I'm here nothing special has happened yet.
I arrived yesterday, saw a few CAP folks in uniform today, that's it. Location is interesting though (to a first time visitor) but [darn] these prices in this hotel.
Too many Fallout: New Vegas things going through my mind...
I'll be arriving in Sin City from the Rocket City Wednesday night; see you all at the Trop Thursday morning. Staying at Hotel Mom to save some money on the hotel bill... and being a former Vegas local gaming doesn't interest me a bit (well, the occasional slot machine and video poker if I have some money to burn... which ain't much). Any of you want to meet for drinks and/or lunch/dinner?
I'll be landing at about 10 a.m. Thursday
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 12, 2014, 12:43:34 AM
I arrived yesterday, saw a few CAP folks in uniform today, that's it. Location is interesting though (to a first time visitor) but [darn] these prices in this hotel.
Trop is a relatively mid-level property, wander down to the strip mid-point and get a gander there!
Looking forward to being back in November - excited to see the changes at NYNY, and other properties,
not to mention checking out the Ferris Wheel.
Some tips around Trop - Ka at MGM is a great show, but the finale has been removed since the accident last year
and is now a projection. Still a cool show, though. Shibuya at MGM is an awesome Japanese restaurant.
Linq is worth the walk and there are a number of good restaurants there, not to mention Hash House A-Go-Go (AWE-Some)
in the
Imperial Palace Quad Linq (or whatever they are calling it today). There's free parking in the
back by the Ferris wheel if you don't feel like walking. And there's a GroupOn running for it right now:
http://www.groupon.com/deals/the-high-roller-at-the-linq (http://www.groupon.com/deals/the-high-roller-at-the-linq) and/or Total Rewards members can get ticket discounts so bring your card if you go (it's free and you also get discounts in restaurants, or comps, etc.).
The best time to go is at sunset - that way you get both the day and night view for one trip. Check the time for sunset and
get there about 15 minutes before in case there is a line (the wheel never stops).
By far, my favorite Vegas restaurant for a cheap, good meal is the Peppermill, but it's down at the other end of the strip
from Trop. Worth it if you get down that way. The Grande Lux in the Venetian is another good spot for
large portions and good service at a fair price. If you want a fantastic dinner that you will remember, I recommend Toscano's
on Paradise, be aware, it's ain't cheap, but it's fantastic.
The front retail space at NYNY is all new including Hersey's, and the Coke and M&M stores are pretty cool too.
DO NOT buy water from anyone on the street or the bridges - go to a CVS or Walgreens.
Also, make sure to tell the cabbie "NO TUNNEL" when going from McCarran to the strip, especially
Trop, otherwise you may get long-hauled via the scenic route and pay twice the fare.
Other then that, not expecting much from this conference beyond different names on the same page.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 12, 2014, 12:27:49 AM
I'm here nothing special has happened yet.
Were you expecting otherwise? I wouldn't expect anything special to take place there at all. Waste of time, IMO.
The only thing to look forward to is Carr leaving. Hopefully, Vasquez can come in with a significantly improved perspective and renewed level of respect for the general membership. We are in strong need of a cultural change at the the top. But I won't hold my breath.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 12, 2014, 01:35:49 AM
Some tips around Trop - Ka at MGM is a great show, but the finale has been removed since the accident last year and is now a projection. Still a cool show, though.
Two of my best friends are members of the Ka show. I highly recommend the show even though the ending was removed.
I'm in the air crew survival instructors class right now
Quote from: A.Member on August 12, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
The only thing to look forward to is Carr leaving.
Not an attack... a curious question. Why do you dislike Carr?
I am headed in tomorrow morning. A little excited. A little nervous. Never been to Las Vegas and my first CAP conference. Add in some personal stuff like having a service dog and we will see what happens.
I hope everyone who attends the conference finds it enjoyable and rewarding. I've only missed 3 in the last 25 years, and found each one entertaining (to say the least). Las Vegas is one of the best venues to go for the conferernce; especially in August. Thank you Mr. Carrier!
Due to other obligations, I'm missing this one. Next year, I hope to attend and meet old and new friends. I think it will be held in Orlando. I may have to bring the grand kids with me... ;)
Quote from: EmLyn on August 12, 2014, 07:28:35 PM
I am headed in tomorrow morning. A little excited. A little nervous. Never been to Las Vegas and my first CAP conference. Add in some personal stuff like having a service dog and we will see what happens.
If you have time and are making a vacation out of it one stop I would recommend is the Liberace Museum.
Quote from: Panache on August 12, 2014, 06:07:04 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 12, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
The only thing to look forward to is Carr leaving.
Not an attack... a curious question. Why do you dislike Carr?
He directly propogates a toxic culture at the National level. He manages like a Sgt. He demonstrated that he was not capable of 'leading at his level'; ie leaders should lead and address issues appropriate for their role. His approach to 'safety', aircraft incidents/hangar rash are perfect examples of his inability to do so.
The National Commander should not be involved in the minutiae of a hangar rash incidents and grounding shouldn't require his release. His recent approach in dealing with this topic has proven disrespectful to membership, including setting up numerous conference calls in which he directly calls out specific members on incidents that occured previously and were resolved. Moreover, he did so without demonstrating that a true problem really exists nor did there appear to be any genuine interest in developing an approach for improving the process, leaving the distinct impression the entire interaction was merely a witch hunt. Very Bush league and such an approach requires a dramatic change at National; clearly missed on one of our Core Values.
So, yeah....I'm not a fan.
Thanks Angus. I'll try to get it in. I think my only sightseeing objectives right now is the Atomic Testing museum and to play an old fashion slot machine at least once. But not coming home until next Tuesday, so looking for more ideas.
Meanwhile, I am curled up in a hotel in Tampa so I don't have to leave the house at 2 am for my 8 am flight and just realized that while I have Boo's food for the Vegas leg of travel, I left the food for tonight and tomorrow morning at home.... along with her dishes. :-[ Shucks, I was even working from a list and had it right by her vest. Oh, well... off to the dollar store for bowls. Glad I packed extra food, just in case
.
Quote from: Angus on August 12, 2014, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: EmLyn on August 12, 2014, 07:28:35 PM
I am headed in tomorrow morning. A little excited. A little nervous. Never been to Las Vegas and my first CAP conference. Add in some personal stuff like having a service dog and we will see what happens.
If you have time and are making a vacation out of it one stop I would recommend is the Liberace Museum.
closed :(
Quote from: lordmonar on August 12, 2014, 10:42:07 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 12, 2014, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: EmLyn on August 12, 2014, 07:28:35 PM
I am headed in tomorrow morning. A little excited. A little nervous. Never been to Las Vegas and my first CAP conference. Add in some personal stuff like having a service dog and we will see what happens.
If you have time and are making a vacation out of it one stop I would recommend is the Liberace Museum.
closed :(
You can see some of the artifacts at Cosmo, which is something to see in and of itself.
As to Maj Gen Carr, the question isn't of dislike, he's a committed volunteer like the rest of us, the
question is "What is his legacy?".
In other threads, Ned put forth that his legacy is 39-1 and "no scandals". Yes, keeping the doors open
is important in and of itself, but that's what the National staff is for.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 12, 2014, 11:02:11 PM
As to Maj Gen Carr, the question isn't of dislike, he's a committed volunteer like the rest of us, the
question is "What is his legacy?".
In other threads, Ned put forth that his legacy is 39-1 and "no scandals". Yes, keeping the doors open
is important in and of itself, but that's what the National staff is for.
I had a discussion about this very topic a few weeks ago with a squadron-mate of mine. This gentleman and I ended the discussion with thought that there were a few items that would be a noteworthy legacy after General Carr's term:
1) The "Ask the National Commander" button within eServices,
2) Leading the organization after the transition in the governance structure.
This is the first time in a long time where the organization's CEO was unmistakeably and in fact a member. Previously we had a national leader that was a volunteer, and a national leader that was an employee, and a governance that appeared to be a bit hands-off until a major problem occurred.
In addition, the electronic embodiment of an "open door" policy, with appropriate visibility to the intermediary chain-of-command is a good innovation, and one that I hope continues to be used properly.
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 12, 2014, 11:45:51 PMThis is the first time in a long time where the organization's CEO was unmistakeably and in fact a member. Previously we had a national leader that was a volunteer, and a national leader that was an employee, and a governance that appeared to be a bit hands-off until a major problem occurred.
Do you really think this has made any difference, or has even been noticed by the average rank and file member?
It's a nuance at best, at least from a practical perspective.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 12:11:16 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 12, 2014, 11:45:51 PMThis is the first time in a long time where the organization's CEO was unmistakeably and in fact a member. Previously we had a national leader that was a volunteer, and a national leader that was an employee, and a governance that appeared to be a bit hands-off until a major problem occurred.
Do you really think this has made any difference, or has even been noticed by the average rank and file member?
It's a nuance at best, at least from a practical perspective.
Yeah, I do.
This may sound dumb, but from a rank and file member with no aspirations for command, I don't give a rat's posterior who is helming this ship. Who it is has never made one bit of difference to me at all, from the cadet side all the way through the berry boards. I wasn't around for the HWSNBN horror, but that's about the only instance that could make me give a crap about anyone above Wing commander.
I know, I know, that's a broad generalization based on one man's experience. I do see how the decisions s/he makes can affect me down at my level, but as far as interacting and s/he making a direct impact, no. You could have Larry the Cable Guy in charge and it wouldn't affect me unless we started wearing BDUs with the sleeves cut off. The decisions FROM THE OFFICE, good, bad, or indifferent, will happen regardless of who is in charge and those decisions will give me pause to think. To tell the truth, I rarely pay attention to who my WING commander is, let alone region or national.
Not trying to troll or start a flame war, but that's just me.
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 13, 2014, 12:13:43 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 12:11:16 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 12, 2014, 11:45:51 PMThis is the first time in a long time where the organization's CEO was unmistakeably and in fact a member. Previously we had a national leader that was a volunteer, and a national leader that was an employee, and a governance that appeared to be a bit hands-off until a major problem occurred.
Do you really think this has made any difference, or has even been noticed by the average rank and file member?
It's a nuance at best, at least from a practical perspective.
Yeah, I do.
Like what? There's actually less transparency, since the Command Council meetings aren't televised any more,
commenting on regs has been done away with, where's the difference to Joe Squadron member?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 12:29:45 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 13, 2014, 12:13:43 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 12:11:16 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 12, 2014, 11:45:51 PMThis is the first time in a long time where the organization's CEO was unmistakeably and in fact a member. Previously we had a national leader that was a volunteer, and a national leader that was an employee, and a governance that appeared to be a bit hands-off until a major problem occurred.
Do you really think this has made any difference, or has even been noticed by the average rank and file member?
It's a nuance at best, at least from a practical perspective.
Yeah, I do.
Like what? There's actually less transparency, since the Command Council meetings aren't televised any more,
commenting on regs has been done away with, where's the difference to Joe Squadron member?
Why do you need to televise the Command Council meetings? They don't have any authority anymore.
You don't, though in theory they still have influence, right?
As discussed when the governance was changed, moving from a group of 60 some voices discussing
issues and casting votes in the open, to a group of 12 people making decisions behind closed
doors does not make the process somehow "more transparent".
Less exciting? Yes. More transparent? No.
My only comment on this thread so far is I agree with Eclipse. Definitely go to Hash House a go-go. Google it, get directions. You won't be disappointed.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 12:44:41 AM
As discussed when the governance was changed, moving from a group of 60 some voices discussing
issues and casting votes in the open, to a group of 12 people making decisions behind closed
doors does not make the process somehow "more transparent".
I'm not who you are talking about here, but both BoG and CSAG meetings are open except for the rare executive session to discuss litigation, safety, or personnel matters. Feel free to drop by.
Ned Lee
(Attendee at a whole bunch of BoG and CSAG meetings)
Quote from: Ned on August 13, 2014, 01:12:15 AMFeel free to drop by.
What about those of us who don't quite have the travel budget that you do (though I'm glad you go, you're often our only source of information)?
Which account do I charge the air fare and bail to?
I will not arrive until Thursday, but hope folks will attend the National History Program meet and greet/Q & A session, and I'll be out and about the conference area if anyone has questions or wishes to chat.
"1) The "Ask the National Commander" button within eServices," Negatory Ghostrider. I asked and never even got the courtesy of a response, however, I believe my concern was run by my Group and Wing Commanders as there was a form of arse chewing had later on. So not only was there no response, but the transparency turns out to be between National Commander and one's chain of command. Hardly an open door policy in my book. Pretty cheap and low life as far as I am concerned. So much for the diversity he brought to us. No class. Once a sergeant, always a sergeant. Good riddance.
I was pretty sure that the "Ask the commander" feature in eservices plainly warned you that your message would go to your chain of command as well, but now that I'm going to look for it, the entire "Ask the commander" feature is gone in both the new and old eservices.
I guess the new commander isn't interesting in receiving daily emails about when we're switching to ABUs.
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 13, 2014, 12:22:27 AM
This may sound dumb, but from a rank and file member with no aspirations for command, I don't give a rat's posterior who is helming this ship. Who it is has never made one bit of difference to me at all, from the cadet side all the way through the berry boards. I wasn't around for the HWSNBN horror, but that's about the only instance that could make me give a crap about anyone above Wing commander.
Kind of where I stand too. It is impossible for a national CC to have his/her finger on the pulse of the membership...it's illogical to expect otherwise.
I met the former Generalissimo at a wing conference once. I said, "pleased to meet you, sir," and he said "likewise, Captain" (or something along those lines). I was in dire need of a visit to the latrine and considered that more important than trying to make small talk with someone I did not know and would likely never know.
Quote from: AirAux on August 13, 2014, 02:57:48 AM... Once a sergeant, always a sergeant. Good riddance.
Am I taking this out of context or is this just a immature remark? 8)
Quote from: AirAux on August 13, 2014, 02:57:48 AMOnce a sergeant, always a sergeant.
Let me test that ...
Sgt. Alvin York? Staff Sgt. (later Major) Audie Murphy? MSG Raul Benavidez? SSG Salvatore Giunta? CMSgt Richard L. Etchberger?
(I think you might want to consider a different "clever" saying...)
Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 05:58:21 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 13, 2014, 12:22:27 AM
This may sound dumb, but from a rank and file member with no aspirations for command, I don't give a rat's posterior who is helming this ship. Who it is has never made one bit of difference to me at all, from the cadet side all the way through the berry boards. I wasn't around for the HWSNBN horror, but that's about the only instance that could make me give a crap about anyone above Wing commander.
Kind of where I stand too. It is impossible for a national CC to have his/her finger on the pulse of the membership...it's illogical to expect otherwise.
I met the former Generalissimo at a wing conference once. I said, "pleased to meet you, sir," and he said "likewise, Captain" (or something along those lines). I was in dire need of a visit to the latrine and considered that more important than trying to make small talk with someone I did not know and would likely never know.
Kind of like when I met Gen. Courter at the SER Conference a few years ago. She just happened to be standing around looking at something or other when I walked by. I extended my hand to her and said, "How do you do, General?" and introduced myself. She shook my hand (while I bowed - which I do whenever I meet a lady at any time) and said she was glad to meet me. We exchanged approximately 30 seconds of small talk and I moved on.
Nice lady.
Jack
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 13, 2014, 06:59:06 AM
Quote from: AirAux on August 13, 2014, 02:57:48 AM... Once a sergeant, always a sergeant. Good riddance.
Am I taking this out of context or is this just a immature remark? 8)
I was wondering that too.
Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 05:58:21 AM
It is impossible for a national CC to have his/her finger on the pulse of the membership...it's illogical to expect otherwise.
Why would that be? A National Conference is a good time to "mingle with the masses". One would think the "chain of command" would report on "the pulse" during the year. The commander also goes to region and wing conferences to get an idea of what is going on. Do you not think this is happening? Do you just think the commander sits in a lonely room, contemplating the nature command?
I would hope someone has their finger on the pulse of the membership. How else would CAP move forward? Do you really think a successful organization just makes things up as it goes along without knowing the people who populate it? Just sayn'! :angel:
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 12, 2014, 11:45:51 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 12, 2014, 11:02:11 PM
As to Maj Gen Carr, the question isn't of dislike, he's a committed volunteer like the rest of us, the
question is "What is his legacy?".
In other threads, Ned put forth that his legacy is 39-1 and "no scandals". Yes, keeping the doors open
is important in and of itself, but that's what the National staff is for.
I had a discussion about this very topic a few weeks ago with a squadron-mate of mine. This gentleman and I ended the discussion with thought that there were a few items that would be a noteworthy legacy after General Carr's term:
1) The "Ask the National Commander" button within eServices,
Check you e-services...it's gone now.
Quote from: Ed Bos on August 12, 2014, 11:45:51 PM
2) Leading the organization after the transition in the governance structure.
This is the first time in a long time where the organization's CEO was unmistakeably and in fact a member. Previously we had a national leader that was a volunteer, and a national leader that was an employee, and a governance that appeared to be a bit hands-off until a major problem occurred.
Not really. The COO (Executive Director) is still hired and evaluated by the BoG. The COO and the CEO both report to the BoG, so there's still the same split in governance.
QuoteCite:
ARTICLE XIII
SELECTION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS
3. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) shall be selected, retained, evaluated, and removed by the Board
of Governors. The Personnel Committee will establish criteria for the position and vet the initial
candidates. Final selection of the Chief Operating Officer will be by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of
the members of the Board of Governors. The Chief Operating Officer serves at the pleasure of the Board
of Governors and may be removed by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Board of
Governors, subject to any contractual rights he or she may have at the time of removal.
Since I am not involved in that call my responses are generalized.
I disagree that the National Commander should not be involved in the "minutiae" of a hanger rash. The National Commander has the overall responsibility for all CAP Assets that includes people and equipment. The strength behind the program should come from the Commander. If the National Commander has no participation in the safety program then it might as well be stopped.
Asking someone about a prior safety incident is not "calling them out", it is trying to use lagging indicators to mitigate risk. What can we learn from someone else's incident that can further mitigate risk to people or equipment?
The problem already exists if the Hanger Rash occurred, that is "true problem". I don't know the approach that was taken but "learning and holding someone accountable" is not a witch hunt. It is his responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again.
We have to learn from the incidents that occur. If we don't then we are simply ignoring the issue in the hopes that it will go away. It doesn't and it won't.
**I recently had an employee go into a machine to do some work and did not follow the lockout procedure for the equipment. They did not see it as an issue. During the investigation the employee commented what the big deal was they had done the task a thousand times. Besides the fact it was company policy I asked them a simple question. Would you knowingly allow your child to go into a machine that can kill them? No further comments from employee.
Just my .02 cents worth.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 12, 2014, 10:42:07 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 12, 2014, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: EmLyn on August 12, 2014, 07:28:35 PM
I am headed in tomorrow morning. A little excited. A little nervous. Never been to Las Vegas and my first CAP conference. Add in some personal stuff like having a service dog and we will see what happens.
If you have time and are making a vacation out of it one stop I would recommend is the Liberace Museum.
closed :(
When did it close? Granted it's been awhile since I was in Vegas.
Early 2013.
Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it. They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.
Quote from: Angus on August 13, 2014, 01:58:52 PM
Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it. They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.
That was absolutely awesome. I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.
I did some exploring of
Las Vegas Hilton LVH Westgate Las Vegas in the Spring and found the Space Quest casino
was still there, as were the themed restrooms (only partially functional) being used as an open space and slot parlor, and the
signage is still outside, hidden by the monorail.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 13, 2014, 01:58:52 PM
Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it. They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.
That was absolutely awesome. I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.
Ohhhh myyyy. Okay everyone, raise your hand if you are a Star Trek nerd
Quote from: LSThiker on August 13, 2014, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 13, 2014, 01:58:52 PM
Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it. They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.
That was absolutely awesome. I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.
Ohhhh myyyy. Okay everyone, raise your hand if you are a Star Trek nerd
*Hand raised high*
Also a Whovian. Mainly the current stuff still trying to catch up on the first 7 Doctors.
Quote from: LSThiker on August 13, 2014, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 13, 2014, 01:58:52 PM
Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it. They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.
That was absolutely awesome. I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.
Ohhhh myyyy. Okay everyone, raise your hand if you are a Star Trek nerd
The wife and I specifically went to Vegas to see ST:TE (and also to drive to CA later to attend Blizzcon) just to found out that ST:TE had closed the week prior. We were... miffed.
Quote from: capsafety on August 13, 2014, 12:10:01 PM
Since I am not involved in that call my responses are generalized.
I disagree that the National Commander should not be involved in the "minutiae" of a hanger rash. The National Commander has the overall responsibility for all CAP Assets that includes people and equipment. The strength behind the program should come from the Commander. If the National Commander has no participation in the safety program then it might as well be stopped.
Asking someone about a prior safety incident is not "calling them out", it is trying to use lagging indicators to mitigate risk. What can we learn from someone else's incident that can further mitigate risk to people or equipment?
The problem already exists if the Hanger Rash occurred, that is "true problem". I don't know the approach that was taken but "learning and holding someone accountable" is not a witch hunt. It is his responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again.
We have to learn from the incidents that occur. If we don't then we are simply ignoring the issue in the hopes that it will go away. It doesn't and it won't.
**I recently had an employee go into a machine to do some work and did not follow the lockout procedure for the equipment. They did not see it as an issue. During the investigation the employee commented what the big deal was they had done the task a thousand times. Besides the fact it was company policy I asked them a simple question. Would you knowingly allow your child to go into a machine that can kill them? No further comments from employee.
Just my .02 cents worth.
B.S. We have safety officers, stan/eval, commanders, etc. at the various levels for this exact reason; they investigate and report incidents. It's hangar rash for cryin' out loud. If we had a serious accident with loss of life, sure, get involved...but do so in the initial investigation, not months after the investigation is complete. Outside of that, if you want to know what happened, read the report. Your response and in particular another I saw from your boss is indicative as to exactly why change is needed and why the "safety" program remains the butt of all jokes in CAP.
National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem. Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc. How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines? That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is. Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed. However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with. There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying. But more to the point, you have an ineffective program. You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-no's in a volunteer program).
The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role. If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues. Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not. Why? Because it's a silly and a waste of his time. He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company. He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:48:08 PMNational has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem. Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc. How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines? That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is. Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed. However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with. There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying. But more to the point, you have an ineffective program. You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).
I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents". Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.
But I do agree with what I think your greater point is, namely that NHQ abhors releasing data, because facts and numbers have no bias, and
tend to run counter to the narrative.
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:48:08 PM
The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role. If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues. Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not. Why? Because it's a silly and a waste of his time. He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company. He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.
Agreed, sort of. The difference being that UPS knows exactly what business it is in, and has a plan for achieving it. Yes, subordinates are responsible for
wrench turning, but the CEO is responsible for insuring there is a vision and plan much more detailed then the marketing collateral. If the plan starts
with "be the best..." that's not a plan, that's marketing.
And even more key, when the subordinates cannot or will not execute the plan, people start getting fired, up to and including that CEO. A concept all but foreign in CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:48:08 PMNational has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem. Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc. How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines? That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is. Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed. However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with. There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying. But more to the point, you have an ineffective program. You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).
I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents". Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.
An idealistic but not realistic goal.
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:48:08 PMNational has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem. Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc. How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines? That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is. Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed. However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with. There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying. But more to the point, you have an ineffective program. You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).
I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents". Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.
An idealistic but not realistic goal.
So you're going to contend that the majority of 78's are unavoidable? Why, specifically?
Because I would contend the majority are due to poor supervision, lack of adherence to published regulation, and generally
poor behavior by members and commanders. "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." stuff.
>ALL< self-induced hangar rash, 100%, without exception, is avoidable. There's absolutely no excuse for it.
There isn't a single instance of hangar rash that wasn't caused by lack of proper focus or someone being in a hurry.
We can't prevent ramp rats from bumping the planes, but we can stop doing it ourselves.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 05:01:55 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:48:08 PMNational has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem. Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc. How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines? That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is. Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed. However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with. There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying. But more to the point, you have an ineffective program. You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-nos in a volunteer program).
I don't agree that zero incidents is impossible, especially considering what we're talking about as "incidents". Most CAP incidents are completely avoidable
and occurred because someone ignored ORM, a checklist, or was in a hurray.
An idealistic but not realistic goal.
So you're going to contend that the majority of 78's are unavoidable? Why, specifically?
Because I would contend the majority are due to poor supervision, lack of adherence to published regulation, and generally
poor behavior by members and commanders. "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." stuff.
>ALL< self-induced hangar rash, 100%, without exception, is avoidable. There's absolutely no excuse for it.
There isn't a single instance of hangar rash that wasn't caused by lack of proper focus or someone being in a hurry.
We can't prevent ramp rats from bumping the planes, but we can stop doing it ourselves.
We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...
Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility. I doubt you do either for the same reason. The best I could do is look at those within our Wing. But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans.
We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care? Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident. You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath?)... ;)
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 05:18:48 PM
We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...
Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility. I doubt you do either for the same reason. The best I could do is look at those within our Wing. But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans.
We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care? Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident. You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)
OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.
If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones?
If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure. If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more. I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable. I disagree.
I have, at various times, had access to my wing, region, and even national 78s, including being an investigator
or AOR commander for some of them.
I am also, as you may or may not know, a motorcycle safety instructor in my state, so I have some superficial
exposure to the causality around incidents and accidents.
I have seen all manner of tom foolery in 78s which resulted in personal injury, damage to property, and
even external liability. The range is from unit activities up through aircraft accident investigations.
I have yet to see a single one that wasn't avoidable, or for that matter member induced. They are
nearly always due, as I said, to lack of adherence to procedure or regulations, improper supervision,
or someone who knows better or is in a hurry.
Stuff happens, and there are variables outside a member's control, but banging into other planes in the
hangar, for a start, is completely unacceptable.
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:48:08 PM
B.S. We have safety officers, stan/eval, commanders, etc. at the various levels for this exact reason; they investigate and report incidents. It's hangar rash for cryin' out loud. If we had a serious accident with loss of life, sure, get involved...but do so in the initial investigation, not months after the investigation is complete. Outside of that, if you want to know what happened, read the report. Your response and in particular another I saw from your boss is indicative as to exactly why change is needed and why the "safety" program remains the butt of all jokes in CAP.
National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem. Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc. How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines? That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is. Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed. However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with. There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying. But more to the point, you have an ineffective program. You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-no's in a volunteer program).
The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role. If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues. Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not. Why? Because it's a silly and a waste of his time. He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company. He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that it is B.S.
1) Nothing personal for any Unit Safety Officer but most are not going to be trained on how to do a proper Safety Investigation. This type of training goes beyond asking a few questions but doing a major Root Cause Analysis of the situation.
2) No damage is acceptable, whether you consider it part of doing business or not. That does not mean we should accept it. I agree you can never say that you will a have 100% incident free organization, however: we should never use the excuse that "it is just going to happen". We should always stride for that type of organization. Agreed: any time people you have the potential for human error. The intention behind the use of leading and lagging indicators is to mitigate risk....that's it. You do what you can with the information that is there.
3) The information about incidents is shared during the conferences. Most larger corporations DO NOT put that type of information out for everyone to see on a daily basis. That information is shared with those that can have an influence in making the changes.
4) Doing a comparison of industries and CAP is overall pointless. The true information is what we already have. If you want to compare, then look at their mitigation efforts not their numbers first. There is a cycle there.
5) Zero incidents should always be the goal, Period. As mentioned earlier I do not believe in giving false assumptions that you will always have zero. Too many people involved.
6) CEO's have been stepping into the Safety side a lot more in the recent years than they have in the past. This is because it is a value and goes beyond the regulatory stuff.
I have talked with and interviewed close to 50 Business leaders in the last 3 years that have the same opinion about safety. It has to start somewhere and that is with them.
You don't waste anyone's time when you are trying to mitigate risk.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 05:23:21 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 05:18:48 PM
We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...
Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility. I doubt you do either for the same reason. The best I could do is look at those within our Wing. But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans.
We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care? Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident. You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)
OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.
If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones?
If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure. If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more. I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable. I disagree.
While that may've seemed to make for a pithy post, it's actually a Straw Man.
As stated previously...we're well off topic here.
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:21:36 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 05:23:21 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 05:18:48 PM
We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...
Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility. I doubt you do either for the same reason. The best I could do is look at those within our Wing. But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans.
We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care? Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident. You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)
OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.
If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones?
If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure. If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more. I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable. I disagree.
While that may've seemed to make for a pithy post, it's actually a Straw Man.
As stated previously...we're well off topic here.
Wasn't meant to be pithy. Was meant to make a point.
I once sat in a safety training session at work, and that exact impression was shared by just about everyone..."Zero is impossible."
The SVP running the training pulled out a list of folks who had been killed the year before in an accident, and asked someone who was complaining that "zero incidents is impossible" and told him "OK, here's a list of folks that were killed last year. Phone numbers for their next-of-kin right here, which ones do you want to call and tell them that they were "acceptable losses"? Here, you can use my phone."
If you accept a certain level of loss, you will get that level of loss + some more. My acceptable level is zero.
Quote from: capsafety on August 13, 2014, 06:01:34 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 04:48:08 PM
B.S. We have safety officers, stan/eval, commanders, etc. at the various levels for this exact reason; they investigate and report incidents. It's hangar rash for cryin' out loud. If we had a serious accident with loss of life, sure, get involved...but do so in the initial investigation, not months after the investigation is complete. Outside of that, if you want to know what happened, read the report. Your response and in particular another I saw from your boss is indicative as to exactly why change is needed and why the "safety" program remains the butt of all jokes in CAP.
National has failed to demonstrate there is actually a problem. Show us actual numbers; ie incidents per hours flown, etc. How do they compare to GA, Mil, airlines? That should be the basis for any discussion and it never is. Once that info is shared, then we can have an actual discussion as to what it means and what actions, if any are needed. However, this apparent fantasy that seems to exist around zero incidents needs to be done away with. There is only one way to achieve zero incidents...get rid of all airplanes and cancel flying. But more to the point, you have an ineffective program. You're not changing behaviors but you are wasting our members time and building resentment (just about two of the biggest no-no's in a volunteer program).
The approach to Safety is just one very visible example of National not leading at their level/appropriate for their role. If CAP is viewed as a business, and it must to a great extent, you will be hard pressed to find another CEO in a large company such as this that would be involved in such trivial day to day issues. Do you think the CEO of UPS personally calls every driver that has a fender bender? Of course not. Why? Because it's a silly and a waste of his time. He actually needs to focus on strategic issues facing his company. He has subordinates to handle the day to day issues....just like we do.
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that it is B.S.
1) Nothing personal for any Unit Safety Officer but most are not going to be trained on how to do a proper Safety Investigation. This type of training goes beyond asking a few questions but doing a major Root Cause Analysis of the situation.
2) No damage is acceptable, whether you consider it part of doing business or not. That does not mean we should accept it. I agree you can never say that you will a have 100% incident free organization, however: we should never use the excuse that "it is just going to happen". We should always stride for that type of organization. Agreed: any time people you have the potential for human error. The intention behind the use of leading and lagging indicators is to mitigate risk....that's it. You do what you can with the information that is there.
3) The information about incidents is shared during the conferences. Most larger corporations DO NOT put that type of information out for everyone to see on a daily basis. That information is shared with those that can have an influence in making the changes.
4) Doing a comparison of industries and CAP is overall pointless. The true information is what we already have. If you want to compare, then look at their mitigation efforts not their numbers first. There is a cycle there.
5) Zero incidents should always be the goal, Period. As mentioned earlier I do not believe in giving false assumptions that you will always have zero. Too many people involved.
6) CEO's have been stepping into the Safety side a lot more in the recent years than they have in the past. This is because it is a value and goes beyond the regulatory stuff.
I have talked with and interviewed close to 50 Business leaders in the last 3 years that have the same opinion about safety. It has to start somewhere and that is with them.
You don't waste anyone's time when you are trying to mitigate risk.
We're well off topic here so I'm not going to respond tit for tat but if you're somehow suggesting what is taking place by National is done so at the hands of those with some vastly superior and unique skill set, you couldn't be more mistaken. As I stated previously, what has taken place is Bush league at best.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 06:27:25 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:21:36 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 05:23:21 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 05:18:48 PM
We're well off topic here so I'll just respond with this and be done...
Don't know if the majority of 78's are avoidable or not because I don't have that visibility. I doubt you do either for the same reason. The best I could do is look at those within our Wing. But to your question, are they avoidable? Sure, in theory, were it not for one variable...humans.
We're not perfect and frankly mishaps will happen... or will you suggest that you've never had an accident, even while taking great care? Show me any operation in any industry that utilizes vehicles (whether it be aircraft, boats, trains, cars, whatever) that has never had an incident/accident. You can get back to me with those examples in another thread (should I hold my breath)... ;)
OK, so your position is that a certain number of incidents and injuries are acceptable.
If we can get you the list, can you single out which ones?
If you shoot for zero and miss, you'll have a few incidents, sure. If you shoot for 20, then you'll get your 20, plus a few more. I'd rather have zero plus a few than 20 plus a few, but then again, you know that some are acceptable. I disagree.
While that may've seemed to make for a pithy post, it's actually a Straw Man.
As stated previously...we're well off topic here.
Wasn't meant to be pithy. Was meant to make a point.
I once sat in a safety training session at work, and that exact impression was shared by just about everyone..."Zero is impossible."
The SVP running the training pulled out a list of folks who had been killed the year before in an accident, and asked someone who was complaining that "zero incidents is impossible" and told him "OK, here's a list of folks that were killed last year. Phone numbers for their next-of-kin right here, which ones do you want to call and tell them that they were "acceptable losses"? Here, you can use my phone."
If you accept a certain level of loss, you will get that level of loss + some more. My acceptable level is zero.
I understand what you were saying. However, it's a comment that is often thrown out as some quippy response meant to marginalize the issue and evoke an emotional response. However, it really mischaracterizes and, to me, shows a lack of depth in understanding risk discussions.
But again, before we have any further discussions, let's start with some actual facts around our mishap rates. Then we can talk measurable and attainable (SMART anyone?) goals to achieve them.
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:42:55 PM
I understand what you were saying. However, it's a comment that is often thrown out as some quippy response meant to marginalize the issue and evoke an emotional response. However, it really mischaracterizes and, to me, shows a lack of depth in understanding risk discussions.
I understand what you're saying. However, those who say that "You can never get to zero incidents." is almost always an excuse for "I don't want to try."
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 06:44:47 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:42:55 PM
I understand what you were saying. However, it's a comment that is often thrown out as some quippy response meant to marginalize the issue and evoke an emotional response. However, it really mischaracterizes and, to me, shows a lack of depth in understanding risk discussions.
I understand what you're saying. However, those who say that "You can never get to zero incidents." is almost always an excuse for "I don't want to try."
And that's why I called it a Straw Man because that's not my position at all.
We're well off topic here so I'm not going to respond tit for tat but if you're somehow suggesting what is taking place by National is done so at the hands of those with some vastly superior and unique level of skill set, you couldn't be more mistaken. As I stated previously, what has taken place is Bush league at best.
[/quote]
No I am not suggesting that. However: what I am saying is that the process has to start somewhere and that place should be from the top leadership down.
We should take a more proactive approach and that is what I believe, they are trying to do.
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:47:52 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 06:44:47 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:42:55 PM
I understand what you were saying. However, it's a comment that is often thrown out as some quippy response meant to marginalize the issue and evoke an emotional response. However, it really mischaracterizes and, to me, shows a lack of depth in understanding risk discussions.
I understand what you're saying. However, those who say that "You can never get to zero incidents." is almost always an excuse for "I don't want to try."
And that's why I called it a Straw Man because that's not my position at all.
So is claiming that I have a "lack of depth in understanding risk discussions", but that didn't seem to bother you to claim that.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 06:50:25 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:47:52 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 13, 2014, 06:44:47 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 13, 2014, 06:42:55 PM
I understand what you were saying. However, it's a comment that is often thrown out as some quippy response meant to marginalize the issue and evoke an emotional response. However, it really mischaracterizes and, to me, shows a lack of depth in understanding risk discussions.
I understand what you're saying. However, those who say that "You can never get to zero incidents." is almost always an excuse for "I don't want to try."
And that's why I called it a Straw Man because that's not my position at all.
So is claiming that I have a "lack of depth in understanding risk discussions", but that didn't seem to bother you to claim that.
Fair enough. So, now we're even. :)
Quote from: LSThiker on August 13, 2014, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 13, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 13, 2014, 01:58:52 PM
Wow that was a cool museum as I remember it. They close all the good stuff there, I know the Star Trek Experience is gone.
That was absolutely awesome. I got to see Borg 4D as well, very cool, but not as neat as STTE the first time through.
Ohhhh myyyy. Okay everyone, raise your hand if you are a Star Trek nerd
I have been ever since childhood.
I have met Marina Sirtis (Counsellor Troi, gorgeous and very nice), Michael Dorn (Worf, and an excellent candidate for CAP) and Jonathan Frakes (potty mouth with kids in the audience). Actually, I didn't meet Frakes as he didn't mingle or sign autographs like the other two.
She was attractive until Ezri Dax. Then when Yoshi (Linda Parks) came into the picture, neither compared. IMHO
Is there any kind of CAPTalk meet up happening?
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 13, 2014, 08:20:55 PM
Is there any kind of CAPTalk meet up happening?
Heh - take them all out in one swath...
Any chance we can swing this back on topic? A lot of us couldn't make it out there and would like to get some info as to what's taking place.
Quote from: capmaj on August 13, 2014, 09:35:30 PM
Any chance we can swing this back on topic? A lot of us couldn't make it out there and would like to get some info as to what's taking place.
The Operations pre-conference is today.
Quote from: capmaj on August 13, 2014, 09:35:30 PM
Any chance we can swing this back on topic? A lot of us couldn't make it out there and would like to get some info as to what's taking place.
It doesn't start until Thursday, not much to say until then. The other activities are tangential at best.
Quote from: capmaj on August 13, 2014, 09:35:30 PM
Any chance we can swing this back on topic? A lot of us couldn't make it out there and would like to get some info as to what's taking place.
Sure when it starts, people will post relevant and on-topic conversations. At that time, this thread will somewhat return to topic.
So, will this be the national conference where they decide to give us ABUs?
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 14, 2014, 12:34:28 AM
So, will this be the national conference where they decide to give us ABUs?
Yes, that has been confirmed.
So....back to the National Board.
Met some CAP talkers.
Had the second session of Air Crew Survival.
Mary Feik is here now. Met Chief Todd. There seems to be 5 of us CAP NCOs here now.
Opening reception is tomorrow.
I'm working the front desk coordinating the cadets working the conference. Drop buy and say hi!
Shout outs to Tim Medeiros, Prodigal Jim, a2Capt!
The Big V .. has the 2005 39-1 on the table .. Kinda ironic.
I might have been standing next to you when you discovered the discrepancy.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 14, 2014, 03:58:17 AMThere seems to be 5 of us CAP NCOs here now.
Isn't it dangerous having all of you in one place? ;D
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 14, 2014, 12:34:28 AM
So, will this be the national conference where they decide to give us ABUs?
"I would like the digitals."
Quote from: lordmonar on August 14, 2014, 03:58:17 AM
So....back to the National Board.
Met some CAP talkers.
Had the second session of Air Crew Survival.
Mary Feik is here now. Met Chief Todd. There seems to be 5 of us CAP NCOs here now.
Opening reception is tomorrow.
I'm working the front desk coordinating the cadets working the conference. Drop buy and say hi!
Shout outs to Tim Medeiros, Prodigal Jim, a2Capt!
And don't forget AlphaSigOU! :)
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 14, 2014, 12:34:28 AM
So, will this be the national conference where they decide to give us ABUs?
It's not happening. We withdrew the request for ABU's.
Quote from: Angus on August 15, 2014, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 14, 2014, 12:34:28 AM
So, will this be the national conference where they decide to give us ABUs?
It's not happening. We withdrew the request for ABU's.
Guess you missed the sarcasm tags...
Quote from: PHall on August 15, 2014, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 15, 2014, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 14, 2014, 12:34:28 AM
So, will this be the national conference where they decide to give us ABUs?
It's not happening. We withdrew the request for ABU's.
Guess you missed the sarcasm tags...
Well with no emoticons or italics hard to tell. There are still so many people who think and hope that we will be getting the ABU.
Quote from: Angus on August 15, 2014, 03:30:12 PM
Well with no emoticons or italics hard to tell. There are still so many people who think and hope that we will be getting the ABU.
Please, no. Never. Ever. It's ugly, it's a massive step down from the BDU (which I don't want to make again) and it's staring being phased out right in the face. Just go for the MultiCam/Scorpion if a change must happen. I'd rather we go to ODs, but if we 'must' (by desire, not need) change, the OCPs are great.
Quote from: Angus on August 15, 2014, 03:30:12 PMThere are still so many people who think and hope that we will be getting the ABU.
Wait, what? We're not getting ABUs?
In all seriousness, how much fun would it be to walk around Trop this week in ABUs configured to
look like the last public proposal?
Make it a non-member and put something else on the nametape instead of "Civil Air Patrol" that looks
close in "low light".
Heh.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 15, 2014, 03:38:39 PM
Quote from: Angus on August 15, 2014, 03:30:12 PMThere are still so many people who think and hope that we will be getting the ABU.
Wait, what? We're not getting ABUs?
In all seriousness, how much fun would it be to walk around Trop this week in ABUs configured to
look like the last public proposal?
Make it a non-member and put something else on the nametape instead of "Civil Air Patrol" that looks
close in "low light".
Heh.
"C1WIL A!P BATPOL"
Perfect.
Or anagrams such as "Cilia Valor Trip"
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on August 15, 2014, 12:22:10 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 14, 2014, 03:58:17 AM
So....back to the National Board.
Met some CAP talkers.
Had the second session of Air Crew Survival.
Mary Feik is here now. Met Chief Todd. There seems to be 5 of us CAP NCOs here now.
Opening reception is tomorrow.
I'm working the front desk coordinating the cadets working the conference. Drop buy and say hi!
Shout outs to Tim Medeiros, Prodigal Jim, a2Capt!
And don't forget AlphaSigOU! :)
Congrats on the Nat ComCom!
Remember the old days when we used to live stream the Conference? This must be the new transparency in CAP??
So any news on the actual conference?
We used to stream National Board meetings. No more National Board. Now there is a Command Council meeting. Why stream reports and direction to field commanders? Why bother when it all comes thru the website. Policy is made by the BoG. Regs are made by staff and approved by the CEO.
Times have changed.
Lots of good stuff going on. Great brief from the NUC about the last 39-1 and the changes coming. Nothing earth shaking just good staff work. CAPTALK was mentioned both positively and negatively.
The BOG met but I have not heard any report of what went on
Quote from: AirAux on August 16, 2014, 12:58:25 AM
Remember the old days when we used to live stream the Conference? This must be the new transparency in CAP??
you free to sit in on most of the sessions. I was on and out of them all week.
Any awards done yet? Or is that all tomorrow?
Quote from: lordmonar on August 16, 2014, 01:45:08 AM
Great brief from the NUC about the last 39-1 and the changes coming.
Okay, I'll bite. What coming changes did the NUC brief on?
Quote from: capmaj on August 16, 2014, 02:16:32 AM
Any awards done yet? Or is that all tomorrow?
yes they did a whole slew of them today. Today was the change of command so all old staffers got awards. There may be more tomorrow.
The IT committee meeting was productive, did an in depth review of the site survey from Feb, looked at CAPP 227 to see if there were any glaring revisions that should be made and reviewed some issues that have come up with the various eServices applications. A few ideas for improvements were tossed around, some minor and some that would take a while to execute.
The learning lab on eServices 2.0 was standing room only, tons of ideas generated from those in attendance (during the Q&A portion) and some misconceptions were cleared up as well (at least I hope).
The learning lab on Commanders Corner had some good info, it was also mentioned that there are currently 8 people on IT staff, including (presently) 4 developers (they recently lost one). The Help Desk is the best way to contact the devs, with either issues or ideas.
There are a few things currently being tested, to include two items that will be shown to audiences in two other learning labs tomorrow (online CAPF 120 in the awards/promos lab and WMIRS 2.0 in the WMIRS 2.0 lab).
Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2014, 02:59:35 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 16, 2014, 01:45:08 AM
Great brief from the NUC about the last 39-1 and the changes coming.
Okay, I'll bite. What coming changes did the NUC brief on?
fixes identified by the field. Fixes to tables pictures etc.
On the horizon staffing a possible casual/PT uniform. Hard rank on BDUs for cadet officers. Stuff like that. All the briefing slides from all the learning labs are going to posted on line after the conference.
My take home was the NUC worked hard to get us where we are today and are still working to make it better.
The NUC chair said that he wants us to go VFR direct to him and suzie Parker with any grammar /typos and any gross discrepancies we find.
He also stated that any knowledge base response is coming from the uniform OPR and as per regs counts as gospel.
There is more but I can't think of any of them right now. Like I said the slides should be posted online in the next few weeks.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 16, 2014, 04:16:44 AM
The IT committee meeting was productive, did an in depth review of the site survey from Feb, looked at CAPP 227 to see if there were any glaring revisions that should be made and reviewed some issues that have come up with the various eServices applications. A few ideas for improvements were tossed around, some minor and some that would take a while to execute.
The learning lab on eServices 2.0 was standing room only, tons of ideas generated from those in attendance (during the Q&A portion) and some misconceptions were cleared up as well (at least I hope).
The learning lab on Commanders Corner had some good info, it was also mentioned that there are currently 8 people on IT staff, including (presently) 4 developers (they recently lost one). The Help Desk is the best way to contact the devs, with either issues or ideas.
There are a few things currently being tested, to include two items that will be shown to audiences in two other learning labs tomorrow (online CAPF 120 in the awards/promos lab and WMIRS 2.0 in the WMIRS 2.0 lab).
Sounds pretty good.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 16, 2014, 01:45:08 AM
Lots of good stuff going on. Great brief from the NUC about the last 39-1 and the changes coming. Nothing earth shaking just good staff work. CAPTALK was mentioned both positively and negatively.
What were some examples of CT mentioned both positively and negatively?
Quote from: lordmonar on August 14, 2014, 03:58:17 AM
So....back to the National Board.
Met some CAP talkers.
Had the second session of Air Crew Survival.
Mary Feik is here now. Met Chief Todd. There seems to be 5 of us CAP NCOs here now.
Opening reception is tomorrow.
I'm working the front desk coordinating the cadets working the conference. Drop buy and say hi!
Shout outs to Tim Medeiros, Prodigal Jim, a2Capt!
Missed meeting you Pat.... Met Tim and Chuck. Glad to be going home...I only had 1 15-20 minute segment where I had a little down time. I had meetings up the wazoo. Lunches and dinners were always some kind of working times.
Want to make a report about uniforms at the national conference. For the most part not a lot of gross violations. Same old stuff. Badges in the wrong place military badges on the gray and whites. But not a lot of overweight people in blues (but there were some).
The most violations were on banquet night. We had seniors in semi formal we had state wards on mess dress we had cadets an seniors in all levels of uniforms. But all in all we looked pretty good.
We should weightwait and let the Flicker Pool speak to that.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 01:08:26 AM
We should weightwait and let the Flicker Pool speak to that.
What, wait for them to weigh in?
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 20, 2014, 01:33:03 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 01:08:26 AM
We should weightwait and let the Flicker Pool speak to that.
What, wait for them to weigh in?
It will be interesting to see how "heavy" things were in Vegas...
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 01:08:26 AM
We should weightwait and let the Flicker Pool speak to that.
So....you are basically saying my on the spot observations are worthless.
Thanks
Pat
So what we're your gut reactions to what you were hearing.... not just in the meetings but also in the equally (if not more) important, lounge and hallways meetings?
More of the same.... chance for change... blend of both? Any thoughts?
After 6 pages we have approx. 2 reports (1 here from lordmonar and another thread) from the 4 day conference. That probably speaks volumes for the effectiveness and value (or lack thereof) of the event. Anecdotal first hand accounts I've heard also seem to support this. Vegas just might not be the right venue for organization, although I'm sure it boosted attendance.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2014, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 01:08:26 AM
We should weightwait and let the Flicker Pool speak to that.
So....you are basically saying my on the spot observations are worthless.
Thanks
Yo yo yo...fa dose uv us dat wernt dere, we needs da foto prufe, yo. >:D
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2014, 01:30:53 PM
After 6 pages we have approx 2 reports (1 here from lordmanor another thread) from the 4 day conference. That probably speaks volumes for the effectiveness and value of the event. Anecdotal first hand accounts I've heard seem to support that view. Vegas just might not be the right venue for organization, although I'm sure it boosted attendance.
Lordmanor? *snicker*
Well, he *is* the lord of all he surveys...
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2014, 01:30:53 PM
. Vegas just might not be the right venue for organization, although I'm sure it boosted attendance.
Next year we invade Disney World
Quote from: MSG Mac on August 20, 2014, 01:40:39 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2014, 01:30:53 PM
. Vegas just might not be the right venue for organization, although I'm sure it boosted attendance.
Next year we invade Disney World
I can just see the AAR on THAT one...
Me: In 2015 while heading to the National Conference, I commandeered an M-60 tank without the permission of my immediate superiors. I then attempted to invade Orlando. However, en route I stopped off at Disneyland, and was subsequently apprehended on Space Mountain.
Arresting Officer: Do you have any explanation as to why you might have done this?
Me: Well sir, at the time, I was suffering from serious emotional problems that had clearly affected my judgement. I had immersed myself in a fantasy world of my own creation, regarding ABUs and the new PD program, and as a result I became very insular and uncommunicative.
Arresting Officer: Why do you think that was?
Me: [Shrugs] I'unno.
Quote from: capmaj on August 20, 2014, 12:34:02 PM
Pat
So what we're your gut reactions to what you were hearing.... not just in the meetings but also in the equally (if not more) important, lounge and hallways meetings?
More of the same.... chance for change... blend of both? Any thoughts?
Positive change, where change was needed. Lots of people were complaining about 35-5......and a lot of NHQ types were actively listening and taking notes on those conversations.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2014, 03:55:16 PM
Quote from: capmaj on August 20, 2014, 12:34:02 PM
Pat
So what we're your gut reactions to what you were hearing.... not just in the meetings but also in the equally (if not more) important, lounge and hallways meetings?
More of the same.... chance for change... blend of both? Any thoughts?
Positive change, where change was needed. Lots of people were complaining about 35-5......and a lot of NHQ types were actively listening and taking notes on those conversations.
Perhaps they might consider publishing regulations in "DRAFT" for comment again...nah, no need for that.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2014, 04:32:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2014, 03:55:16 PM
Positive change, where change was needed.
Such as?
You may have to wait for the pictures.
Fair enough. Members from my wing came back specifically complaining about the state of uniform wear during the conference, thus my previous comment.
"Positive change" is rhetoric.
So far, there has been an org chart that doesn't mean much outside NHQ.
I heard the phrase self licking ice cream cone used...