Cadet's Right to Participate in ES vs. Cadet Maturity

[Spaceman3750]

CAPR60-3 states:

Use of qualified CAP cadets is encouraged as much as possible on appropriate missions.

Can an ESO subjectively determine "qualification" to include the cadet's maturity level? For example, if you put together a ground team, Cadet Goofoff might be fully capable of completing the tasks, but when it actually comes down to it, is too immature to participate because he doesn't follow directions, doesn't pay attention, or whatever (this could come out before or after qualification is complete).

Can I say "Cadet Goofoff, you are not mature enough to be on ground team and I will not allow you to participate. Here's why: X, Y, and Z." More importantly, can Cadet Goofoff throw that line from 60-3 in my face and say "use me anyways, I'm a cadet and you just don't like me", even if he has issues?

[RogueLeader]

I don't think an ESO can stop them, but a commander can. If Cadet Goofoff is that immature, I doubt they could full capable of completing the tasks.

A notice to the cc would be in order.

[FW]

I don't know.  Should we allow cadets who throw temper tantrums to go on "appropriate missions"?  That's a very good question...

[Ned]

I don't know.  Should we allow cadets who throw temper tantrums to go on "appropriate missions"?  That's a very good question...

We should treat qualified cadets exactly the same as we treat seniors who throw "temper tantrums." 

(N > 0)

[Eclipse]

An ESO, unless specifically charged to do so, doesn't have a commander's authority in this regard, however, he does have a lot of pull to
recommend qualifications be suspended, remedial training be performed, etc.

During a mission or training, the GTL or GBD always has full "no go" authority on individuals who do not comport themselves properly.

No one, cadet or otherwise, has a "right" to participate.  Everyone has a standard they must meet, and personal and team safety is going to be at the
top of everything.  Next is efficacy, and if either safety or mission effectiveness is compromised because of lack of maturity, or anything else, that's not acceptable.

This should fall into the same bucket that Lordmonar has been harping on - leadership.  If a cadet is too immature to function on a team properly, then
his quals should be revoked until this issue is fixed.

[NCRblues]

I don't know.  Should we allow cadets who throw temper tantrums to go on "appropriate missions"?  That's a very good question...

We should treat qualified cadets exactly the same as we treat seniors who throw "temper tantrums." 

(N > 0)

Give them a nice staff/command job and promote them?? 

[Flying Pig]

I don't know.  Should we allow cadets who throw temper tantrums to go on "appropriate missions"?  That's a very good question...

We should treat qualified cadets exactly the same as we treat seniors who throw "temper tantrums." 

(N > 0)

I was going to say....As a commander, I had Seniors I didnt call for things for reasons of maturity, or politically incorrect way of putting it, I knew they would embarrass the crap out of me, the unit and themselves.  Youthful immaturity is a solid reason to not allow a cadet to participate.  When the real call comes, thats not the time to let some clown go ruin things.

[a2capt]

We should treat qualified cadets exactly the same as we treat seniors who throw "temper tantrums."

Except cadets do have a magic ace in the hole .. and the ones that are vindictive and don't get their way .. can throw the H word at the senior member(s) they don't like by way of the IG .. and start all kinds of crap. Even when it's disproven, it's still a hassle.

[Eclipse]

I can't begin to imagine how being told to go home, for whatever reason, would fall into a remote definition of hazing, or abuse, for that matter.

The only point I could see is how and where you deny someone fully qualified, which is why you should yank their quals if they can't fly right.

[bassque]

If I'm not mistaken, the IC has all control over the resources of the mission.  Cadet or Senior.  Of course, then begs the question if they are aware of the members emotional maturity (again both seniors and cadets).  From my experience, even though those members are signed off, ES is a fairly tight nit community and generally folks know who they want to go to various tasks because they develop that working professional relationship with them over the course of training and real missions. 

[bassque]

We should treat qualified cadets exactly the same as we treat seniors who throw "temper tantrums."

Except cadets do have a magic ace in the hole .. and the ones that are vindictive and don't get their way .. can throw the H word at the senior member(s) they don't like by way of the IG .. and start all kinds of crap. Even when it's disproven, it's still a hassle.

While this may be true, I don't think this would stand up very long.  The IG would then throw the S word (Safety) and the burden of proof would switch. 

[Major Lord]

I would do what is prescribed: used the cadet as much as possible. If I as a GTL decide that a cadet cannot go out with my team because of lions and tigers and bears, or rain and sleet and even snow, I consider that my call to make. The HQ people can usually use someone to run photocopies or empty the trash cans. I would not restrict the issue solely to maturity, but to any condition in which the Cadet and/or the mission may be compromised. I have only had to play that card once, and Cadet Goofy's mom was delighted that I was not going to use her son for cannon fodder. That being said, I think Cadets should be able to do as much of the ES world as they can handle, and maybe just a little bit more; thats how we grown them....by stretching them. Fornicate the IG!...I am not going to kill a member just because I am afraid of what the boy's upstairs might say.

Major Lord

[RogueLeader]

Truth be told, I had two cadets that I was dubious about, but I took them on a sarex. They did better than two other cadets from another unit that did not have any qualms about.

I would give them a chance in training, and go from there.

[EMT-83]

Except cadets do have a magic ace in the hole .. and the ones that are vindictive and don't get their way .. can throw the H word at the senior member(s) they don't like by way of the IG .. and start all kinds of crap. Even when it's disproven, it's still a hassle.

If you are truly afraid of this, you have no business being anywhere near a cadet.

[bassque]

Except cadets do have a magic ace in the hole .. and the ones that are vindictive and don't get their way .. can throw the H word at the senior member(s) they don't like by way of the IG .. and start all kinds of crap. Even when it's disproven, it's still a hassle.

If you are truly afraid of this, you have no business being anywhere near a cadet.

+1

[ol'fido]

I guess I was lucky in that in 20 some odd years of being a GTL I never had a cadet that I felt was too immature to go on a mission AFTER they were trained and qualified. When you have a cadet that you worry about their maturity, train them thoroughly and completely before you let them test for GTM period. Don't just let them get the minimum training to pass the tasks. Have them know everything about survival, land nav, GSAR, first aid, DF, etc. before you take them on a mission. Take them on a couple of weekend bivouacs and other field training. Let them know how you expect them to act on a mission. This process will take some time(6-12 mos). If they stick around for it, they probably will develop the maturity they will need and you will expect of them. If they don't mature, they will probably not have the patience to stick around anyway.

Don't fall into the trap of "we need GTMs now" and do a few training sessions and a quick weekend with a SET and "ta da, you're all GTMS!" Even in the military, people are not considered effective or "seasoned" until they are out of training at least a year and in some cases longer. GTM can become qualified relatively quickly but they don't become COMPETENT for a long time.

Another thing you can do is to not train "individuals". Train Ground TEAMS. Get yourself a core group of seasoned GTMs and use them as your best training tool.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Fornicate the IG!...I am not going to kill a member just because I am afraid of what the boy's upstairs might say.

No thank you. But then I don't think we're in the same wing.

BTW the GBD and IC are much older than the IG appointment.

[a2capt]

If you are truly afraid of this, you have no business being anywhere near a cadet.

Oh, I'm not afraid of it, I'm just saying it like it is. ..and my comment wasn't strictly related to ES, actually. I've seen it happen. Cadet Special Snuffy feels slighted and complains they're being discriminated against. With a sense of entitlement on the "right to participate" side of things, and doesn't understand why, due to the lack of maturity. 

[CAPSGT]

I've had cases where as a GTL I restricted individual cadets because of the specific type of mission.  Not to say they are incapable or might be problematic, but for the sake of their own mental well being. 

If in my initial alert I am told that we are being sent to do CSS of a very greusome crash site where there is a 100% chance we will be in reasonable proximity to body parts, I am not going to take a 13 year old cadet GTM with me.  There is no telling how somebody will react if they come across a corpse or a body part.  I've seen younger cadets who handle it fine while an older cadet who was an EMT completely lost it.  I just would rather take the chance on somebody who is older and has more comprehension of what they may be walking into. 

[lordmonar]

Hell just froze over....because for one me and Eclipse are 100% in agreement.

First off.....I would like to take a second to comment about the title of this thread.

No one has a "right" to particpate in anything in CAP.

The IC, OSC, GBD, GTL all have a duty to insure that all personnel joining a mission/team are trained, equiped, capable and ready to perform the assigned mission.

So.....I don't have any problem with a leader saying NO to anyone based on "maturity".   Also....just because it is easy to do....if the circumstances warrent it....I see no problem with an IC putting an age limit on who can participate in a mission or SAREX.

Often our customers will ask that no minors participate.
Often we may not have the facilites or manpower needed to supervise minors/cadets IAW the regulations and common sense.

As per CAP policy.....we should be making every effort to get cadets of all ages involved in ES.  It is good for CAP, it is good for the cadets and it is good for the mission.  But as per policy....we have to deal with realities and the regulations and ensure that the cadets are properly supervised, they have proper facilites for them and that they (or anyone) is not hindering the mission.

[commando1]

If I was genuinely concerned that Cadet Goofoff would not handle well under intense ES pressure then I would worry more about the integrity of the team as a whole than that cadets feelings. I would rather get kicked out of CAP for hazing than allow a immature 13 yr old cadet who felt entitled to see something he ought not...

[Private Investigator]

I've had cases where as a GTL I restricted individual cadets because of the specific type of mission.  Not to say they are incapable or might be problematic, but for the sake of their own mental well being. 

If in my initial alert I am told that we are being sent to do CSS of a very greusome crash site where there is a 100% chance we will be in reasonable proximity to body parts, I am not going to take a 13 year old cadet GTM with me.  There is no telling how somebody will react if they come across a corpse or a body part.  I've seen younger cadets who handle it fine while an older cadet who was an EMT completely lost it.  I just would rather take the chance on somebody who is older and has more comprehension of what they may be walking into.

That is a good example. If we had a call out for a gruesome crash I would ask for volunteers and they would be Senior Members only. No reason to bring a Cadet.

[Private Investigator]

The IC, OSC, GBD, GTL all have a duty to insure that all personnel joining a mission/team are trained, equiped, capable and ready to perform the assigned mission.

Do not forget the MSO. They might have a better insight.

[Woodsy]

If cadet goofoff is running all over the place during a SAREX or ELT, declare a safety stand down because he's being unsafe running around the flight line, roads, etc. and send him home.  simple as that.

As far as a REDCAP looking for a downed or overdue aircraft, well, we won't have a cadet on that team, period. 

[Ned]

That is a good example. If we had a call out for a gruesome crash I would ask for volunteers and they would be Senior Members only. No reason to bring a Cadet.

Because an 18 year-old senior is inherently more mature than a 20 year-old cadet?

Right.

"Never make abdsolute rules." 

[lordmonar]

The IC, OSC, GBD, GTL all have a duty to insure that all personnel joining a mission/team are trained, equiped, capable and ready to perform the assigned mission.

Do not forget the MSO. They might have a better insight.

Not in my experince. 

[lordmonar]

If cadet goofoff is running all over the place during a SAREX or ELT, declare a safety stand down because he's being unsafe running around the flight line, roads, etc. and send him home.  simple as that.

As far as a REDCAP looking for a downed or overdue aircraft, well, we won't have a cadet on that team, period.

Why not?

Lots of mature 16-20 year old cadets who can handel a real SAR.

The whole point of this thread is that we should judge the individual based on the situaiton and their abilities/maturity/training/gear and not on their status as cadets or not cadets.

[Woodsy]

If cadet goofoff is running all over the place during a SAREX or ELT, declare a safety stand down because he's being unsafe running around the flight line, roads, etc. and send him home.  simple as that.

As far as a REDCAP looking for a downed or overdue aircraft, well, we won't have a cadet on that team, period.

Why not?

Lots of mature 16-20 year old cadets who can handel a real SAR.

The whole point of this thread is that we should judge the individual based on the situaiton and their abilities/maturity/training/gear and not on their status as cadets or not cadets.

I didn't think about 18+ cadets.  My squadron doesn't have any, so that didn't cross my mind.

To rephrase that, we would not be sending anyone under the age of 18 on that mission.   Call it a legal issue, dealing with parents, protecting the kid, or whatever else you want, but I firmly believe having a minor roll up on a scene with bloody, mutilated bodies is a bad idea.  It's hard enough for adults. 

[Spaceman3750]

No one has a "right" to particpate in anything in CAP.

I concur. However, as you likely are aware, the general mantra of American society is that we have "rights" to many, many things that we don't actually have a "right" to. Therefore, while I don't perceive it as a right, I know that others do and therefore it is sometimes worth it to work within that context, especially when talking about what may or may not come down on your head.

Thanks for the responses guys. And ol'fido, that's what I'm working on.

[lordmonar]

I think that if you put them in the proper context right up front it saves a lot of heart burn down the road.

Personally.....I agree that some young people should not be on some missions.

Having said that.....it is no likley that they are going to see a major bloody scene at an aircraft accident.
And if when you come up on scene...it is a simple thing to assign the younger members perimiter search or setting up the Lz or a ton of other necessary tasks that does not include them actually having to view or handle bodies.

I think that we coddle our young people too much.

There should be conversation between the squadron commander and the parents of any minors who volunteer to work ES.  They need to know up front this is no joke.

Once that has happened and the parents understand all the ramifications of what might happen on a SAR.....then we should not be second guessing them and trying to "protect" them from the realities of SAR.

Remember that we also have a CISM program to handle the aftermath of any trama CAP members may suffer on a SAR.

So unless the agency restricts it to only people over 18....then the ES leaders should use their best judgement on an individual basis and NOT throw out blanket policies.

YMMV.

[RiverAux]

Gee, if you don't send cadets on actual missing aircraft missions, why bother training them in SAR at all?  Any SAR has the potential to have a very unhappy ending and it can't be predicted in advance.  If your unit is really that worried about it, just get them GES and restrict your unit activities to handing out water after torandos or something like that and don't waste their or your time training them for something that you're not actually going to use them for. 

[Woodsy]

Training them isn't really an issue...  We're luck if 3 cadets show up for a SAREX!  We've tried and tried and tried but they are more interested in doing non-es activities.  The Senior side of the house is very active in ES. 

[commando1]

Gee, if you don't send cadets on actual missing aircraft missions, why bother training them in SAR at all?  Any SAR has the potential to have a very unhappy ending and it can't be predicted in advance.  If your unit is really that worried about it, just get them GES and restrict your unit activities to handing out water after torandos or something like that and don't waste their or your time training them for something that you're not actually going to use them for.

+1 :clap:

[lordmonar]

Gee, if you don't send cadets on actual missing aircraft missions, why bother training them in SAR at all?  Any SAR has the potential to have a very unhappy ending and it can't be predicted in advance.  If your unit is really that worried about it, just get them GES and restrict your unit activities to handing out water after torandos or something like that and don't waste their or your time training them for something that you're not actually going to use them for.

Even SAR training can have an un happy ending.
A few years ago....a GSAR team I trained and was GBDing for was out looking for and ELT in the desert....and they happen across a pair of hikers in an emergency.  One of them fell and broke his leg.  My team took charge and kicked up.  This was duirng a graded SAREX...There was five CAP Members on the team.   One SM (GLM3/GTL Trainee) One 18 year old cadet (GLT) and three cadets all under the age of 16.

If we are not going to let them participate....let's not waste our time training them.

[lordmonar]

Training them isn't really an issue...  We're luck if 3 cadets show up for a SAREX!  We've tried and tried and tried but they are more interested in doing non-es activities.  The Senior side of the house is very active in ES.

I find that hard to believe.  I mean why should they show up for a SAREX?  Why train if they are never ever going to go on a real SAR?
Cadets aren't stupid.  It does not take them long to learn where to invest their energies.

[Extremepredjudice]

Training them isn't really an issue...  We're luck if 3 cadets show up for a SAREX!  We've tried and tried and tried but they are more interested in doing non-es activities.  The Senior side of the house is very active in ES.

I find that hard to believe.  I mean why should they show up for a SAREX?  Why train if they are never ever going to go on a real SAR?
Cadets aren't stupid.  It does not take them long to learn where to invest their energies.

I want quals, but I'd be the only one in my squadron, so obviously I won't be going on any SARs.

I guess I'm stupid...

[EMT-83]

I want quals, but I'd be the only one in my squadron, so obviously I won't be going on any SARs.

Ground teams and air crews are not squadron resourses; you can, and will, be assigned where the IC needs you. It doesn't matter if you're the only person from your squadron.

[lordmonar]

Training them isn't really an issue...  We're luck if 3 cadets show up for a SAREX!  We've tried and tried and tried but they are more interested in doing non-es activities.  The Senior side of the house is very active in ES.

I find that hard to believe.  I mean why should they show up for a SAREX?  Why train if they are never ever going to go on a real SAR?
Cadets aren't stupid.  It does not take them long to learn where to invest their energies.

I want quals, but I'd be the only one in my squadron, so obviously I won't be going on any SARs.

I guess I'm stupid...

I'm a MO.....my squadron does not have planes......
And in your wing/group/area they may not have this same 'anti-policy" as in other areas.

Here in NVWG the big problem is that the SAREX's are sooooo aircrew centric.  If GTs are included at at all it is mostly as "go out and turn on the ELT and be a target".  We have been working hard to fix this attitude and we are making progress...but it is still there.  And there is an attitude that GT=Cadets and CP guys. 

[Eclipse]

I want quals, but I'd be the only one in my squadron, so obviously I won't be going on any SARs.

Ground teams and air crews are not squadron resourses; you can, and will, be assigned where the IC needs you. It doesn't matter if you're the only person from your squadron.

Most wings do cattle calls for resources, coherent teams are preferred, but as long as your commander approves, the biggest issue is staying informed
and showing up to training.

[ol'fido]

Which means we need to take steps to get standing teams up and running and call them specifically when there is a mission. It is a lot harder to turn down a direct call than it is to ignore a cattle call text or e mail. Also, there is the pride of being the "go to" team that will will keep these teams sharp.

[Eclipse]

Which means we need to take steps to get standing teams up and running and call them specifically when there is a mission. It is a lot harder to turn down a direct call than it is to ignore a cattle call text or e mail. Also, there is the pride of being the "go to" team that will will keep these teams sharp.

I agree 100%, in fact...

...I suspect your wing may well emphasize this very soon...

[Private Investigator]

If we are not going to let them participate....let's not waste our time training them.

More to ES than Cadet Ground Teams. MSAs, MROs and plenty of things to at Mission Base for Cadets. 

[Private Investigator]

The IC, OSC, GBD, GTL all have a duty to insure that all personnel joining a mission/team are trained, equiped, capable and ready to perform the assigned mission.

Do not forget the MSO. They might have a better insight.

Not in my experince. 

More so than a GTL who forgot his water again   

[lordmonar]

If we are not going to let them participate....let's not waste our time training them.

More to ES than Cadet Ground Teams. MSAs, MROs and plenty of things to at Mission Base for Cadets.

If you can find an IC who wants anything to do with cadets.

I have met all flavors of SM.....those that think cadets should be read about in the volunteer....not seen or heard.....to those who think cadets can be MRO/MSA/FLM and nothing else, to those who think they should be used when and where able...to those who thing cadets ought to be able to train for aircrew, leader, director and cheif levels of ES.

[Eclipse]

More to ES than Cadet Ground Teams. MSAs, MROs and plenty of things to at Mission Base for Cadets.

There is no such thing as a "Cadet" ground team, once of these days we're going to figure out that the people who make that assertion
and connection are part of the reason we have trouble with execution.

If you can find an IC who wants anything to do with cadets.

IC's don't specifically have a choice, they have a mission and a personnel roster.  It is the local commanders who have the issues by not training
up teams to complete the varied potential taskings available to us, and treating the mission like a menu.

[JeffDG]

cadets ought to be able to train for aircrew, leader, director and cheif levels of ES.

Well, except for Section Chief, cadets can train for all of those.  And actually, the PSC SQTR online doesn't have an age eligibility in it either (the others do).

[lordmonar]

you are right...I got caught in my own terminology.

There are some who beleive that cadets under the age of 18 should be able to train for aircrew/leader/director/cheif positions.

[commando1]

There are some who beleive that cadets under the age of 18 should be able to train for aircrew/leader/director/cheif positions.

Guilty as charged 

[Hardshell Clam]

Except cadets do have a magic ace in the hole .. and the ones that are vindictive and don't get their way .. can throw the H word at the senior member(s) they don't like by way of the IG .. and start all kinds of crap. Even when it's disproven, it's still a hassle.

If you are truly afraid of this, you have no business being anywhere near a cadet.

The problem here is that even "composite" squadrons are more often then not, just cadet squadrons with a different name...  Yes, I expect a certain level of maturity from the older cadets but that is not always the case. The simple truth of it is, in the eyes of the law, cadets under 18 are children. (Not going to argue this point of law with anyone).  You have to allow for this but if safety is involved then it has to be immediately addressed. Remember, everyone is a safety officer!

Please note: This response may contain information that is unsuited for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational beliefs. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the cat next door who poops in my yard is living on borrowed time, let me tell you.

[lordmonar]

You are of course correct.....cadets of all ages are by CAP definitions.....children....especially those under 18.

And we should always be aware of the physical and mental dangers we expose our members to......this is ALL MEMBERS not just cadets.

Bottom line....NHQ's policy is to allow cadets of all ages to participate in ES where and when they can IAW the regultions, laws and desires of the customer.

AS for "everyone is a safety officer".....I just want to to know what I ever did to you to make you so mean to me! 

We got to get off the Safety bandwagon....and get back to "getting the mission done".

I agree that all members under 18 and their parents need to understand exactly what is involved with ES to include physcial and mental dangers...and what insurance coverage they get.

But......if the partents are okay with little johnny going out to look for a crashed 747.....then we should not be coddeling little johnny.
If johnny is not a hinderence to the mission.....then he goes.  That goes for old Joe and Youngish Bob as well.

[Buzz]

No one, cadet or otherwise, has a "right" to participate.  Everyone has a standard they must meet, and personal and team safety is going to be at the
top of everything.  Next is efficacy, and if either safety or mission effectiveness is compromised because of lack of maturity, or anything else, that's not acceptable.

Concur.

Musashi taught "Do nothing which is of no use."  That would include taking a person who is going to be more trouble than he's worth.

[Buzz]

We got to get off the Safety bandwagon....and get back to "getting the mission done".

I disagree 100%.

If we can't do it safely, then the people who CAN might have TWO sets of victims to recover.

That doesn't mean to be paranoid, but it means taking CALCULATED risks.  Everything that we do compromises safety in some way -- we need to decide which compromises are worth it and which should be avoided.

[lordmonar]

We got to get off the Safety bandwagon....and get back to "getting the mission done".

I disagree 100%.

If we can't do it safely, then the people who CAN might have TWO sets of victims to recover.

That doesn't mean to be paranoid, but it means taking CALCULATED risks.  Everything that we do compromises safety in some way -- we need to decide which compromises are worth it and which should be avoided.

I agree 100%....unfortunately....too many Safety Officers don't see it that way.  They see ANY risk as a show stopper. 

[JeffDG]

We got to get off the Safety bandwagon....and get back to "getting the mission done".

I disagree 100%.

If we can't do it safely, then the people who CAN might have TWO sets of victims to recover.

That doesn't mean to be paranoid, but it means taking CALCULATED risks.  Everything that we do compromises safety in some way -- we need to decide which compromises are worth it and which should be avoided.

+1

As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

[commando1]

As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

I wanna know how many people have actually died while on a mission within the last 25 years...

[davidsinn]

As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

I wanna know how many people have actually died while on a mission within the last 25 years...

Several. I can think of at least six in the five years I've been in. All were aircrew.

[commando1]

But were their deaths because of lack of safety, or a coincidence of circumstances beyond their control? Everybody always talks about safety like life or death, but I think most the time we spend all of our resources making sure Cadet Snuffy doesn't fall and skin his arm...

[JeffDG]

As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

I wanna know how many people have actually died while on a mission within the last 25 years...

How many are acceptable?

What about injuries?  What are acceptable there?

[davidsinn]

But were their deaths because of lack of safety, or a coincidence of circumstances beyond their control? Everybody always talks about safety like life or death, but I think most the time we spend all of our resources making sure Cadet Snuffy doesn't fall and skin his arm...

I can't answer that because I don't know. I do agree we spend an inordinate amount of time on stupid stuff and not enough on the big things. I can't think of two happy endings in the past year where we had catastrophic engine failures in flight. I can think of another aircraft that could have had the same thing but was found before it happened. We have old wore out vehicles but we need to do paperwork every time we stick a band aid on someone.

[Eclipse]

^ Um, I can think of one in the last month.

[davidsinn]

^ Um, I can think of one in the last month.

That's one of em

[wacapgh]

Addressing the original question - Participation in ANY activity requires the unit commanders permission, cadet or senior.

If "Cadet Goofoff" is not meeting the standards, then it is the commander's duty (and staff as directed) to take corrective action.

Search the site for examples of how to conduct counseling that is both effective and fair.

Your commander should check with higher headquarters on what to do if it is decided to suspend the members participation in ES activities. They may suspend any or all qualifications upon a commander's recommendation alone, or may require actual documentation.

[Spaceman3750]

Addressing the original question - Participation in ANY activity requires the unit commanders permission, cadet or senior.

If "Cadet Goofoff" is not meeting the standards, then it is the commander's duty (and staff as directed) to take corrective action.

Search the site for examples of how to conduct counseling that is both effective and fair.

Your commander should check with higher headquarters on what to do if it is decided to suspend the members participation in ES activities. They may suspend any or all qualifications upon a commander's recommendation alone, or may require actual documentation.

It's not up to higher HQ to decide who gets suspended - in this case the unit commander holds that authority.

Obviously, I'd like to prevent that from happening by "screening" folks beforehand (I've just been specifically inviting cadets who we think would do well), but it's always a possibility, like I brought up in my original post.

[Ned]

. The simple truth of it is, in the eyes of the law, cadets under 18 are children. (Not going to argue this point of law with anyone). 

Just like senior members under the age of 18.  (Yes, there are dozens.)

And of course, emancipated minors under the age of 18 are NOT children, legally speaking, in their states.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, which is maybe why you correctly declined to argue "points of law" here on CT.  If the issue ever really arises, just ask your friendly neighborhood JAG.


Also remember that the age of majority is not 18 in all states and commonwealths where CAP has members.

(It is always helpful to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.  Apples and oranges.  The Air Force has cadets as old as 30 and as young as 12, and treats all of them well.  So should we.)

[SarDragon]

cadets ought to be able to train for aircrew, leader, director and cheif levels of ES.

Well, except for Section Chief, cadets can train for all of those.  And actually, the PSC SQTR online doesn't have an age eligibility in it either (the others do).

The pre-reqs for PSC via AOBD or GBD require a minimum age of 18 - MO, MO, MS, GTL.

[JeffDG]

cadets ought to be able to train for aircrew, leader, director and cheif levels of ES.

Well, except for Section Chief, cadets can train for all of those.  And actually, the PSC SQTR online doesn't have an age eligibility in it either (the others do).

The pre-reqs for PSC via AOBD or GBD require a minimum age of 18 - MO, MO, MS, GTL.

True...what I meant (and somehow you didn't read my mind ) was that the other SC's (OSC, LSC, FASC) have a age requirement of 21, so no cadets allowed for those.

[commando1]

(It is always helpful to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.  Apples and oranges.  The Air Force has cadets as old as 30 and as young as 12, and treats all of them well.  So should we.)

:clap:

[Woodsy]

If we are not going to let them participate....let's not waste our time training them.

More to ES than Cadet Ground Teams. MSAs, MROs and plenty of things to at Mission Base for Cadets.

Exactly.  We utilize cadets in lots of ways.  All I was getting at is a cadet won't be on a ground team for a suspected fatal crash.  They'll participate in some other way.  IF they can show up for training! 

[commando1]

All I was getting at is a cadet won't be on a ground team for a suspected fatal crash. 

In your unit perhaps...

[EMT-83]

Exactly.  We utilize cadets in lots of ways.  All I was getting at is a cadet won't be on a ground team for a suspected fatal crash.  They'll participate in some other way.  IF they can show up for training!

If your crystal ball tells you that it's a suspected fatal crash; shouldn't it also tell where the crash occurred, so you don't need a ground team to search for it in the first place?

Just wondering how you would know whether or not to include cadets when you leave mission base.

[lordmonar]

As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

I wanna know how many people have actually died while on a mission within the last 25 years...

How many are acceptable?

What about injuries?  What are acceptable there?

Well that's the rub.

If the answer is ZERO then we have to stop all operations and close down CAP.

Driving to your weekly CAP meeting involves risk.

Flying involves risk.

Somewhere between closing shop and "the mission no matter what the cost" is where CAP needs to be.

[lordmonar]

Addressing the original question - Participation in ANY activity requires the unit commanders permission, cadet or senior.

Not quite true.  ES call outs can come down from wing or group level.  It is possible for squadron member to be deployed with out squadron commander knowledge.

If "Cadet Goofoff" is not meeting the standards, then it is the commander's duty (and staff as directed) to take corrective action.

and the team leader, GBD, AOBD's job.

[Hardshell Clam]

. The simple truth of it is, in the eyes of the law, cadets under 18 are children. (Not going to argue this point of law with anyone). 

Just like senior members under the age of 18.  (Yes, there are dozens.)

And of course, emancipated minors under the age of 18 are NOT children, legally speaking, in their states.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, which is maybe why you correctly declined to argue "points of law" here on CT.  If the issue ever really arises, just ask your friendly neighborhood JAG.


Also remember that the age of majority is not 18 in all states and commonwealths where CAP has members.

(It is always helpful to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.  Apples and oranges.  The Air Force has cadets as old as 30 and as young as 12, and treats all of them well.  So should we.)

I guess I have to ask how do you become a SR member if your under 18? As to the age of majority, diff states etc., just not going there.  No one said we should not treat cadets well...

[lordmonar]

Join the military on AD.

[JeffDG]

As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

I wanna know how many people have actually died while on a mission within the last 25 years...

How many are acceptable?

What about injuries?  What are acceptable there?

Well that's the rub.

If the answer is ZERO then we have to stop all operations and close down CAP.

Driving to your weekly CAP meeting involves risk.

Flying involves risk.

Somewhere between closing shop and "the mission no matter what the cost" is where CAP needs to be.

So, you're quite willing to inform a pilot's wife "You know, we could have taken 5 minutes to do a fuller weather brief, but well, we haven't lost anyone lately, and statistically, your wife was just an acceptable loss.

Or tell Cadet Snuffy's mom "We went through the entire SAREX without any injuries, and that last sortie, we looked at the stats, and we were due for an injury, so we didn't bother briefing the hazzards, and Cadet Snuffy stepped in a hole that we knew about and broke his leg.  But, like I said, the statistics tell me we were due for an injury, so it was entirely acceptable.  Oh, you have a college scout coming to his basketball game later this week...well, that's certainly bad timing, he should have gone on an earlier trip so we hadn't built up enough injury free hours to justify an injury."

[Eclipse]

That's why "safety" isn't, and should never be, about stats, or checking some briefing box.  On a line long enough the survival rate for everyone is zero.

[Eclipse]

So, you're quite willing to inform a pilot's wife "You know, we could have taken 5 minutes to do a fuller weather brief, but well, we haven't lost anyone lately, and statistically, your wife was just an acceptable loss.

This is a trick question, right?  The bus driver is wearing a blue hat or is his own grandfather or something?

[commando1]

Or tell Cadet Snuffy's mom "We went through the entire SAREX without any injuries, and that last sortie, we looked at the stats, and we were due for an injury, so we didn't bother briefing the hazzards, and Cadet Snuffy stepped in a hole that we knew about and broke his leg.  But, like I said, the statistics tell me we were due for an injury, so it was entirely acceptable.  Oh, you have a college scout coming to his basketball game later this week...well, that's certainly bad timing, he should have gone on an earlier trip so we hadn't built up enough injury free hours to justify an injury."

So instead we ban cadets from participating in ES? To be quite honest ES is the only reason I am in CAP. I couldn't care less about aerospace. I will, however, sit through hours of classes in order to go out on missions.

[lordmonar]

I never said we should throw safety out the door.

Where did I ever say that?

We do all the smart things we need to do to keep the mission going as safe as possible.  A presortie beifing is always in order, and you definatly check the weather brief before flying......these are as automatic as buckeling your seat belt, wearing gloves when handeling ropes, and other smart safety stuff.

But monthly safety education and a one hour "safety breif" by the MSO/Wing safety at the start of the mission on how to fill out forms and ORMS basics.........is just a plain stupid.

Also safety should not be running around stopping operations because they "think it is not safe"......operational calls are done by those doing the operations and the operational chain of command.


But yes...I am willing to tell the family member that "your loved one died volunteering to help others"

CAP is a dangerous game.....there are acceptable risks.  If the level is ZERO then there is no CAP.


Like I said.....somewhere between Shutting down CAP and "mission no matter the cost" is where CAP should be.

[commando1]

CAP is a dangerous game.....there are acceptable risks.  If the level is ZERO then there is no CAP.

To get back on the topic of cadets in ES (before this devolves into a uniform thread)  How much risk to cadets is "acceptable." That word is a matter of opinion...

[Eclipse]

The bare minimum that allows for the execution of the mission.  There is no other answer.

[commando1]

I think we have successfully finished a thread... :clap:

[AngelWings]

I think we have successfully finished a thread... :clap:

Ugh, umm, UNIFORMS, ABU'S, GREEN BOOTS, ahhhh, THE COLOR GREY, BERRY BOARDS, GET US OUT OF UNIFORMS. I'm sorry, I simply couldn't resist the urge.

[husker]

I've read through the several pages of this thread with great interest, as it well illustrates the main focus of my CAP career.  I think a number of important topics have been broached.  First, a disclaimer:  I am responsible for two ground team training programs:  one based at Alabama Wing, which draws around 120 participants from Wings in SER each weekend for a 6 month period, and the NGSAR school at NESA.  My experience with these two programs serves to either clarify or cloud the below opinions. 

I have a very simple opinion on the topic of the original thread question:  members (both cadet and senior) who are not mature enough to serve in a specialty should not be rated in that specialty.  I have seen many members (both cadet and senior) over the years that can fly through the tasks, but yet do not have the maturity, leadership, or followership skill necessary to be rated.  One good example of this is the GSAR Team Leader school at NESA.  Though we have 20 or so TL students each session, a number of them simply are not ready to be rated.   The NESA TL staff does a great job of teaching and mentoring the Team Leader students;  however, we do not have the time to be a leadership or followership academy.   They get credit for passing the tasks, but they are not rated in Eservices.  This happens in all three of the GSAR schools. 

An interesting point made earlier in the thread is that historically, in many wings, cadets = ground teams and ground teams=cadets.  Though there are wings out there with strong senior ground team participation, they seem to be few and far between.    This seems to be part of the organizational culture, however unfortunate it may be.   This is also a detriment to the organization; if we look at our customer's requirements, many preclude mission participation under 18.  This automatically disqualifies a fair percentage of our organization's trained/qualified personnel.  We as an organization should make a concerted effort to increase the participation of senior members in ground team training.  I know it is difficult; as an organization, we often struggle with simply putting on quality training that meets the minimum national standard, so the "nice to haves" sometime fall by the wayside.

That being said, I don't believe we should preclude cadets from ES training in any area under which they could potentially serve.  I think it is short sided to automatically disqualify cadet's participation from either training or actual mission participation.  I think that training cadets in ES is important for two reasons. 

First, a fair percentage of cadets enjoy ES, and ES training may provide the foundation for a long term CAP career.  Many cadets like to be "out in the woods," training, bivoucing, etc.   I know, because I spent 5 years as one of those "ES" cadets that we all have seen;  WIWAC, I had no interest in drill teams, color guards, etc;  what kept me involved was ES, and the small glimmer that I may participate in an actual mission.  This background in cadet ES is the reason that I rejoined CAP after college, and why I am still involved today.  Though I wholeheartedly support the entirety of the cadet program, I believe that encouraging cadet participation in ES is good for both the cadet and the organization.  To continue the argument, automatically precluding cadet participation in actual missions seems short sided to me as well.  What logic do we have to encourage cadet participation in training, but preclude them from execution?  Do we tell cadets to take achievement tests, but fail to deliver on the promotions?  That being said, we need to remember that common sense should prevail.  As Ned said, what is to say an 18 year old senior member is more "mature" than a 20 year old cadet.   Do we want 13 year cadets on crash sites?  No.  But what about 17?  18?   What about the very immature 27 year old senior member?   What about the 35 year old senior member who had a relative recently die in an automobile accident?     These are questions that are not easily legislated in regulations or supplements.  ICs and GTLs need to take a step back and apply common sense answers to these questions.  There are a number of roles that a cadet can fill if they are not emotionally or physically able to participate fully.

The second reason that I believe that cadet participation in ES is vitally important is simple:  ES training is simply one of the best leadership laboratories around.  There are naturally occurring stressors in ES training that have the potential to provide amazing lessons in leadership, responsibility, and teamwork, which constitute the bedrock of our cadet program.

[Extremepredjudice]

 :clap: :clap: Well said sir!

Hopefully I'll see you this summer!