Attached is the new CAPR 20-3. It deals with IG Inspections.
Not entirely new. It replaces 123-3
Am I the only one who read the subject title and had this go through their head?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
Quote from: zippity on March 21, 2017, 08:48:31 PM
Am I the only one who read the subject title and had this go through their head?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
No...you weren't the only one... ;)
"This document replaces CAPR 123-3, Civil Air Patrol Compliance Inspection Program. This
regulation has been extensively revised and needs to be reviewed in its entirety. Significant
changes have been made to Compliance and Subordinate Unit Inspection procedures to reflect
recent changes in CAP programs. This regulation is applicable to wing, group, cadet squadron,
senior squadron and composite squadron CAP units, but not to Patron and Legislative units."
Flights?
Great cartoon I haven't see those cartoons in decades. Ahh hope this reg is worth something.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: Eclipse on April 26, 2017, 10:44:17 PM
"This document replaces CAPR 123-3, Civil Air Patrol Compliance Inspection Program. This
regulation has been extensively revised and needs to be reviewed in its entirety. Significant
changes have been made to Compliance and Subordinate Unit Inspection procedures to reflect
recent changes in CAP programs. This regulation is applicable to wing, group, cadet squadron,
senior squadron and composite squadron CAP units, but not to Patron and Legislative units."
Flights?
Bah. You act like they're a chartered organization or something.
Completely unacceptable, for me:
Quote9.2. Inspections of subordinate units are expected to occur every 24 months. If a unit exceeds 27 months without a completed and valid SUI, the wing IG shall inform the wing commander, who shall suspend the unit's activities until the SUI is complete. Any excess interval between SUIs beyond 24 months will be subtracted in computing the next SUI due date. For example, an SUI is due in June, but doesn't get completed until August. The unit's next SUI will be 24 months from June.
This pretty much ensures I won't be renewing again. After thirty years, I just don't have the energy to deal with this type of 'stuff'. No Commander should have to deal with an inspection
twice in one tour. The IG system is out of control, and this SUI nonsense needs to be reset back to once every 48 months, since the crystal palace is enforcing the command tour of 48 months.
Quote from: LTC Don on April 27, 2017, 12:22:01 PM
Completely unacceptable, for me:
Quote9.2. Inspections of subordinate units are expected to occur every 24 months. If a unit exceeds 27 months without a completed and valid SUI, the wing IG shall inform the wing commander, who shall suspend the unit's activities until the SUI is complete. Any excess interval between SUIs beyond 24 months will be subtracted in computing the next SUI due date. For example, an SUI is due in June, but doesn't get completed until August. The unit's next SUI will be 24 months from June.
This pretty much ensures I won't be renewing again. After thirty years, I just don't have the energy to deal with this type of 'stuff'. No Commander should have to deal with an inspection twice in one tour. The IG system is out of control, and this SUI nonsense needs to be reset back to once every 48 months, since the crystal palace is enforcing the command tour of 48 months.
I'm more chapped over the fact that the unit gets shut down if the inspection isn't done on time. That's a classic case of punishing the wrong people since inspections are the responsibility of higher headquarters.
Reply part one: the actual inspection process has progressively gotten easier and easier over recent years.
Checklists for functional areas have been reduced to below bare-bones checks, in many areas such as CP (I protested the current CP checklist, when it came out - it asks almost nothing). Most of the actual inspection actions take place on line, thanks to the shift to eServices maintenance of key records. Wing banking has removed the butt pain of subordinate unit finance inspections. The typical IG team now is moving to a review of uploaded documentary evidence (which, in most cases, really should just be uploading the evidence/attachments that a unit has been doing its normal job: AE field trips or rocket day plans/reports, evidence of CP activities per quarter per regs, etc.). Then, as few as a single inspector might pop in for a required show and tell of the physical unit and to eyeball (for the record) all accountable property/radios, etc. Poof, done.
So, I just completed a Squadron level inspection last fall, with minimal effort to upload the documents, and my Deputy and I spent a couple of SAT AM hours drinking coffee and showing an impartial guy from another Group our stuff. We shook, he left, he typed, we're done.
Reply part two: all units are required to perform and document, and should welcome feedback on their "blind spots".
Remaining inspection ready should come after being combat ready (you all know the old saw there, right). If you're not doing the mission properly, and are bucking the process of auditing same, then yeah I have no issue with shuttering the unit until that unit can take the time to be open kimono. If a unit has fallen so far behind that they're not documenting, or not performing the required mission elements, then an "excellence in all we do" core value approach really asks that the unit take a pause (not shutter the unit, but to cease ops and focus on fixing itself to standards) - to stop until the problems are diagnosed with outside help, and until a replan is put in place to help the unit get working properly. In short, if a unit finds it so very onerous to respond to a normal, easy SUI, then something is very much wrong with that unit, and it needs to stand down until the issues are diagnosed and fixed.
If an SUI is "that hard", you're doing something wrong. If a unit finds an SUI "that onerous", that unit probably is in need of some advice (or, maybe it shouldn't be still chartered, if its fallen below necessary manning). If a unit finds insights from outside your unit "that hard to take" (little discrepancies notwithstanding) then we have to ask why that unit is unwilling to show their work and take credit where due/constructive feedback where improvement is needed.
The IG team are the eyes of our higher commands (not the authority to shut a unit down, themselves). Yet, if a unit can't stand a critical review of its accountability, isn't comfortable being back checked by the rules, and refuses to take constructive criticism, yeah... maybe CAP isn't right for those folks.
R/s
Spam
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 27, 2017, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: LTC Don on April 27, 2017, 12:22:01 PM
Completely unacceptable, for me:
Quote9.2. Inspections of subordinate units are expected to occur every 24 months. If a unit exceeds 27 months without a completed and valid SUI, the wing IG shall inform the wing commander, who shall suspend the unit's activities until the SUI is complete. Any excess interval between SUIs beyond 24 months will be subtracted in computing the next SUI due date. For example, an SUI is due in June, but doesn't get completed until August. The unit's next SUI will be 24 months from June.
This pretty much ensures I won't be renewing again. After thirty years, I just don't have the energy to deal with this type of 'stuff'. No Commander should have to deal with an inspection twice in one tour. The IG system is out of control, and this SUI nonsense needs to be reset back to once every 48 months, since the crystal palace is enforcing the command tour of 48 months.
I'm more chapped over the fact that the unit gets shut down if the inspection isn't done on time. That's a classic case of punishing the wrong people since inspections are the responsibility of higher headquarters.
I have to agree with this because my unit completed an SUI in December that was originally due in July. We had everything uploaded and ready in June, but the inspection team lead went dark until October and then changed multiple times before it all finally got finished. This is clearly a failure of the IG/SUI team and there's no reason for the squadron to be punished. However, as long as there remains a process to protect the squadron such as resetting the due date, as occurred for us, then it's not that different from what we already have.
Quote from: LTC Don on April 27, 2017, 12:22:01 PM
Completely unacceptable, for me:
...[stuff]...
Don, I hope you sent your complaints up the chain of command instead of just waiting and then griping on the internet. I agree that doing an SUI every 24 months is unnecessarily often, however, considering how easy they have made them, it's not that big of a deal. You don't even have to have your equipment inspected as part of the SUI any more.
Quote from: Spam on April 27, 2017, 01:10:53 PM
Yet, if a unit can't stand a critical review of its accountability, isn't comfortable being back checked by the rules, and refuses to take constructive criticism, yeah... maybe CAP isn't right for those folks.
As much as it hurts me to do this, I have to agree 100% with Spam.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 27, 2017, 12:28:48 PM
I'm more chapped over the fact that the unit gets shut down if the inspection isn't done on time. That's a classic case of punishing the wrong people since inspections are the responsibility of higher headquarters.
A - Nothing new, that has been the SOP for recent memory.
B - All you have to do is complete the !@#$ inspection to stay open, not close every D, not "ace the test", just sit for the inspection. For some units, even that is too much to ask.
Quote from: LTC Don on April 27, 2017, 12:22:01 PM
Completely unacceptable, for me:
Quote9.2. Inspections of subordinate units are expected to occur every 24 months. If a unit exceeds 27 months without a completed and valid SUI, the wing IG shall inform the wing commander, who shall suspend the unit's activities until the SUI is complete. Any excess interval between SUIs beyond 24 months will be subtracted in computing the next SUI due date. For example, an SUI is due in June, but doesn't get completed until August. The unit's next SUI will be 24 months from June.
This pretty much ensures I won't be renewing again. After thirty years, I just don't have the energy to deal with this type of 'stuff'. No Commander should have to deal with an inspection twice in one tour. The IG system is out of control, and this SUI nonsense needs to be reset back to once every 48 months, since the crystal palace is enforcing the command tour of 48 months.
It hasn't been 48 months for at least two revs of the reg.
NHQ is enforcing the maximum, not the limit. Don't want to sit for the second SUI?
Step.
Down.
Because frankly, if sitting for an inspection every couple of years is too much to ask, or too much hassle, then
there's the door.
With that said, a lot of wings have made the SUI process into a root canal, and / or units view it as a final exam.
If you, and your staff are doing their job(s), it's a "nothing", and these days 99% of what is needed is already online,
so they should just run some reports and inspect people "whenever", without notice.
Quote from: Spam on April 27, 2017, 01:10:53 PM
Reply part one: the actual inspection process has progressively gotten easier and easier over recent years.
Checklists for functional areas have been reduced to below bare-bones checks, in many areas such as CP (I protested the current CP checklist, when it came out - it asks almost nothing). Most of the actual inspection actions take place on line, thanks to the shift to eServices maintenance of key records. Wing banking has removed the butt pain of subordinate unit finance inspections. The typical IG team now is moving to a review of uploaded documentary evidence (which, in most cases, really should just be uploading the evidence/attachments that a unit has been doing its normal job: AE field trips or rocket day plans/reports, evidence of CP activities per quarter per regs, etc.). Then, as few as a single inspector might pop in for a required show and tell of the physical unit and to eyeball (for the record) all accountable property/radios, etc. Poof, done.
So, I just completed a Squadron level inspection last fall, with minimal effort to upload the documents, and my Deputy and I spent a couple of SAT AM hours drinking coffee and showing an impartial guy from another Group our stuff. We shook, he left, he typed, we're done.
((*snip*))
If an SUI is "that hard", you're doing something wrong. If a unit finds an SUI "that onerous", that unit probably is in need of some advice (or, maybe it shouldn't be still chartered, if its fallen below necessary manning). If a unit finds insights from outside your unit "that hard to take" (little discrepancies notwithstanding) then we have to ask why that unit is unwilling to show their work and take credit where due/constructive feedback where improvement is needed.
Yep, yep, yep...
If the inspection takes more then an hour or two,
total, someone is doing something wrong, or not doing something
(which is usually more the case). The program is nearly 100% based on bare-minimum administrative compliance, with
very little space for any subjective discussions. In nearly all cases, probably 1/4 of the questions are N/A - heck
2 of the 4 CP questions are N/A.
I just completed ours, and we were "Zero-D"
We are 100% paperless, so there were no physical files to inspect and access was granted remotely for the IGAs to
check remotely. We are / were familiar with the regs and program, so provided all the requested resources in advance and on time.
Since we don't have a physical location we "own", and no property is stored there permanently (as with many, many, units),
no physical inspection of the meeting location was necessary, and since all resources were provided properly,
there wasn't any need for even staff interviews, though they were waiting for the call if necessary.
"Zero-D", all via email and online resources.
It doesn't get much easier then that.
Something else to note is the further simplification of the over all grades, for the
inspection as a whole, there are now only two grades.
7.1.1. Effective. Performance or operation meets mission critical requirements.
7.1.2. Ineffective. Performance or operation does not meet mission critical requirements.
So you're either doing your job or you aren't, but there won't be anything beyond that.
In the new inspection climate, if you aren't "effective" overall, what are you doing ?
We've had SUI's every two years for quite some time; that's not new.
That aside, I've said this before and I'll say it again, the scope of SUI/CIs is still way too broad. A significant amount of member engagement is still required, including phone and in person interviews; not to mention significant prep time.
Here it is: The entire SUI/CI effort is significant waste of time for nearly all members involved.
There is no reason the audit team can't get 95+% of the info they need from online resources/reports. Updates to WMIRS and eServices should support such action.
As an organization, we spend way more time on non-value exercises like this than we do on actual value add activities for our communities and membership. This must change. It's overly burdensome with an overly punitive tone; not unlike our regs related to flying. It kills morale. The new update does nothing to change this.
No successful business I'm aware of operates in such a manner, we shouldn't either.
Quote from: A.Member on April 27, 2017, 09:09:20 PM
We've had SUI's every two years for quite some time; that's not new.
That aside, I've said this before and I'll say it again, the scope of SUI/CIs is still way too broad. A significant amount of member engagement is still required, including phone and in person interviews; not to mention significant prep time.
Here it is: The entire SUI/CI effort is significant waste of time for nearly all members involved.
There is no reason the audit team can't get 95+% of the info they need from online resources/reports. Updates to WMIRS and eServices should support such action.
As an organization, we spend way more time on non-value exercises like this than we do on actual value add activities for our communities and membership. This must change. It's overly burdensome with an overly punitive tone; not unlike our regs related to flying. It kills morale. The new update does nothing to change this.
No successful business I'm aware of operates in such a manner, we shouldn't either.
As a SUI Inspection Team member, including one as a Team Chief, I understand and agree with your premise that a lot of the information can and does get pulled from online sources that we review before an inspection. The purpose of actually going to the units and sitting down with them and going over them in person instead of just firing emails back and forth is that it allows for face to face dialog and an easier way to explain why things need to be done the way the regulations specify.
The last SUI I did, which I was the Team Chief for, We knocked it out in about 2 hours, and the Squadron Commander said he better understood the process now than what it was years ago, with those long "inquisition" question sheets. With the reduced tab sheets now, it is more a way to identify problems early before they become major issues, and he stated it helped him better understand things too.