Cadets as flight line marshals?

[xray328]

We worked to support a local air show this weekend. The airport manager thought our cadets were going to be flight line marshals.  None of them have that qualification though, they ended up parking cars instead. While that helped operations the real need was on the flight line.

I know we do this at Oshkosh. Is this something we should try to get our cadets trained in? Should there be an age requirement?

ORM seems high.

Thanks.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Start with the beginning.

Who will supervise them? Do ya have a senior/seniors that can qualify as Flight Line Supervisors?

Look in the appropriate eServices section, My Ops Quals. I have not looked recently but I seem to remember that cadets have to be at least 16 YO.

Just checked, no age reqs. See https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.OPSQuals.Web/EmergencyServices/SQTR.aspx

Anyway that is a very good way to give cadets responsibility. At Blue Beret Oshkosh cadets do this all the time.

Just get a good older cadet, and a senior they will be their responsibility.

[Гугл переводчик]

Start with the beginning.

Who will supervise them? Do ya have a senior/seniors that can qualify as Flight Line Supervisors?

Look in the appropriate eServices section, My Ops Quals. I have not looked recently but I seem to remember that cadets have to be at least 16 YO.

Just checked, no age reqs. See https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.OPSQuals.Web/EmergencyServices/SQTR.aspx

Anyway that is a very good way to give cadets responsibility. At Blue Beret Oshkosh cadets do this all the time.

Just get a good older cadet, and a senior they will be their responsibility.

+1

[xray328]

Start with the beginning.

Who will supervise them? Do ya have a senior/seniors that can qualify as Flight Line Supervisors?

Look in the appropriate eServices section, My Ops Quals. I have not looked recently but I seem to remember that cadets have to be at least 16 YO.

Just checked, no age reqs. See https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.OPSQuals.Web/EmergencyServices/SQTR.aspx

Anyway that is a very good way to give cadets responsibility. At Blue Beret Oshkosh cadets do this all the time.

Just get a good older cadet, and a senior they will be their responsibility.

I'm honestly not sure. All things I need to look into. Just wanted to see if it was a reasonable thing to do first. I really don't know much about it, we never did it as cadets...or at least I didn't.  I really want to get the cadets more active though, parking cars isn't anyone's idea of fun.

[LSThiker]

We worked to support a local air show this weekend. The airport manager thought our cadets were going to be flight line marshals.  None of them have that qualification though, they ended up parking cars instead. While that helped operations the real need was on the flight line.

I know we do this at Oshkosh. Is this something we should try to get our cadets trained in? Should there be an age requirement?

ORM seems high.

Thanks.

FLM and FLS qualifications only pertain to ES missions.  They are not required, unless dictated by Wing, for general airshows.  My wing, and I, have used cadets and senior members that never had that qualification in the past.  In fact, I was marshaling airplanes way before I had that the FLM qualification as a cadet.  We still use cadets for airshows, flight line marshaling, and crowd line control.  ORM can be high depending on the maturity of the cadets and the level of participation.  Ensure the cadets are trained, mature, are responsible, and have adequate supervision. 

[Thonawit]

Our rules are fairly straight forward

1. There must be a Senior Member qualified at the minimum of Flight Line Marshaler, Supervisor is better.
2. Cadets must have 101 card
3. Cadets must must have significant progression towards their Flight Line Marshaler qualification. i.e. lacking FEMA or lacking mission participation as FLM.
4. Maturity (not age) of the Cadet - very subjective, it is a matter of trust and safety
5. Pass Aircraft ground handling course
6. Pass Basic ORM

We also conduct a "Flightline Safety & Marshaling class/refresher class" prior to the event. We conduct it at the airport and use a yard tractor in place of an airplane for Marshaling.

If you have a member that is unsure about marshaling team them with somebody willing to help teach them.

We also have Cadets help with Parking Cars.

[JeffDG]

CAPR 900-5 Paragraph 7 covers this.

In order for CAP members, Senior or Cadet, to direct traffic, they need to have FLM/FLS.

[LSThiker]

CAPR 900-5 Paragraph 7 covers this.

In order for CAP members, Senior or Cadet, to direct traffic, they need to have FLM/FLS.

Glad I have not done that in a while then.  Thanks for the update.

Questions though:

a. Prohibited Activities. No unit or member of CAP is authorized to sponsor or
cosponsor any air show. CAP members may not:
{snip}
(3) Taxi non-CAP aircraft before, during or after an air show.

Can I get some clarification on this statement as it sounds like CAP should not be even working any marshaling at airshows?  Does this include Fly Ins?  This seems to contradict #4.

b. Permitted Activities. CAP units and members may assist with an air show sponsored and conducted wholly by agencies and organizations other than CAP. Prior permission to assist or participate in any air show must be obtained from the General Counsel at National Headquarters. No such advance permission is required if the CAP assistance or participation in an air show is limited to the following:
(1) CAP members may be used as guides or to provide directions or information.
(2) CAP units may setup a recruiting booth and/or a concession stand selling food
and drinks on the premises of an air show, providing that CAP is not in any way acting as a sponsor.
(3) CAP members may be used around parked or static display aircraft for guidance, information or direction.

It sounds like unless CAP is doing any of the 3 above mentioned non-flight line activities, any help with airshows should be approved by the General Counsel.  Have any units actually done this?

[JeffDG]

CAPR 900-5 Paragraph 7 covers this.

In order for CAP members, Senior or Cadet, to direct traffic, they need to have FLM/FLS.

Glad I have not done that in a while then.  Thanks for the update.

Questions though:

a. Prohibited Activities. No unit or member of CAP is authorized to sponsor or
cosponsor any air show. CAP members may not:
{snip}
(3) Taxi non-CAP aircraft before, during or after an air show.

Can I get some clarification on this statement as it sounds like CAP should not be even working any marshaling at airshows?  Does this include Fly Ins?  This seems to contradict #4.

b. Permitted Activities. CAP units and members may assist with an air show sponsored and conducted wholly by agencies and organizations other than CAP. Prior permission to assist or participate in any air show must be obtained from the General Counsel at National Headquarters. No such advance permission is required if the CAP assistance or participation in an air show is limited to the following:
(1) CAP members may be used as guides or to provide directions or information.
(2) CAP units may setup a recruiting booth and/or a concession stand selling food
and drinks on the premises of an air show, providing that CAP is not in any way acting as a sponsor.
(3) CAP members may be used around parked or static display aircraft for guidance, information or direction.

It sounds like unless CAP is doing any of the 3 above mentioned non-flight line activities, any help with airshows should be approved by the General Counsel.  Have any units actually done this?

Taxiing is not marshaling.

The prohibition on Taxiing non-CAP A/C is basically, we can't hop in a plane and take it to the parking area.

[LSThiker]

Taxiing is not marshaling.

The prohibition on Taxiing non-CAP A/C is basically, we can't hop in a plane and take it to the parking area.

Duh, brain is not engaging today apparently.

So in terms of the second part, for helping with marshaling, which is not included in the "no such advance permission" exceptions, have units actually obtained permission from the GC?

[Eaker Guy]

Start with the beginning.

Who will supervise them? Do ya have a senior/seniors that can qualify as Flight Line Supervisors?

Look in the appropriate eServices section, My Ops Quals. I have not looked recently but I seem to remember that cadets have to be at least 16 YO.

Just checked, no age reqs. See https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.OPSQuals.Web/EmergencyServices/SQTR.aspx

Anyway that is a very good way to give cadets responsibility. At Blue Beret Oshkosh cadets do this all the time.

Just get a good older cadet, and a senior they will be their responsibility.

I'm honestly not sure. All things I need to look into. Just wanted to see if it was a reasonable thing to do first. I really don't know much about it, we never did it as cadets...or at least I didn't.  I really want to get the cadets more active though, parking cars isn't anyone's idea of fun.

It's mine! I got a few car parking events coming up. We find ways to make it bearable.

[TheSkyHornet]

We have a prohibition on marshaling non-CAP aircraft. We don't call it "marshaling" in that case. We go with "ground assisting" or "line helping," something unofficial. We being Wing. Our squadron doesn't do any FLM. Another nearby squadron does, but I don't think any of their cadets are qualified. They were going to teach FLM at a SAREX but as far as I know, nobody got qualified because they didn't have all their ICS pre-reqs done.

I've marshaled some aircraft while performing CAP duties at our base, but as an "imminent safety situation," basically saying if we didn't marshal the aircraft we could have had a serious safety concern at that moment.

I've discussed this with our squadron CC and we agree that none of our cadets should be anywhere near a moving aircraft unless they are FLM qualified. This isn't just a safety concern, but a liability concern.

Ironically, I'd say while most pilots could probably figure out what the signals mean, most have never received any formal training on hand marshaling signals.

[EMT-83]

We have a prohibition on marshaling non-CAP aircraft. We don't call it "marshaling" in that case. We go with "ground assisting" or "line helping," something unofficial.

And that makes it okay?

[TheSkyHornet]

We have a prohibition on marshaling non-CAP aircraft. We don't call it "marshaling" in that case. We go with "ground assisting" or "line helping," something unofficial.

And that makes it okay?

It's a mixed bag. It's not always performed as a CAP activity. Marshaling can be done as a private matter.

Now my squadron doesn't have anyone who is FLM qualified, and our squadron doesn't marshal aircraft at all. I've done it as a side task for safety purposes only. Another squadron in our area does practice FLM and they have a workaround to provide marshaling at the local airport in an unofficial capacity.

Just to clarify, when I say "we," I mean within the wing/locale, not specifically myself grouped in with other individuals.

Even though CAP has certain rules regarding procedures for CAP activities, that does not mean CAP members cannot act outside of CAP, in a group, to perform during other activities. A gaggle of individuals who happen to consist of senior members and cadets engaging in an activity at their home base doesn't necessarily mean they're operating under CAP on a sanctioned event. People do have the ability to interact outside of CAP and perform tasks that may be required to be performed differently if it was a CAP activity.

[EMT-83]

We have a prohibition on marshaling non-CAP aircraft. We don't call it "marshaling" in that case. We go with "ground assisting" or "line helping," something unofficial.

And that makes it okay?

It's a mixed bag. It's not always performed as a CAP activity. Marshaling can be done as a private matter.

Now my squadron doesn't have anyone who is FLM qualified, and our squadron doesn't marshal aircraft at all. I've done it as a side task for safety purposes only. Another squadron in our area does practice FLM and they have a workaround to provide marshaling at the local airport in an unofficial capacity.

Just to clarify, when I say "we," I mean within the wing/locale, not specifically myself grouped in with other individuals.

Even though CAP has certain rules regarding procedures for CAP activities, that does not mean CAP members cannot act outside of CAP, in a group, to perform during other activities. A gaggle of individuals who happen to consist of senior members and cadets engaging in an activity at their home base doesn't necessarily mean they're operating under CAP on a sanctioned event. People do have the ability to interact outside of CAP and perform tasks that may be required to be performed differently if it was a CAP activity.

Let's recap:

1. You justify an activity proscribed by regulation by calling it by a different name.

2. A group of CAP members gather at their "home base" and pretend that they're not CAP members, to perform tasks that CAP members are not allowed to perform.

Anything I'm missing?

[Spam]

Skyhornet, any time I see the word "workaround" used, it makes my eyebrow do a Mr. Spock.

However, you said that we have a "prohibition on marshaling non-CAP aircraft"; I don't see that. I only see a prohibition on ANY marshalling being done members who are not qualified, per CAPR 900-5, Section 7.a.4: CAP members may not "Direct parking of aircraft unless having received training on aircraft marshalling and having a flight line authorization on CAPF 101 or CAPF 101T".

What is missing here, and which EMT and I are both triggering on, is that you've implied that although this unit "does practice FLM", you haven't stated that they're using qualified personnel only, and then you used that word ("workaround") which implies that members are knowingly circumventing CAP regulations put in place to control our liability and keep our insurance low enough to afford things like cadet O flights and encampments, aircraft and vehicle fleet insurance, and so forth.

If you know for sure that your Wing has units that are flaunting the risk control measures in R900-5, you have an obligation to report this up your chain, and/or over their head if no action is being taken. If you don't know it for sure, then I might back off from using some of the phrasing you've used here. In any case, no one wants to be seen as shading meanings and changing terms to avoid clearly defined truths.


(Unless you're Obi Wan, telling Luke his father is dead, "in a certain sense" - obligatory nerd reference - dang, ST and SW in one post, don't cross the streams...).


V/R,
Spam

[TheSkyHornet]

Let's clarify here...

I am not a member of the squadron in question on this matter. I have only sat in on informal conversation of the topic evolving around a base hangar at a public airport during non-CAP activities. I am familiar with multiple squadrons operating this way. Our squadron does not, even though we are at an airport. I brought it to light on these forums with no authority on the subject, nor am I necessarily approving of this practice.

However, there is no legal requirement to marshaling private aircraft. CAP members do engage in activities outside of the CAP environment. At what point does it constitute no longer being a CAP activity? If I am at an airport wearing civilian clothing and someone I know asks me to help him park an aircraft which he is taxiing over, I am fully within my ability to do so. CAP does not govern my private life.

But as you said, Spam, this could be something that should be reported, which I do agree with if there is a safety concern and intentional violation of CAP regulations during CAP-related activities. It is something I can bring up the next time I sit down with these individuals and ask for a clarification of their practices. Everything I described previously was my understanding of their actions. In hindsight, I shouldn't have even brought it up or discussed it without having clearer knowledge on their practices as to not suggest wrongful doing. But I do not agree with the expectation that members of a squadron cannot perform flight line duties on their own time. You may be a CAP member 100% of the time, but you are not acting in a CAP capacity 100% of your time.

[Spam]

Peace, we're cool. I get where you're coming from. This may be a tempest in a tea kettle - these guys may be completely above board and doing it by the numbers, so this is hypothetical, right.

From a CAP perspective, its a safety/risk management and liability prevention issue, rather than a legal requirement to marshal private aircraft. CAP, to retain its insurance coverage, has put into place the risk control measure of requiring training and certification for members to marshal - AS members - not as private citizens.

If a court would find that CAP might be liable for damage to a private aircraft caused by a bad move directed by a CAP member "off duty", out of uniform, but as an organized group of members... I can't comment, not being a lawyer or judge either. I know we've heard some odd case law in the past on this, though. To me, this falls in the box with the cadet unit I had whose CO took them rappelling (without executing the correct ORM tools/permissions for a HAA) and simply told them to take their BDU shirts off, whereupon (he stated) they wouldn't "be" CAP members any more if someone got hurt. I find the argument weak, and I'd suspect that had CAP not taken action to remove that Commander and bring them into compliance with the regs, a court would have found us liable in an accident. I realize that I'm making a straw man fallacy here to a point, yet I cant help drawing the comparison.

We aren't acting as CAP members 100% of the time, as you rightly point out. Yet, perception might be the key.


V/R,
Spam

[TheSkyHornet]

Peace, we're cool. I get where you're coming from. This may be a tempest in a tea kettle - these guys may be completely above board and doing it by the numbers, so this is hypothetical, right.

From a CAP perspective, its a safety/risk management and liability prevention issue, rather than a legal requirement to marshal private aircraft. CAP, to retain its insurance coverage, has put into place the risk control measure of requiring training and certification for members to marshal - AS members - not as private citizens.

If a court would find that CAP might be liable for damage to a private aircraft caused by a bad move directed by a CAP member "off duty", out of uniform, but as an organized group of members... I can't comment, not being a lawyer or judge either. I know we've heard some odd case law in the past on this, though. To me, this falls in the box with the cadet unit I had whose CO took them rappelling (without executing the correct ORM tools/permissions for a HAA) and simply told them to take their BDU shirts off, whereupon (he stated) they wouldn't "be" CAP members any more if someone got hurt. I find the argument weak, and I'd suspect that had CAP not taken action to remove that Commander and bring them into compliance with the regs, a court would have found us liable in an accident. I realize that I'm making a straw man fallacy here to a point, yet I cant help drawing the comparison.

We aren't acting as CAP members 100% of the time, as you rightly point out. Yet, perception might be the key.


V/R,
Spam

Perception is reality.  :clap:

In a case where cadets were organized through the squadron to participate in an activity, and then told to remove their uniforms so as not to give off the impression of CAP, I would say that in a situation where there is a safety risk such as rappelling, you could have a real liability problem if one of those kids (or adults even) got injured on a non-sanctioned activity.

Our squadron has had events where we have acted in civilian clothing in situations where there could be a hazard while operating under CAP, but we stay within protocols while we do so.

Like I said, it's something I've been informed of, but not witnessed in-person. I have heard the discussions as to "we need to use this phraseology" so they can get around NHQ mandates. I really shouldn't have even brought it up without knowing more specifics, but it doesn't sound like, at this point, something that I would condone. I think I'll discuss this with some folks in the future to get more insight on the subject before I say anything further that could be taken the wrong way from what reality actually is or if there's a legitimate violation of CAP policies. My intention was not to say it's okay to do so, or that this is a common practice in our locale, but to bring to the attention that there is talk of this flowing in the community. So maybe something is afoot that needs to be looked into more.

[Live2Learn]

We worked to support a local air show this weekend. The airport manager thought our cadets were going to be flight line marshals.  None of them have that qualification though, they ended up parking cars instead. While that helped operations the real need was on the flight line.

I know we do this at Oshkosh. Is this something we should try to get our cadets trained in? Should there be an age requirement?

ORM seems high.

Thanks.

Last time I flew into KOSH for Airventure CAP cadets were prominent in flight line marshaling civilian aircraft.  Unfortunately, I was not impressed. One cadet attempted to direct my nose gear equipped aircraft over a sunken drain grate (fortunately I saw it and avoided it); another aircraft that arrived in transient parking immediately after me had a lot of bright green grass stains on its prop from the tall veg they were directed to taxi through.  Maybe the cadets have the turn left/turn right/stop signals down... they DON'T have sufficient cockpit savvy to guide aircraft AWAY from troublesome spots.  Maybe it's lack of competent CAP supervision.  Dunno. 

[EMT-83]

Our squadron has had events where we have acted in civilian clothing in situations where there could be a hazard while operating under CAP, but we stay within protocols while we do so.

^^^ I don't even know where to start. Where is Eclipse when you need him?

[PHall]

Our squadron has had events where we have acted in civilian clothing in situations where there could be a hazard while operating under CAP, but we stay within protocols while we do so.

^^^ I don't even know where to start. Where is Eclipse when you need him?

SkyHornet, don't be surprised if your unit gets a visit. Posting about stuff like this is NOT a good idea!

[THRAWN]

SkyHornet you are correct when you state that perception is reality. My perception as an aviation safety professional is that the reality is you are going to be present when a plane gets wrinkled or skin gets torn. Do yourself and your unit a favor: quit while you are behind.

[Spam]

Our squadron has had events where we have acted in civilian clothing in situations where there could be a hazard while operating under CAP, but we stay within protocols while we do so.

...

Like I said, it's something I've been informed of, but not witnessed in-person. I have heard the discussions as to "we need to use this phraseology" so they can get around NHQ mandates.

Wow. Your unit too... just, wow.

OK, I guess we aren't cool after all, or you missed my point entirely.  When you say you haven't witnessed this type of behavior, yet then state that your own unit knowingly flouts CAP safety policies, well... I don't know what to tell you. The "but we stay within protocols" line is completely disingenuous.

My earlier example? The "take your BDU shirts off" unit? I relieved their Commander, then being his Group/CC and if you can't see that your statements portray the exact same attitude, then we have a problem. These attitudes and excuses are fundamentally incompatible with the safety policies of CAP and the Air Force.

V/R,
Spam

[TheSkyHornet]

Our squadron has had events where we have acted in civilian clothing in situations where there could be a hazard while operating under CAP, but we stay within protocols while we do so.

...

Like I said, it's something I've been informed of, but not witnessed in-person. I have heard the discussions as to "we need to use this phraseology" so they can get around NHQ mandates.

Wow. Your unit too... just, wow.

OK, I guess we aren't cool after all, or you missed my point entirely.  When you say you haven't witnessed this type of behavior, yet then state that your own unit knowingly flouts CAP safety policies, well... I don't know what to tell you. The "but we stay within protocols" line is completely disingenuous.

My earlier example? The "take your BDU shirts off" unit? I relieved their Commander, then being his Group/CC and if you can't see that your statements portray the exact same attitude, then we have a problem. These attitudes and excuses are fundamentally incompatible with the safety policies of CAP and the Air Force.

V/R,
Spam

Misunderstanding.

We have performed parking lot detail outside of uniform for fundraising purposes, wearing civilian clothing. We ALWAYS wear glow/orange safety vests and use traffic wands, as well as carry radios. Before any event, there is a meeting between everyone, senior members and cadets, to go over the area of operation, timelines, communications, assignments, and safety procedures. It's taken extremely seriously. The reason we have been in civilian uniform is that when we have done certain activities, event hosts have requested in the past that we refrain from wearing camouflage uniforms as a distraction from the ongoing event. Basically, they will pay our squadron to have 10 people help park cars all day, but they don't want us in uniform. The squadron isn't going to forgo a chance to raise $1500 for the unit just because they can't wear BDUs.

The FLM stuff I was talking about was from two other units in our area, one of which I frequent for my own aircraft training, and another that we've obtained roughly half of our cadets from after they transferred. There have been instances of discussions at these units of going around CAP regs during their supposed off-hours activities (for example, mom and dad and the two sons are all CAP members, and they meet up with a couple of other seniors and their kids at the airport on a Saturday morning and do 'their own thing' that isn't actually under the mission of the squadron, but they're all members of that squadron...that sort of stuff). I haven't witnessed it first-hand, but I've been at the table during discussions about it. In a 50-mile radius, there are 6 CAP squadrons.

I didn't intend to incriminate anyone here, but it appears that there's a public issue with what I brought up. From the sounds of it, it seems like I should talk with the squadron safety officer when I pay a visit this week and address this.

As I said, this has nothing to do with my own unit. It's entirely outside of our squadron that this came about.

[Panzerbjorn]

You may also want to talk to a legal officer of the level of your choice and ask about the liabilities you have when you have a CAP activity when not in uniform.  I.e. Are you covered by corporate insurance in the case something happens to one of your cadets.

I'm not quite sure how a cadet in uniform would distract from the even or confuse people into thinking that they're being directed by military personnel.  But they're your eyes on scene, not mine.  There are other options if you really have to be in civies for this kind of thing.  Get yourself some squadron t-shirts.  That way, you're at least not passing up the opportunity to recruit and you have more control over cadets showing up in inappropriate t-shirts.

[TheSkyHornet]

You may also want to talk to a legal officer of the level of your choice and ask about the liabilities you have when you have a CAP activity when not in uniform.  I.e. Are you covered by corporate insurance in the case something happens to one of your cadets.

I'm not quite sure how a cadet in uniform would distract from the even or confuse people into thinking that they're being directed by military personnel.  But they're your eyes on scene, not mine.  There are other options if you really have to be in civies for this kind of thing.  Get yourself some squadron t-shirts.  That way, you're at least not passing up the opportunity to recruit and you have more control over cadets showing up in inappropriate t-shirts.

In cases of wearing civies, the cadets generally wear their encampment shirts. We typically specify "no-logo" shirts. In some cases, the event hosts specifically mandate no recruiting. Usually when we wear BDUs, our PAO will carry some pamphlets to pass out if anyone asks about our organization. Most of the time, the events hosts are okay with this, but there are occasions when our parking detail or help setting up an activity come with instructions of "Please, no recruiting at our event." My squadron has had a history of working a lot of parking details as fundraising, which has its goods and bads, but usually pays pretty well. We had an event just a couple of weeks ago that we made out with $1400 for the squadron for two days of running the parking lot, wearing our BDUs and safety vests. Each fall they work weekends running a haunted house parking lot which is one of the groups that says "we will pay you, but you cannot wear any logos from your group." We can grab $1000+ from them, but the only way we can get that money is to do the work per their instruction. It may not be the best recruiting tool, but that's a lot of money to bring in for the squadron to put to cadet programs. These are all sanctioned activities that are approved by Wing. We do not work any event without going through Wing. Our CC is very strong on that.

We did have a situation at a recent event where we were in charge of parking and one of our 16-year-old cadets was verbally confronted by another event worker who was asked to move a vehicle because he was blocking a driveway. The individual, roughly 50-years-old, had yelled some profane remarks at the cadet before stepping out of his vehicle and taking several steps toward the cadet with his fists clenched inciting a fight by saying "You wanna go? Come at me." The issue was over in a matter of less than a minute, but this was reported to the event host, squadron commander, safety officer, and on to wing. It was also discussed at the last squadron meeting between all of the senior members and cadets as an incident debrief. It seems to have been handled properly from being immediately reported and sent up the chain of command.

I bring this up because it reminded me of something I had observed a few weeks ago at PT session with a local squadron. A cadet had been running a track during PT and started hobbling pretty bad. I informed the CDC at the time I saw the injury, who informed the C/CC, who talked to the cadet about his injury (I assume as I observed, from a distance of maybe 100 feet away from my position). While walking back to the meeting area, the cadet was definitely having trouble walking but appeared to be trying to stick it out. I heard the C/CC yell to him to fall out of formation and walk beside him at a slower pace. He seemed to be better, to my knowledge, over the next few minutes, but during push-ups, I saw he was still doing PT (which I wasn't sure why). I went over to the C/CC and asked if the guy was alright. C/CC said "He just hurt his ankle." I responded with "Should he still be doing PT? He was walking pretty bad back there." He replied "He wants to keep going. It's not my job to tell him he can't." I strolled over to the CDC and said I saw they had an injured cadet who was still doing PT, but I felt he should refrain from further activity for the evening. He said he would keep an eye on the kid. I then saw the cadet doing sit-ups, with another cadet sitting with his knees on his feet to hold them in place, which I thought would be an extremely painful state for someone with an ankle injury. He stood up, and could barely walk. I then saw the C/CC grab a folding chair and put it down, then told the cadet he wasn't to do any more PT that evening. About five to ten minutes later, he had grabbed a bag of ice, handed it to the cadet, and told him to take off his shoes and put ice on his ankle. The C/CC asked me for the time, which I replied. Later that evening, I saw the cadet still hobbling around when they moved on to other activities, mostly classroom stuff, but he had his boots back on. I finally asked the cadet myself what was up with his foot, and he said he thinks he twisted it while running but that he would be alright if he just sat down. Before I left, I talked with the squadron CC and told him what I saw, and that the C/CC had remarked it wasn't his responsibility to pull a cadet out of PT for an injury if they felt like they should continue. The next week, when I saw the group, I asked the cadet how he was doing, which he seemed to be much better. The CDC, off-the-record, had grumbled about the irresponsibility of the C/CC who failed to show up at that week's meeting. I said I didn't really care for the answer I received from the C/CC about an injured cadet. He seemed to agree, but I don't think it really phased anyone. In my opinion, this is a case where you see safety protocols being busted through pure negligence. I informed the people I felt should know. My guess is nothing came of it, either in the form of a report or verbal reprimand, but I can't answer to that since I really don't know.

My point is, there are squadrons our there with people in positions of authority who really don't care, and they won't be told what to do even if it's wrong. I'm grateful to be in a squadron that doesn't go that route, but I do know of squadrons who slack. I guess I should start being more aware of it and bring it up more when I hear it and especially observe it. Failure on my part for not addressing it immediately.