Main Menu

New 62-1

Started by davidsinn, March 25, 2011, 03:58:43 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

davidsinn

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R062_001_85D0CB3FE48A5.pdf

Take note of the new safety vest requirements that supersede the description given in 39-1. By 1 Oct 2012 all safety vests must be ANSI class 2 or better.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

ßτε

QuoteAll members who joined CAP prior to 1 October 2010, must complete the current introductory safety education module, Introduction to CAP Safety, by 31 May 2011. This includes all members who have previously completed the Basic Safety course or have earned a specialty track rating in safety.

davidsinn

Quote from: ß τ ε on March 25, 2011, 04:30:01 PM
QuoteAll members who joined CAP prior to 1 October 2010, must complete the current introductory safety education module, Introduction to CAP Safety, by 31 May 2011. This includes all members who have previously completed the Basic Safety course or have earned a specialty track rating in safety.

I think they looked at the percentages and realized it wasn't going to happen in the next 6 days.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

ßτε

It will never get done if they keep extending the deadline and provide no clear guidance on what to do with members who do not comply.

a2capt

What I'm getting tired of seeing is all these lame and loose threats of grounding the unit for non-complaince.

If you have dead weight on your roster, what can you do?

We can't order anyone to do anything. All we can do is say please.

I guess we can process a bunch of button presses to make Patron members out of whomever. But everyone that is active has done it, thats all we can do. When they single us out and send nastygrams with threats to the unit all that does is make us think ill of higher commands ability.

Maybe rather than sending out emails from the national commander on salute trollers, they should send out something that says what they will do so that subordinate commanders are not making up stuff. I'd be really surprised if National says "we will disqualify units from doing anything if they are not 100% in compliance.

Furthermore, when you have people joining at will, you could get 5 new members in one week and those members actually have six months to complete a lot of stuff, so hammering on people blindly is just dumb.

Eclipse

Quote from: a2capt on March 25, 2011, 11:57:12 PMIf you have dead weight on your roster, what can you do?

One word.

Patron.

Gets their attention, or solves the problem.

"That Others May Zoom"

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2011, 03:22:21 AM
Quote from: a2capt on March 25, 2011, 11:57:12 PMIf you have dead weight on your roster, what can you do?

One word.

Patron.

Gets their attention, or solves the problem.
Yea it's all about compliance statistics in the fantasy world of Civil Air Patrol.  HOWEVER, apparently compliance would affect the mission since the final date has been extended.  Gee, I took that mandatory computer training, but can't remember very much about it.  Hope I'm still safe ;)  Oh well, just another requirement completed :angel:
RM

BillB

Are you going to refund the difference between the dues the member paid and the $35 Patron dues? Since you magically transferred a member to patron status which the member may not have given an OK to, you may find a complaint with the IG or in the extreme a law suit.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Shotgun

Quote from: a2capt on March 25, 2011, 11:57:12 PM
What I'm getting tired of seeing is all these lame and loose threats of grounding the unit for non-complaince.

If you have dead weight on your roster, what can you do?


My wing has a virtual unit we call "The Ghost Squadron". It has the squadron number 000 and doesn't physically exist.
About once a year I go through my roster and have the "dead weight" members transferred into this unit.

Generally these are people that have moved out of the area but not have transferred to another unit, or have become inactive. If the member returns and become active again I can simply transfer them back onto my roster

This is sort of a last resort. I always make an effort to find out why they've stopped participating and let them know that they are being transferred and that they are more than welcome to become re-involved when circumstances warrant.

These keeps them in the Wing and part of CAP, but gets them off my roster so they don't drag down our percentages.

I personally would rather have a unit with a small, but active roster than a large unit with a huge roster but few active members.

Cutter

I agree numbers look nice on paper at first glance but if you dig deeper and find only fluff whats the point. A squadron is only as good as the knowledge and training of active members when it hits the fan and one day it surely will.

So...will the introductory safety education module prevent mishaps to volunteers or assets, maybe it will or maybe not, but it is certainly is an indication to commitment and a easily achievable task.

Eclipse

Quote from: Man Of Action on March 28, 2011, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: a2capt on March 25, 2011, 11:57:12 PM
What I'm getting tired of seeing is all these lame and loose threats of grounding the unit for non-complaince.

If you have dead weight on your roster, what can you do?


My wing has a virtual unit we call "The Ghost Squadron". It has the squadron number 000 and doesn't physically exist.
About once a year I go through my roster and have the "dead weight" members transferred into this unit.

Generally these are people that have moved out of the area but not have transferred to another unit, or have become inactive. If the member returns and become active again I can simply transfer them back onto my roster

This is sort of a last resort. I always make an effort to find out why they've stopped participating and let them know that they are being transferred and that they are more than welcome to become re-involved when circumstances warrant.

These keeps them in the Wing and part of CAP, but gets them off my roster so they don't drag down our percentages.

I personally would rather have a unit with a small, but active roster than a large unit with a huge roster but few active members.

I agree 100%, however during my wing's last SUI, the inspectors made a fair deal about the fact that 000 was the second largest unit
in the wing.  Apparently they would prefer these members be "patroned" instead of sit in 000, because some loopholes in the 60-series and
other regs basically allow for these members to be ES and pilot aircraft active without any command supervision or responsibility.


"That Others May Zoom"

Ed Bos

Quote from: Eclipse on March 31, 2011, 03:05:21 AM
I agree 100%, however during my wing's last SUI, the inspectors made a fair deal about the fact that 000 was the second largest unit
in the wing.  Apparently they would prefer these members be "patroned" instead of sit in 000, because some loopholes in the 60-series and
other regs basically allow for these members to be ES and pilot aircraft active without any command supervision or responsibility.

Pardon this little bit of thread drift, but I was curious about this situation during your SUI.

I hadn't heard about folks being concerned about XX-000 members participating in ES. Was it CAP or CAP-USAF folks that brought that to your attention?

I think a protocol to suspend the ES qualifications of the inactive members in XX-000 would be appropriate. Anyone have thoughts on the matter? Does this merit its own thread?
EDWARD A. BOS, Lt Col, CAP
Email: edward.bos(at)orwgcap.org
PCR-OR-001

ZigZag911

Quote from: ß τ ε on March 25, 2011, 04:56:56 PM
It will never get done if they keep extending the deadline and provide no clear guidance on what to do with members who do not comply.

Deadline was extended because there was a serious IT problem; SE testing system was not working with some of the newer versions of web browsers.

SARDOC

Quote from: BillB on March 27, 2011, 08:31:09 PM
Are you going to refund the difference between the dues the member paid and the $35 Patron dues? Since you magically transferred a member to patron status which the member may not have given an OK to, you may find a complaint with the IG or in the extreme a law suit.

We gave 8 of our members over a months notice that if they didn't complete the required safety program that they would be transferred to Patron status...of the 8...none of the 8 were actively participating and none even replied to the email.  The email did specify that at anytime they wanted to return to active membership they would just need to complete the safety requirement...none of the 8 have done it so far...so I guess they want to be patrons.

Eclipse

Quote from: Ed Bos on March 31, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 31, 2011, 03:05:21 AM
I agree 100%, however during my wing's last SUI, the inspectors made a fair deal about the fact that 000 was the second largest unit
in the wing.  Apparently they would prefer these members be "patroned" instead of sit in 000, because some loopholes in the 60-series and
other regs basically allow for these members to be ES and pilot aircraft active without any command supervision or responsibility.

Pardon this little bit of thread drift, but I was curious about this situation during your SUI.

I hadn't heard about folks being concerned about XX-000 members participating in ES. Was it CAP or CAP-USAF folks that brought that to your attention?

I think a protocol to suspend the ES qualifications of the inactive members in XX-000 would be appropriate. Anyone have thoughts on the matter? Does this merit its own thread?
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=12817.msg232797

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Safety briefings for monthly currency do not have to occur only at unit meetings - any activity you participate in should have at least an initial briefing, and whomever gives it should either be entering all the CAPID's online, or passing them to Safety Officer who can enter them.

"That Others May Zoom"

arajca

An activity safety briefing does NOT meet the requirements for the month currency training, primarily because it not an interactive or evaluative briefing.  Asking "Does anyone have any questions?" at the end does not make it interactive.

Eclipse

Quote from: arajca on April 28, 2011, 06:53:18 PM
An activity safety briefing does NOT meet the requirements for the month currency training, primarily because it not an interactive or evaluative briefing.  Asking "Does anyone have any questions?" at the end does not make it interactive.

Incorrect interpretation.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spaceman3750

Quote from: Eclipse on April 28, 2011, 06:54:15 PM
Quote from: arajca on April 28, 2011, 06:53:18 PM
An activity safety briefing does NOT meet the requirements for the month currency training, primarily because it not an interactive or evaluative briefing.  Asking "Does anyone have any questions?" at the end does not make it interactive.

Incorrect interpretation.

How do you interpret the reg then?

davidsinn

Quote from: arajca on April 28, 2011, 06:53:18 PM
Asking "Does anyone have any questions?" at the end does not make it interactive.

That sounds like every safety meeting I have ever seen.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn