior member, or how much credibility
a senior member wearing two service coast sewn together has in regards to their guidance and training about cadet uniforms.

These things don't exist in a vacuum.


"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Sundog's post shows exactly the vector many members take as they realize how many of the things
published as "regulations" are treated as "suggestions".

"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 07:39:52 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2014, 07:19:03 PMI'm more picking on the concept that NHQ must regulate ever aspect of every activity, and leave commanders and other leaders with zero discretion.

Which is fine, except in the situation we're actually discussing, CAP commanders, on the whole (or at least the average), have been shown
to abdicate that responsibility.  When that happens, NHQ needs to intervene.

No.  There is no need for a national solution to what is a local problem.  You said it yourself, when you were a commander, you were able to deal with the issue, with no changes required to the regulations whatsoever.  So, by your example, there's nothing requiring a regulatory change wrong.

JoeTomasone

Quote from: SunDog on June 30, 2014, 07:32:40 PM

if a porker walks by in blues or green Nomex, I do not give a single "darn".  If being within H/W in USAF dress was important to NHQ, they'd deal with it.  They don't, so don't get wrapped around the axle about it.


I don't lay the blame for uniform violations at NHQ's feet.   That's completely in the hands of the unit commanders who actually SEE the personnel in question, and I'll include Group and Wing Commanders.    THEY are the ones who will enforce regulations - or not.   In my experience, most will not, because they are afraid that a member that they hold accountable will quit.    That attitude may save numbers, but it degrades integrity, and lowers the common denominator to which everyone will rise or fall. 



DoubleSecret

Quote from: SunDog on June 30, 2014, 07:32:40 PM
if a porker walks by in blues or green Nomex, I do not give a single "darn".  If being within H/W in USAF dress was important to NHQ, they'd deal with it.  They don't, so don't get wrapped around the axle about it.  If your personal integrity requires you to be in H/W limits, that's cool. If the bowling ball disguised as a Wing Commander has a diffrent point of view, let it go, Louie. . .the boss(es) don't care. . .

I've had people in my chain tell me "go ahead, get blues, no one's going to check."  Not happening until I make the cut.  I'd know.  Perhaps more importantly, the cadets would know.  I forfeit any moral authority to enforce standards if I'm knowingly doing it in an unauthorized uniform.

Some wear eagles and think differently.  That's between them and their consciences.

Eclipse

I agree to a certain extent - the authority already exists and needs no further strengthening...

...assuming you're even aware of it.  How many members, even commanders, have actually read 39-1?
How many conversations have we had here correcting the notion that the golf shirt is the MBU?

The real problem is the "You can't, I won't, you can't make me..." mentality of a lot of members.
That is generally >only< corrected by legalistic verbiage in various regs to the tune of "you will really really do 'x".

So no, no further authority is needed, but what >is< needed is something that reluctant CCs
can point to and say "I have no choice."

Whether that is HEADCAP saying "Do it, do it now." Or It being pushed through the chain with meaningful pressure.

As it stands today, the combination of apathy, reticence, and ignorance insures things will never change,
while leaving those who comply as a matter of integrity sometimes feeling as if their effort is wasted, so why
shold they look "different"?  (or follow AOBD directions, or complete for properly, etc., etc., etc.).

"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: SunDog on June 30, 2014, 07:32:40 PM
If being within H/W in USAF dress was important to NHQ, they'd deal with it.  They don't, so don't get wrapped around the axle about it.  If your personal integrity requires you to be in H/W limits, that's cool. If the bowling ball disguised as a Wing Commander has a diffrent point of view, let it go, Louie. . .the boss(es) don't care. . .

Partial agreement.

The AF doesn't really notice much that we do, except for when it involves a major scandal, like a National Commander gone bad.

If they were to really drop the hammer on H/W regs, it would force them to look at themselves and admit that not all Air Force, AFRES, or ANG people are as svelte as they should be.

They certainly don't take a lot of notice of the State Defence Forces that have Air Wings and wear the USAF uniform (and, believe me, they could, through the State Adjutant General).  They sure don't look distinctive in "low light/at-a-distance."  You MIGHT have state collar brass or a different-coloured nameplate, but that's it.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011