Air Branch Director

[Flying Pig]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

I guess, since if MGen Vasquez were to give me an order  and I thought it would be an extreme risk I can refuse it, he's not really the National Commander then.  Good to know.

Uhh, yes. You absolutely could if it posed an extreme risk to you or anyone else.  Glad I could clarify that for you. But that's not even the same context.   The regs I was citing specifically addresses the senior / cadet interaction.

Would it be easier if I helped you quote me?  Because you are really confusing yourself.   You are absolutely not obligated to follow any order in CAP that could put you or anyone else at risk.  When dealing with cadets who are in a position over a senior, CAP has taken steps to actually allow that Senior Member to take command from the cadet.  Not just simply refuse the order. 

[JeffDG]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

I guess, since if MGen Vasquez were to give me an order  and I thought it would be an extreme risk I can refuse it, he's not really the National Commander then.  Good to know.

Uhh, yes. You absolutely could if it posed an extreme risk to you or anyone else.  Glad I could clarify that for you. But that's not even the same context.   The regs I was citing specifically addresses the senior / cadet interaction.

Would it be easier if I helped you quote me?  Because you are really confusing yourself.   You are absolutely not obligated to follow any order in CAP that could put you or anyone else at risk.  When dealing with cadets who are in a position over a senior, CAP has taken steps to actually allow that Senior Member to take command from the cadet.  Not just simply refuse the order.

So, then Senior->Senior is the same status as Cadet->Senior, because it's precisely the same standard.

[Storm Chaser]

If a cadet can have the same authority and responsibility in a mission as a senior member based on their qualification and assignment, then why is a ground team with cadets required to have a senior member even when there is a qualified cadet GTL in charge?

[Flying Pig]

If I refuse an order, I am not taking command.  In the Senior/Cadet interaction, the senior has the ability to take command.   If I refuse an order from a fellow Senior, I am not assuming command. 

[abdsp51]

Think about it like this.  How many agencies are going to take us seriously if we have an 18 yo director of anything...

[SarDragon]

If a cadet can have the same authority and responsibility in a mission as a senior member based on their qualification and assignment, then why is a ground team with cadets required to have a senior member even when there is a qualified cadet GTL in charge?

CPPT. With a very small number of exceptions, cadets never operate without a senior member present or overseeing the event.

[Storm Chaser]

I know that. But why? If Jeff is right, then cadets over 18 would be treated like senior members under 21 for everything but professional development. Yet cadets over 18 are treated just like cadets under 18 for most aspects of the program and are not considered adult leaders.

[Alaric]

If a cadet can have the same authority and responsibility in a mission as a senior member based on their qualification and assignment, then why is a ground team with cadets required to have a senior member even when there is a qualified cadet GTL in charge?

Because cadets under 18 requires Senior member supervision.  If you had a Ground Team of 18 year old cadets (unlikely) presumably a SM would not be needed

[Storm Chaser]

If a cadet can have the same authority and responsibility in a mission as a senior member based on their qualification and assignment, then why is a ground team with cadets required to have a senior member even when there is a qualified cadet GTL in charge?

Because cadets under 18 requires Senior member supervision.  If you had a Ground Team of 18 year old cadets (unlikely) presumably a SM would not be needed

Which means cadets over 18 don't have the same level of authority and responsibility as senior members. That said, I can't find anything in CAPR 52-10 that says cadets over 18 don't need senior member supervision.

[Full time cadet]

Interesting debates here......

Somethings I want to say.

MO are mostly in command of the aircraft. The only time when MOs are not in command is when APs are present.

[RogueLeader]

Interesting debates here......

Somethings I want to say.

MO are mostly in command of the aircraft. The only time when MOs are not in command is when APs are present.

I will also say, that in most cases, the ABOD is also a FRO (Flight release Officer.)  It doesn't do the IC or OSC a ton of good if the ABOD can't release the sorties.  To be an FRO, you will also need the Wing/CC to sign off on your appointment, and you will need to know CAPR 60-1.

[Storm Chaser]

Interesting debates here......

Somethings I want to say.

MO are mostly in command of the aircraft. The only time when MOs are not in command is when APs are present.

The MO is not in command of the aircraft, the MP is. That's why they're also called PIC (Pilot in Command).

The Task Guide refers to the MO as the mission commander, not aircraft commander. That said, this title is misleading since the MO doesn't really command the mission, the IC does. In my opinion, the Task Guide should be changed to reflect a more accurate title or role.

At most, the MO may be in charge of the air sortie just like the GTL is in charge of the ground sortie. But even then, that's not always the case, especially when the MO is inexperienced. It also depends on the type of sortie. At the end of the day, the MP is in charge of the aircraft and the AOBD (or OSC or IC) is in charge of the tasking given to that aircrew. The MO is just coordinating the search for the aircrew.

[SarDragon]

If a cadet can have the same authority and responsibility in a mission as a senior member based on their qualification and assignment, then why is a ground team with cadets required to have a senior member even when there is a qualified cadet GTL in charge?

Because cadets under 18 requires Senior member supervision.  If you had a Ground Team of 18 year old cadets (unlikely) presumably a SM would not be needed

Nope. Cadets are still cadets. Those over 18 have a little more freedom and a little more responsibility (CPPT), but they are still cadets. That concept has been discussed on many threads here.

[SARDOC]

ICS-300 is also required for AOBD, and accomplishing that is difficult at best for under 18 folks.

Why?

[SARDOC]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

Any Command I've ever heard of?   Yes, In the Military we we're trained to Disobey Direct Orders if they were unlawful.  My Commander in Combat couldn't order me to execute innocent people.   There are times when we have the Legal and Moral Authority to disobey an order.  I think that goes to the caveat in some of the references made above.  If a Cadet AOBD issued an order to violate the 60-1 provisions on Crew Rest, I would think that it would be the Senior Members responsibility to disregard that order and go up the chain.  But, really, if ANY AOBD were to do that, that order should be refused.

This is Civil Air Patrol,  Our "Orders" and "Command" climate especially in the Emergency Services aspect are a quirky animal.  Anybody having to flex that kind of authority with members of our organization or those agencies that we serve, is really in the wrong business.  In the ICS Structure, we are really a mechanism for relaying information and delegating for the customer or the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and being a support mechanism to help those who are working to meet out mission objectives.

[SarDragon]

Most of the 300 and 400 courses available are from outside agencies, with a minimum age requirement, most often 18. There were courses offered by one agency here in CA with a 21 limit.

[SARDOC]

Most of the 300 and 400 courses available are from outside agencies, with a minimum age requirement, most often 18. There were courses offered by one agency here in CA with a 21 limit.

That's interesting that agencies would have that kind of limitation on their programs  FEMA doesn't actually mandate that.  Most people I know that are getting the 300/400 classes are usually experienced so it's not an issue.  I host classes for CAP under the umbrella of the organization I teach for and they don't have a minimum age requirement.  That being said, my class sizes are usually limited so preference is typically applied to those who are at least GTL/MO/LSC-T/FASC-T/LO-T qualified to help them flow up the ICS staff ladder.  Anybody else can attend on a Space Available basis.  The suggested roles given preference has the same effect as being for 18 years and up being Age is a requirement for all of them.  As I get closer to the enrollment deadline, I announce the class to other partner agencies (SAR groups, State Defense Force folks that we work with) After that the class is open to the public, I've had Firefighters, EMS folks, Private Utility (Gas, Power), Municipal Employees (EM, Public Works), FBI, Amatuer Radio folks all come to my classes. 

No actual age requirement though.  I offer for units throughout my wing that if they can wrangle at least ten people and host (logistically) I will travel to them and offer 100, 200, 700, 800 as necessary and 300 and 400 with at least 90 days notice.  Got a Class full of Cadets, No problem.

[Flying Pig]

And I'm waiting for you to show me where cadets can command senior members with full authority.  The regs themselves cite that adult members may exercise command authority over cadets even when the adult is in a subordinate position.  So cadets are absolutely never in complete command. There is a provision that adult members can step in and over ride.   Does that sound yo you like any command you've ever heard of?

Any Command I've ever heard of?   Yes, In the Military we we're trained to Disobey Direct Orders if they were unlawful.  My Commander in Combat couldn't order me to execute innocent people.   There are times when we have the Legal and Moral Authority to disobey an order.  I think that goes to the caveat in some of the references made above.  If a Cadet AOBD issued an order to violate the 60-1 provisions on Crew Rest, I would think that it would be the Senior Members responsibility to disregard that order and go up the chain.  But, really, if ANY AOBD were to do that, that order should be refused.

This is Civil Air Patrol,  Our "Orders" and "Command" climate especially in the Emergency Services aspect are a quirky animal.  Anybody having to flex that kind of authority with members of our organization or those agencies that we serve, is really in the wrong business.  In the ICS Structure, we are really a mechanism for relaying information and delegating for the customer or the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and being a support mechanism to help those who are working to meet out mission objectives.

No, you didn't have the same thing in the military.  You need to re-read that post as well as the others I wrote. In the military you didnt have the authority to assume "command authority".  CAP specifically gives "adult members" the ability to assume command authority from a cadet when that Senior is in a "position" subordinate to a cadet.  That's not the same thing as refusing an illegal order to execute civilians in a military Setting. So that takes me back to my original point.  Ultimately, cadets are always monitored by seniors.  And when it hits he fan, a senior has the provision to step in and be the "adult member" essentially "pulling rank" on the cadet who's holding the senior "position".

[Tim Day]

The citations from cadet protection policy, just to clarify:

CAPR 52-10, 1-2g:

Adult Leader. CAP has a number of membership categories available to adults who serve in a supervisory and mentoring role over cadets. The term "adult leader" is used in this regulation as a shorthand for all members who supervise cadets, but the term does not include cadet members.

A senior member who has never been on a mission - or near a mission - is an adult leader while a 20.5 year old cadet with 1,500 hours of PIC time is not. That same cadet can't carry another cadet as an aircrew member (CAPR 60-1f) or fly in an aircraft with less than 10 tach hours since an oil change (CAPR 60-1g).

CAPR 52-10, 2-2c:
Adult Leader-to-Cadet Fraternization. Because adult leaders have intrinsic supervisory authority over cadets, adult leaders will not date or have an intimate romantic relationship with a cadet at any time, regardless of the circumstances.

Cadets who would like to be GTLs, MPs, or BDs with actual commander / supervisory authority should transfer to senior membership. That said, I know cadets who are better tactically than many seniors, and have no issues with them acting as GTL, as long as the required senior member is present and aware that they have ultimate command responsibility.

Full Time Cadet,

Yes, you can qualify as an AOBD according to the regulations. It's probably tough to achieve before you turn 21, and pursuing your Spaatz and other achievements uniquely available to you as a cadet will probably have a higher pay-off.

However, when an incident commander assigns you they will have to make sure there is a senior member present (on your staff, probably) and briefed to override you if in their judgment you're making the wrong call. That can be awkward, and it's more work for the IC, but if you think about it, even MPs have ultimate responsibility for the safety of their aircraft and crew even with an AOBD assigned, so this is all probably doable. A key to being assigned to this duty will be the maturity you demonstrate along the way, and several posters have alluded to concerns about this.

With regard to that maturity, I'm less concerned about your "race" with your friend than with the tone of your responses. Friendly competition is fine, and I wish more seniors would be striving for these responsibilities. However, as a GBD or leader in any endeavor you will need to work on your diplomacy skills and the way you display your respect for those who are senior to you. As you gain experience, you'll realize that respecting your juniors is important too. You don't necessarily see that modeled consistently in this forum but it's really critical in any real-world leadership scenario (a mission, for example).

I think the valuable point many of these very experienced folks are trying to tell you is that as an AOBD or GBD, you're going to be the one people are looking to for references to the appropriate rules, regulations, and risk management decisions - that could affect their safety or the life of whoever you're out there searching for. My IC, AOBD, and GBD friends are the kinds of people who first search the appropriate regulations and come to a discussion with that entry-level knowledge, versus simply asking a question that doesn't look like it has any background research done first. That level of leadership requires a mindset that you will always come to the table with something to offer. This doesn't imply you're lazy or anything, it's just a skillset and a way of doing things that you pick up with experience and deliberate self-training.

Being an AOBD means than an IC may be looking at you for a recommendation on which grid to search first with your limited assets, knowing that if you pick the wrong one some crash survivor could be suffering for hours longer - or maybe not make it. You'll routinely have input into decisions that could put aircrews at risk, or unnecessarily consume limited resources. So along the path to gaining that qualification, you'll need to show that you are capable of handling that kind of serious situation. 

Hope that helps,

[Garibaldi]

Scenario 1: 20 YO Cadet AOBD, 18 YO Adult MP. The MP is an Officer, younger than the AOBD. Technically, the MP would have more intrinsic authority over the AOBD, his "boss".

Scenario 2: 18 YO cadet AOBD, 55 YO MP. "I ain't lettin' no wet behind the ears kid tell me how to drive my airplane and where". We can see where this is headed.

Scenario 3: 25 YO AOBD, 20 YO cadet MP. Not an unrealistic situation. No problems there.

Scenario 4: 19 YO Cadet AOBD, 19 YO cadet MP. "But I'm an officer pilot and he's just a cadet". Typical attitude? Maybe. I have an 18 YO cadet who let his membership lapse. He wants to come back, has a window where he can still come back as a cadet, but my fear is that he'll wait too long, and have to come back as an Officer, and all his friends from school who outrank him will be his subordinates. I see issues there.

I personally have issues with cadets being in positions of "authority" over seniors with many more years of service and experience. I had an experience about 15 years ago at the EAA mission in Wisconsin. A cadet Lt. Col., about 17 years of age, was given the task of staffing assignments for FLD airport. He ordered me to take a post at the west end of the runway, no sir, no nothing. I reamed his butt out in front of the rest of the seniors, who would have stopped me if I crossed the line. He stood his ground, saying the IC gave him authority to order anyone and everyone, and I would take my post. Sir. I refused on the grounds that he was a cadet, I was a major, and he would show me some respect if he wanted me to do anything. He threatened to report me to the IC, to which I said "feel free to do so, but until I hear a "sir, can you please _____" I was not going to do anything. Later that evening, he duly reported my "insubordination" to the IC, and based on the subsequent one-sided "yes, sir/no sir" conversation I overheard, the cadet was given new instructions with regards to handling his position.

Was I wrong? Yes, I could have handled it better. Was the cadet wrong? Yes and no. Wrong in that he approached me in the wrong way, but in the right with regards to his position.