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

[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.