Air Branch Director

[Full time cadet]

So I set this goal of becoming an Air Ops Branch Director as a Cadet once I complete my observer training. I have just completed my MS and AP rating over the Summer at NESA.

I am also trying to race my friend that is training for ground branch director.

Is it even possible for Cadets to get AOBD?

Thoughts, Comments?

[LSThiker]

So I set this goal of becoming an Air Ops Branch Director as a Cadet once I complete my observer training. I have just completed my MS and AP rating over the Summer at NESA.

I am also trying to race my friend that is training for ground branch director.

Is it even possible for Cadets to get AOBD?

Thoughts, Comments?

A branch director needs the ability to read regulations and understand them. So what does CAPR 60-3 say?

[EMT-83]

I get concerned when I read things like "trying to race my friend" towards positions where you are directly responsible for the safety and welfare of others. Very concerned.

It speaks volumes about your commitment and lack of maturity.

[Full time cadet]

I get concerned when I read things like "trying to race my friend" towards positions where you are directly responsible for the safety and welfare of others. Very concerned.

It speaks volumes about your commitment and lack of maturity.

"Excellence in all we do"

No need to be too concerned.

FYI That's not even an answer to my question.

[Alaric]

I get concerned when I read things like "trying to race my friend" towards positions where you are directly responsible for the safety and welfare of others. Very concerned.

It speaks volumes about your commitment and lack of maturity.

"Excellence in all we do"

No need to be too concerned.

FYI That's not even an answer to my question.

Think you missed the point Cadet, becoming a AOBD should not be about winning a race.  ES qualifications are not merit badges to be earned as quickly as you can.  Become an MO, then go on some missions (or exercises if there are no actuals) learn the job, before you try to become the person who directs the people doing the job.

[SarDragon]

FYI That's not even an answer to my question.

He's "teaching you how to fish", instead of just providing a single fish.

As you progress through CAP, you will be expected to properly research the regs before asking questions.

[Storm Chaser]

The only SQTR prerequisite for the Air Operations Branch Director (AOBD) qualification is to be a qualified Mission Pilot or Mission Observer. And for that you need to be at least 18. That said, while technically possible, it's highly unlikely. An AOBD should be an experienced pilot or observer and have a thorough understanding of air operations. While not impossible, it's not likely you'll be able to gain that type of experience as a cadet, certainly not as an 18 year old cadet.

[Full time cadet]

I get concerned when I read things like "trying to race my friend" towards positions where you are directly responsible for the safety and welfare of others. Very concerned.

It speaks volumes about your commitment and lack of maturity.

"Excellence in all we do"

No need to be too concerned.

FYI That's not even an answer to my question.

Think you missed the point Cadet, becoming a AOBD should not be about winning a race.  ES qualifications are not merit badges to be earned as quickly as you can.  Become an MO, then go on some missions (or exercises if there are no actuals) learn the job, before you try to become the person who directs the people doing the job.

I get your point. I'm just saying that there is no need to be that concerned and questions someones attitude while I'm just saying that it looks like one when someone I closely know is already working on GBD( he is also a 18 year old cadet).

[SarDragon]

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

[Full time cadet]

I get concerned when I read things like "trying to race my friend" towards positions where you are directly responsible for the safety and welfare of others. Very concerned.

It speaks volumes about your commitment and lack of maturity.

"Excellence in all we do"

No need to be too concerned.

FYI That's not even an answer to my question.

Think you missed the point Cadet, becoming a AOBD should not be about winning a race.  ES qualifications are not merit badges to be earned as quickly as you can.  Become an MO, then go on some missions (or exercises if there are no actuals) learn the job, before you try to become the person who directs the people doing the job.

There are cadet GBDs existing. Technically speaking, I wonder if there were ever any Cadet AOBDs. I've seen Cadet MPs and MOs though. Anything is possible as long as it is allowed. It's just if people are willing to put in work and step up the plate regardless of cadets and seniors.

[LSThiker]

There are cadet GBDs existing. Technically speaking, I wonder if there were ever any Cadet AOBDs. I've seen Cadet MPs and MOs though. Anything is possible as long as it is allowed. It's just if people are willing to put in work and step up the plate regardless of cadets and seniors.

Yes there are cadet GBDs and I was one as well.  Nevertheless, there is a difference between cadet GBDs and cadet AOBDs. That is, a cadet can get his GTM at the age of 12 and have 6 years of GTM experience before moving into GBD.  When I qualified as a GBD, I already had 5 years GTM experience with 2 years as GTL (with actual missions under my belt).  In addition, I was already leading the vast majority of Wing ES schools and was responsible for organizing my squadron's ES training.  I was proficient in how GTs operated.

Having a high level of proficiency in the air side for a cadet AOBD is difficult at best. Can achieving the AOBD as a cadet be done?  Sure. But you must be honest with yourself in answering this question, "Are you truly 100% proficient in the required understanding and theory of the Air Operations side?"  Can you really achieve the necessary experience in less than 3 years?

The reason why everyone is questioning you on this is from your initial post. You asked a question that is clearly answerable by the regulations and your chain of command. In addition, you made a comment that you in a "race" with another cadet in achieving Branch Director, which throws up red flags for people on both your intentions and maturity. 

[Flying Pig]

As a cadet in CAP you are absolutely not liable, nor would you be held responsible for any direction you give at any level. From a leadership perspective what are your thoughts on being the leader who cant be held responsible for your decisions? 

Having the goal of achieving AOBD as a cadet would be good for your progression and maybe some resume padding for college, or whatever it is that you plan on doing.  However, you have no place in ever actually serving as an Air Ops Branch Director in any formal capacity.  You do not have the experience nor the creditability to serve in that capacity.  I am the same way in regards to Cadet Mission Pilots.  Its allowed, but there are few and very far between, any cadets who really need to be active Mission Pilots.  Flight time is one small part.  The flight time requirements to operate in CAP are ridiculous at best, now add in the maturity level and lack of life experience of a teenager and its a bad combination. Sure people will cut and paste articles about some cadet mission pilot or cadet aircrew on a mission but it should have never been allowed to happen. 

To serve as an AOBD isnt commanding NORAD, but it comes with a level or responsibility that is beyond what a cadet should be held at.  When you are a branch director, the buck needs to stop with you.  As a cadet, you are simply "playing" director.  There would ultimately be a Senior Member responsible.  No cadet is ever going to be dealt any true responsibility or command making decision.  If you haven't noticed yet in your cadet career, nothing happens unless a Senior makes it so.   And a Senior can unravel anything a cadet does at any level.   So at best, you would be nothing more than a mouth piece.   All of the adults will know you really dont have any juice or command authority.  You would be by-passed, and the pilots would seek out the Senior who is actually running AOBD.  I know I would.   In all seriousness, aircrews are going to laugh when they walk in and see a cadet running Air Ops.  Are you really in a position as well to coordinate Air Ops outside organizations?  Law Enforcement Aviation assets?  Fire Aviation?  Possibly National Guard?  As an LE pilot, Ive landed at CAP mission bases to contact the base staff and meet with the AOBD to see what grids were being flown, get Freq's, intro myself, etc.  If that ever happened, and I was directed to contact a cadet, we would saddle up and depart the area and I would report back to my bosses that CAP has kids running a mission.  Make sense?  You dont have to like it but Im not going to take direction on SAR ops from a cadet as a CAP pilot or as a pilot from an outside agency.  Its bad enough that Ive worked under AOBD who couldnt understand why I had an issue with taking a search grid in the Sierras at 1PM at 8,000' in the summer time.

There are a lot of great things cadets can do.  Sure, you may be able to "race your friend" to get a qual, but beyond getting some boxes checked, do you think any aircrew is going to take direction from you?   As a former cadet myself, I say go for it.  Do the quals, do the training required, but do not ever think you will hold the position until much later in your CAP adult career should you choose to stay beyond your cadet years.  I would really be surprised if any IC would select a cadet to serve as a Branch Director in an ICS system on a real operation.    Go for it, learn, shadow a AOBD during any operations, but learn from it and know your place in the food chain.  But dismiss any delusions of grandeur of leading the Air Ops as a cadet.    And last thing..... "Im trying to race my friend" really summed up about all I needed to know about your motivations.

Those are my thoughts and comments you asked for.

(Edited for ridiculous spelling and grammatical errors)

[Storm Chaser]

As a cadet in CAP you are absolutely not liable, nor would you be held responsible for any direction you give at any level.

That is absolutely correct and the reason I would be hesitant to approve a cadet Branch Director in my AOR.

Even a ground team with a cadet GTL cannot be deployed without a senior member. Who's really in charge then? The cadet or the senior member? For mission purposes, the cadet. Until the senior member sees something that doesn't seem right and decides to step in. Sure, the senior member should probably contact the IC or designee if there's an issue, but my point is the senior member, not the cadet GTL, has the ultimate responsibility and liability for the safety of those cadets even though technically he's not in charge of the ground team or sortie.

[winterg]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field. 

[THRAWN]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field.

Thats kind of the feeling I.get whenever this topic.comes up.

[Flying Pig]

Again I just want to reiterate I am not opposed to the training nor the idea of shadowing the real AOBD as a cadet.  But its also the responsibility of the cadet program to be realistic and build leaders, not deal in fantasy.   If the cadet completely understands their role, then there is no harm to any area of the issue.  If a cadet is led to believe they are actually commanding, when in reality, there is a silent senior member standing behind them nodding and winking at the pilots while the AOBD is giving directions, then its dishonest to the cadet and we have falsely led a cadet to believe they are something they are not.  We have enough of that in society already. 

If you turn 18, and you want the real responsibility of being an AOBD, then its also time for you to step over to the senior side and accept the full weight of the position and the responsibility that comes with it.  To many times I see cadets who want to live in both worlds.  You dont get to do responsible adult stuff and then when the fun is over, run back to the cadet program.  Im not saying that being an 18 year old SM suddenly makes you qualified, but its step one towards putting on your big kid pants. 

[Flying Pig]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field.

Thats kind of the feeling I.get whenever this topic.comes up.

I should probably read that... I see it referenced often in a lot of places.

[winterg]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field.

Thats kind of the feeling I.get whenever this topic.comes up.

I should probably read that... I see it referenced often in a lot of places.

I can't recommend it enough. That and a few other socio-political novels couched in science fiction were required reading when I was younger and made a huge impact.

[Alaric]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field.

A most excellent book

[Panzerbjorn]

Just don't go see the movie first.  Anyone who's read the book usually despises the movie.

Anyway,  I echo Flying Pig's posts.  I have no issue with any cadet with a certain level of maturity working with me in Air Ops and getting the training.  Just understand that the chances of you actually getting to use that training before becoming a Senior Member is slim to none.  It's hard enough just to get aircrew qualified cadets deployed out on a mission.

Just like the prospect of a cadet going from zero hours to their private pilot certificate using only CAP planes and instructors is possible and allowed, the practicality of it is a much different story.

[Storm Chaser]

I have no issue with any cadet with a certain level of maturity working with me in Air Ops and getting the training.  Just understand that the chances of you actually getting to use that training before becoming a Senior Member is slim to none.

I think the problem is how we train and qualify in CAP. For example, under ICS we can have planners assigned to the Planning Section. We can also have units under this section. However, there are no curriculums or qualifications in CAP for those specialties, only for the Planning Section Chief. The same goes for the Ground and Air Operations Branches. The Branch Directors can and should have personnel assisting who are not branch directors. In fact,  we can use Mission Staff Assistants to fill those roles. Unfortunately, many think MSAs are there just for admin and anyone wanting to work operations is either in the field or air or pursuing Branch Director or Section Chief qualifications. Personally, I like assigning experienced MSAs to different staff officers to assist with operations, logistics, safety, etc. Experienced cadets can fill those roles very well.

[JeffDG]

As a cadet in CAP you are absolutely not liable, nor would you be held responsible for any direction you give at any level.

That is absolutely correct and the reason I would be hesitant to approve a cadet Branch Director in my AOR.

Can you provide a citation for the assertion that a cadet, of the age of majority, would not be held liable for direction given?

I know my wing had a Cadet GBD at one of our SAREVALs one year.  He did an absolutely fantastic job of directing ground operations, and received an Outstanding grade for his efforts from the USAF Evaluation Team.

ES is completely rank-agnostic.  A second lieutenant can give a lieutenant colonel an order, and expect it to be carried out.  Same with a cadet.

Put the best person you have into the position, regardless of their rank or member type.

[Flying Pig]

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?  We arent discussing out ranking.  We are discussion cadet programs directing senior members.  not going to happen and you are a complete fool should you choose to take direction from a cadet in the area of ES.   Age of majority has no bearing.  There is no aspect of CAP where cadets are in command over senior members.  Nor should there ever be a place in CAP where cadets are in position to make decisions regarding real world missions regardless of severity.  Can you show me where CAP cadet ever operate without the direct input and supervision of Seniors?

[JeffDG]

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?  Age of majority has no bearing.  There is no aspect of CAP where cadets are in command over senior members.

Nothing in CAPR 60-3 says anything about "Cadets cannot command senior members", nor in any other regulation for that matter.   The only analog is that all cadet grades are subordinate to senior grades, but again, ES is grade-agnostic, so that's wholly irrelevant.

If a cadet GBD tells a Senior Member GTL what needs to be done, that cadet has the full authority of their position as Ground Branch Director, delegated from the IC via the OSC to issue such directives.

Are you claiming that a cadet MP is not the Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft that he is flying?  Since they are prohibited cadet passengers, that means that they are explicitly in command of the senior members aboard.

[Flying Pig]

Well shoot.... I went back to clarify... but regardless, Ill address it.

Senior Members in CAP will ALWAYS be responsible for the actions of cadets regardless of age or position.

[JeffDG]

Well shoot.... I went back to clarify... but regardless, Ill address it.

Senior Members in CAP will ALWAYS be responsible for the actions of cadets regardless of age or position.

So, a cadet MP flying with a non-pilot observer and non-pilot scanner...who's the Pilot in Command?  Who is legally responsible for the safety of the flight?  I have a hint for you, it's in 14 CFR Part 91.

[Flying Pig]

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?  Age of majority has no bearing.  There is no aspect of CAP where cadets are in command over senior members.

Are you claiming that a cadet MP is not the Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft that he is flying?  Since they are prohibited cadet passengers, that means that they are explicitly in command of the senior members aboard.

Apples and Oranges.  They are in command of the safe operation of the aircraft.  The Mission Pilot is not in "Command" of the Observer or the Scanner. 

[JeffDG]

Well shoot.... I went back to clarify... but regardless, Ill address it.

Senior Members in CAP will ALWAYS be responsible for the actions of cadets regardless of age or position.

I'll take your lack of citation of the relevant regulation as a "No, I can't cite anything, but I'll use proof by repeated assertion."

[Flying Pig]

Well shoot.... I went back to clarify... but regardless, Ill address it.

Senior Members in CAP will ALWAYS be responsible for the actions of cadets regardless of age or position.

So, a cadet MP flying with a non-pilot observer and non-pilot scanner...who's the Pilot in Command?  Who is legally responsible for the safety of the flight?  I have a hint for you, it's in 14 CFR Part 91.

If you want to discuss, thats fine.  If you are going to start getting sarcastic we are done. 

[Flying Pig]

You were so quick to come back with an insult you didnt even wait for my response. 

[JeffDG]

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?  Age of majority has no bearing.  There is no aspect of CAP where cadets are in command over senior members.

Are you claiming that a cadet MP is not the Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft that he is flying?  Since they are prohibited cadet passengers, that means that they are explicitly in command of the senior members aboard.

Apples and Oranges.  They are in command of the safe operation of the aircraft.  The Mission Pilot is not in "Command" of the Observer or the Scanner.

You asked for a situation where a cadet was in command of senior members, I've provided a citation (14 CFR Part 91.3(a)).  I've yet to see your cite that seniors are never commanded by cadets, and my situation directly contradicts that assertion.

[Alaric]

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?  Age of majority has no bearing.  There is no aspect of CAP where cadets are in command over senior members.

Are you claiming that a cadet MP is not the Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft that he is flying?  Since they are prohibited cadet passengers, that means that they are explicitly in command of the senior members aboard.

Apples and Oranges.  They are in command of the safe operation of the aircraft.  The Mission Pilot is not in "Command" of the Observer or the Scanner.

On an ES mission the Observer is "in command" vis a vis the mission; the pilot is in command of safety of flight, and the scanner/AP is the tip of the spear

[JeffDG]

Well shoot.... I went back to clarify... but regardless, Ill address it.

Senior Members in CAP will ALWAYS be responsible for the actions of cadets regardless of age or position.

So, a cadet MP flying with a non-pilot observer and non-pilot scanner...who's the Pilot in Command?  Who is legally responsible for the safety of the flight?  I have a hint for you, it's in 14 CFR Part 91.

If you want to discuss, thats fine.  If you are going to start getting sarcastic we are done.

Again, that's clearly lacking in a citation to applicable regulations supporting your assertion.

[JeffDG]

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?  Age of majority has no bearing.  There is no aspect of CAP where cadets are in command over senior members.

Are you claiming that a cadet MP is not the Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft that he is flying?  Since they are prohibited cadet passengers, that means that they are explicitly in command of the senior members aboard.

Apples and Oranges.  They are in command of the safe operation of the aircraft.  The Mission Pilot is not in "Command" of the Observer or the Scanner.

On an ES mission the Observer is "in command" vis a vis the mission; the pilot is in command of safety of flight, and the scanner/AP is the tip of the spear

The pilot is, by federal law, in command of the aircraft.

Anyway, then an MO who's a cadet...is he similarly in command of the mission?

Does anyone have an actual regulation that says "Cadets may never command senior members?"

[Storm Chaser]

As a cadet in CAP you are absolutely not liable, nor would you be held responsible for any direction you give at any level.

That is absolutely correct and the reason I would be hesitant to approve a cadet Branch Director in my AOR.

Can you provide a citation for the assertion that a cadet, of the age of majority, would not be held liable for direction given?

I know my wing had a Cadet GBD at one of our SAREVALs one year.  He did an absolutely fantastic job of directing ground operations, and received an Outstanding grade for his efforts from the USAF Evaluation Team.

ES is completely rank-agnostic.  A second lieutenant can give a lieutenant colonel an order, and expect it to be carried out.  Same with a cadet.

Put the best person you have into the position, regardless of their rank or member type.

If you read my post carefully you'll see I used the word "hesitant" not "opposed". As with anything, we can't (and I didn't) generalize. There are cadets who are very mature, well trained, and may be able to perform in these functions. Those are not the majority. Being able to qualify in these specialties and having the knowledge, experience, leadership, and being able to perform under pressure are not the same thing. An exercise or SAREVAL is not the same as a REDCAP SAR mission were lives are at stake.

Now, if a cadet in an ES or mission leadership position doesn't need direct senior member supervision, then explain why we still need a senior member in a ground team with a cadet GTL? After all, cadets over 18 are required to go through Cadet Protection training, are they not? Yet, we still require a senior member. Why? The same applies to aircrews; a senior member must be in the airplane.

ES may be "rank-agnostic", but it's not membership type agnostic as you claim. Besides, the issue is not that they can't do the job if properly trained, but that more often than not, they won't have the necessary experience to do it. This is more so for AOBD than GBD since a cadet may have several years and sorties of ground team experience before turning 18. In contrast, a cadet can't be a MO until after they turn 18.

[Alaric]

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?  Age of majority has no bearing.  There is no aspect of CAP where cadets are in command over senior members.

Are you claiming that a cadet MP is not the Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft that he is flying?  Since they are prohibited cadet passengers, that means that they are explicitly in command of the senior members aboard.

Apples and Oranges.  They are in command of the safe operation of the aircraft.  The Mission Pilot is not in "Command" of the Observer or the Scanner.

On an ES mission the Observer is "in command" vis a vis the mission; the pilot is in command of safety of flight, and the scanner/AP is the tip of the spear

The pilot is, by federal law, in command of the aircraft.

Anyway, then an MO who's a cadet...is he similarly in command of the mission?

Does anyone have an actual regulation that says "Cadets may never command senior members?"

First, I am not part of your argument about cadets commanding seniors, I was giving input on ES mission roles based on the NESA training. 

Second, I believe that cadets may command seniors in the field based on this from the national website


http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/emergency_services/operations_support/cadets_in_emergency_services.cfm


•A qualified senior member must directly supervise cadets less than 18 years of age. Cadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as ground team leaders, mission pilots, and several other positions of authority traditionally considered adult qualifications in accordance with applicable SQTRs, but cadet protection policies must be followed. If adult members are assigned to a team in a subordinate position to a cadet, the adult member may exercise command authority if necessary to avoid extreme risks endangering the team.
•Only cadets 18 years of age and older, who hold a valid CAPF 101, Specialty Qualification Card are authorized to fly on aircraft involved in the performance of emergency services operations. Any cadet may be flown directly to and from a mission base when needed to perform mission duties, provided the pilot-in-command is at least a qualified mission transport pilot.
•Adult leaders shall not subject cadets to known threats of violence. We cannot assume that parents of cadets understand and expect that their cadets could be exposed to health risks that are sometimes taken for granted during disasters nor can we expect that minors (including cadets under 18) can fully appreciate those risks. Cadets under 18 shall not be exposed to conditions in which their health is jeopardized by exposure to decomposing bodies and hazardous materials. Nor, absent parental permission, may they be exposed to widespread suffering. That does not exclude cadets from qualifying and serving in specialties with a potential for exposure, but rather requires adult leaders to be cognizant of the dangers associated with the missions being undertaken and taking appropriate action to protect all members, especially cadets.
•The requesting agency sets the scope of CAP's response, subject to any restrictions set by the Air Force authority for Air Force-Assigned Missions. Our customers tell us what assistance they need. Our customers may have minimum age restrictions. CAP shall honor those restrictions. That does not mean that CAP adult officers should discourage use of our cadets especially when discussing our capabilities with external customers. A requesting agency's minimum age restriction or specific guidance may require that we utilize these younger members in supporting roles at their home units or in safe areas away from the forward operating location in order to comply with the agency's needs, or in limited circumstances to preclude cadets from participating.
•Cadets under the age of 18 are not provided the same benefits for Air Force- Assigned Missions as adult members. Additional information is available in paragraph 1-22, CAPR 900-5, The CAP Insurance/Benefits Program, Sections D and E, and through the NHQ CAP/GC.

[Flying Pig]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.  You added that to add drama to the discussion. However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense nor do cadets operate outside the direction and supervision of seniors.  There will always be a senior member who was ultimately responsible for that cadets participation. Have you ever been to an activity where cadets are present and where cadets act completely separate of seniors with no supervision?

[JeffDG]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

So oddly enough we establish a minimum age for GBD (18) but none for AOBD. So lets go to the regulations.

CAPR 60-3 1-10 para e
Use of qualified CAP cadets is encouraged as much as possible on appropriate missions. Cadets should be trained in the various functions of mission operations and support as permitted. Cadets qualify no differently than adult members in emergency services qualifications, and can be properly utilized in age-appropriate scenarios. Additional guidance for employing cadets on missions can be found on the NHQ CAP/DOS website.

So cadets qualify for ES positions "no differently than adults" So far so good.

Assuming the reference to the NHQ CAP/DOS website is this http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/cadets-in-emergency-services/
A qualified senior member must directly supervise cadets less than 18 years of age. Cadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as ground team leaders, mission pilots, and several other positions of authority traditionally considered adult qualifications in accordance with applicable SQTRs, but cadet protection policies must be followed. If adult members are assigned to a team in a subordinate position to a cadet, the adult member may exercise command authority if necessary to avoid extreme risks endangering the team.

So the theoretical cadet AOBD can qualify and have senior members subordinate to him.

So should a cadet be authorized thru the wing ES staff to qualify as AOBD and I, as an IC, select him (or her) for my staff I would expect the air crews to follow their orders exactly the same as if the AOBD was 25, 55, 75 or 105. That would include the option to decline a tasking if they feel it is unsafe.

Personally I suspect the number of cadets that would get there would be few and far between. I'm thinking 19 to 20 and wearing diamonds (plural), enough PIC time to qual as a MP.

[JeffDG]

So oddly enough we establish a minimum age for GBD (18) but none for AOBD. So lets go to the regulations.

While there is no explicit minimum age for an AOBD, there is an effective minimum age of 18.  Prerequisites for AOBD are either MP or MO, both of have a prerequisite of MS, which as a prerequisite age of 18.

[Flying Pig]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Not even the same issue.   

[Flying Pig]

That's the FAA taking action on a certificate.  Being a member of CAP is irrelevant in your scenario.

[JeffDG]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Not even the same issue.

You said "a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense "

FAA certificate actions are, most definitely, "a legal sense".  Far more "legal" than any CAP regulatory infractions will ever be.  And, again, you've yet to cite your regulatory authority for your assertion, while Phil Hirons, Jr has clearly provided citations that contradict your assertion.

[Flying Pig]

Their status with the FAA has no bearing with their membership in CAP.

[JeffDG]

Their status with the FAA has no bearing with their membership in CAP.

Regardless, their status with the FAA is certainly a liability that they have in "a legal sense" to use your words.

Also, what happens if you issue property to a cadet who is 18-20 years old and they, through negligence, lose or damage it?  CAPR 174-1 (2-15c) only requires parental co-signature for cadets under 18, so certainly, a cadet over 18 can be assessed for negligence in such matters, and that's certainly a "CAP consequence" that attaches to a cadet.

Still waiting for that citation of yours.

[Flying Pig]

So you really don't understand the context of a cadet making a decision as an AOBD vs a cadet making a mistake as an FAA rated pilot resulting in damage?

[JeffDG]

So you really don't understand the context of a cadet making a decision as an AOBD vs a cadet making a mistake as an FAA rated pilot resulting in damage?

You're the one who claimed that cadets can never be held responsible, in a legal sense.  I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of your assertion.

You persist in sticking to this Old Wive's Tale that cadets cannot ever command seniors, and after repeated requests, you cannot back it up with a citation.  Citations to the contrary have been provided, yet you stick to your OWT.

[Flying Pig]

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

[JeffDG]

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

Stick to your OWT.

[Flying Pig]

There ya go. 

[JeffDG]

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

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

[SarDragon]

OK, kids, back it down. The OP is probably gone, and you've turned this into a urinating competition.

[Flying Pig]

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

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

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

[JeffDG]

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

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

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

Yet, that's the standard where a subordinate senior can step in and exercise command discretion...why is it different?

[Flying Pig]

That Reg specifically denotes "adult member" when subordinate in position to a cadet.  Not member over riding member.  The fact that they specify the relationship of adult vs cadet is the key.

[JeffDG]

That Reg specifically denotes "adult member" when subordinate in position to a cadet.  Not member over riding member.  The fact that they specify the relationship of adult vs cadet is the key.

The Adult-Cadet relationship is incidental to that rule.  The "extreme risk" is the key phrase there, but stick to your OWT.

[Larry Mangum]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Jeff, you are arguing FAA Rules versus CAP rules, they are not the same thing and you know it.

[Flying Pig]

Is there any Reg that states a cadet member can exercise "command authority" over an adult member regardless of whether or not that cadet is in a subordinate portion to the senior where they took steps to specify membership status?   Seriously, I don't know.  In this case I read it as CAP ultimately giving an adult a legal way out from command of a cadet as well as granting that adult the command authority to take control.  But not the other way around.

[JeffDG]

Is there any Reg that states a cadet member can exercise "command authority" over an adult member regardless of whether or not that cadet is in a subordinate portion to the senior where they took steps to specify membership status?   Seriously, I don't know.  In this case I read it as CAP ultimately giving an adult a legal way out from command of a cadet as well as granting that adult the command authority to take control.  But not the other way around.

So, now you're arguing that if a Senior Member orders you to do something that is "extremely risky", you are obligated to follow that order, but if a cadet does so, you're not?

You just made the case for only having cadets in positions like branch director to preserve the ability of members to avoid extremely risky taskings.

[JeffDG]

Nowhere did I ever say it can't happen.

Really?

Can you cite where CADETS in CAP are authorized to make command decisions over Senior Members?

And I've cited circumstances where that is explicitly authorized, as well as implicitly authorized.

However a cadet will never be held liable in CAP for decisions in a legal sense

And I've asked, and you've failed to provide, a citation for that assertion.

<<Editted to add>>
In fact, if a cadet MP prangs an airplane, will it be the Senior member observer who is subject to legal action by the FAA?  Will that Observer have to undergo an 44709 ride with the FAA, or will the cadet MP who was the PIC for the flight be subject to liability in the legal sense for his/her decisions as PIC?

Jeff, you are arguing FAA Rules versus CAP rules, they are not the same thing and you know it.

I'm arguing "in a legal sense" which is the standard proposed by FP.  I've also cited CAP rules that say that Cadets can have authority over senior members, and that cadets can be held responsible in CAP for negligent content.

Flying Pig on the other hand has cited nothing but repetition of an OWT.

[Flying Pig]

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

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

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

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

[JeffDG]

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

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

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

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

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

[Storm Chaser]

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

[Flying Pig]

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

[abdsp51]

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

[SarDragon]

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

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

[Storm Chaser]

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

[Alaric]

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

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

[Storm Chaser]

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

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

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

[Full time cadet]

Interesting debates here......

Somethings I want to say.

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

[RogueLeader]

Interesting debates here......

Somethings I want to say.

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

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

[Storm Chaser]

Interesting debates here......

Somethings I want to say.

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

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

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

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

[SarDragon]

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

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

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

[SARDOC]

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

Why?

[SARDOC]

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

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

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

[SarDragon]

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

[SARDOC]

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

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

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

[Flying Pig]

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

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

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

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

[Tim Day]

The citations from cadet protection policy, just to clarify:

CAPR 52-10, 1-2g:

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

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

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

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

Full Time Cadet,

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps,

[Garibaldi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim Day]

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

Concur, although I'd stop at the cadet was wrong. A smart C/Lt Col would phrase his order in the form of a courteous request, given that there was no real time-critical obedience required. Just for practice and overall respect, even as a SM Lt Col I usually phrase orders to juniors as a polite request. "C/CMSgt Smith, would you please take the post at the west end of the runway?"

If there's any question about options, I can always clear that up in the ensuing discussion. But, by the time someone passes their Eaker they should have a working grasp of basic military courtesies.

I agree with your likely scenarios as well, and hope they'd all be part of the curriculum for our cadet AOBD-trainee. I have to say though, I could see some 55-yo MPs questioning a 45-yo AOBD the same way...

[Brit_in_CAP]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field.

A most excellent book

:clap: :clap:

Read it or the first time many years ago, and I've read it regularly since.

Like Panzebjorn said, if you're read the book you probably despise the movie...I certainly do!

[THRAWN]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field.

A most excellent book

:clap: :clap:

Read it or the first time many years ago, and I've read it regularly since.

Like Panzebjorn said, if you're read the book you probably despise the movie...I certainly do!

The two versions share little aside from the title. The film series was entertaining. Had the feel of the story as well as Rick Shelley's DMC series. (If you've never read those, get the set. Might run you about $10 from Amazon or HPB)

[winterg]

This thread reminds of the chapter in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when Rico was a cadet at OCS and had to be given the probationary, temporary, and supernumerary rank of Third Lieutenant because a cadet cannot give an order in the field.

A most excellent book

:clap: :clap:

Read it or the first time many years ago, and I've read it regularly since.

Like Panzebjorn said, if you're read the book you probably despise the movie...I certainly do!

The two versions share little aside from the title. The film series was entertaining. Had the feel of the story as well as Rick Shelley's DMC series. (If you've never read those, get the set. Might run you about $10 from Amazon or HPB)

If they had changed the title of Starship Troopers to Imperial Guard vs Tyranids, it would be one of my all time favorite movies. But, no.

[Panzerbjorn]

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

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

There is a big difference between having the authority to do something and letting your ego get the better of you and think that you can just order people around like they're C/ABs at an encampment.  Cadets don't ORDER Seniors to do anything.  They REQUEST.  While I was finishing my GTL qualification, a cadet instructor came up and gruffly demanded that I give him a Tracker I was carrying.

"Pardon me?"

"Give me the Tracker!"

"It's dark out, cadet, perhaps you're unaware you're addressing a superior officer?"

He stood his ground one more time, thinking his position as an instructor overrides basic customs and courtesies.  I gave him another chance to realize the error of his ways, and he relented.  He had every right to take the Tracker, and every right to give me instructions on what he wanted me to do.  But regardless of the position that cadet is in, he didn't have the right to ignore the basic courtesy that all cadets are expected to show senior members. 

In your case, the idea that this cadet stood his ground all the way up to reporting you to the IC for insubordination is laughable, and I'm glad to hear the IC straightened him out and made him see the error of his ways.

Most senior members won't blink an eye and do what a cadet asks them to do if they are ASKED to do it.

[thebeggerpie]

 Sounds like Cadets get big-headed with a lil bit of power. Well, some cadets at least.

[THRAWN]

Sounds like Cadets get big-headed with a lil bit of power. Well, some cadets at least.

'Cause that would never happen with a SM...or National Commander...

It's a failure in the cadet's leadership, not just in the cadet. People tend to emulate what they see and do what they are allowed to get away with. If you don't teach cadets, or seniors, how to be effective instructors or leaders, they won't be. If those lessons aren't reinforced consistently and constantly, that also leads to failure.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sounds like Cadets get big-headed with a lil bit of power. Well, some cadets at least.

'Cause that would never happen with a SM...or National Commander...

It's a failure in the cadet's leadership, not just in the cadet. People tend to emulate what they see and do what they are allowed to get away with. If you don't teach cadets, or seniors, how to be effective instructors or leaders, they won't be. If those lessons aren't reinforced consistently and constantly, that also leads to failure.

I'd usually agree, but I've also seen some type A personalities that were simply "like that" with zero chance of being fixed by a lowly CAP Captain with almost as much CAP time as the cadet had walking on two feet.

[THRAWN]

Sounds like Cadets get big-headed with a lil bit of power. Well, some cadets at least.

'Cause that would never happen with a SM...or National Commander...

It's a failure in the cadet's leadership, not just in the cadet. People tend to emulate what they see and do what they are allowed to get away with. If you don't teach cadets, or seniors, how to be effective instructors or leaders, they won't be. If those lessons aren't reinforced consistently and constantly, that also leads to failure.

I'd usually agree, but I've also seen some type A personalities that were simply "like that" with zero chance of being fixed by a lowly CAP Captain with almost as much CAP time as the cadet had walking on two feet.

True, but if they're "like that", are they truly being successful in the program?

[Storm Chaser]

The more I read these posts and different opinions, the more I'm convinced of how diluted our qualifications are. In the military, an officer doing similar functions to that of an Air Operations Branch Director would normally be a Maj or Lt Col with 11-20+ years of experience and hundreds to thousands of flight hours. Yet, some are arguing here about how a cadet with a fraction of that experience can be an effective AOBD. And just to be clear, inexperienced senior members shouldn't be qualified as AOBD either.

Other agencies have similar high standards and it can take years to reach those qualifications and assignments. Branch Directors and Section Chiefs should be experienced personnel in those areas. Yet we qualified people to the bare minimum, even if they can't really do the job effectively when it's really needed. Just because someone is a great Logistics Officer, doesn't mean they can be an effective Logistics Section Chief (although that's not even a prerequisite for this qualification). And just because someone is a great Mission Observer or Mission Pilot, doesn't meant they're going to make a good AOBD.

How can external agencies take us seriously if our training and qualification standards are so low?

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I second this opinion.

[Flying Pig]

How can external agencies take us seriously if our training and qualification standards are so low?

Ive been on missions where on Monday I was flying as a CAP pilot.... and on Tuesday, I was flying on the same mission as an LE pilot.  It can be interesting explaining to your work partners why CAP does what they do.  But I guess its a give and take.  yes, people get offended when people say "We are volunteers"   That not an excuse to be unprofessional or lower standards, however CAP also cant make their requirements so high that they price themselves right out of the business. 

[Storm Chaser]

I don't disagree. Requirements need to be practical and attainable. That said, in theory a member can become a MS at a SAREX, an MO at another one, and an AOBD at a third one. Of course, in many wings that wouldn't fly. But since the regulation doesn't quite prohibit it, it can not only be done, but it actually does happen. A GBD doesn't even have to be a GTL anymore, but only UDF qualified. There's not even a requirement for a member to have experience as a UDF team leader, so someone (at least in theory) can go from being a UDF team member to being a GBD. I can keep going on and on about this, but I think I've made my point.

It's up to the commanders at each echelon to determine who can do what (that's what the commander approval on the SQTR is for), but in practice (I've seen it many times) members get qualified in some of these specialties because they can, not because they should. Most tasks are simple enough to do and can be completed outside of a mission. And because there's no requirement on a specific type or size of mission, the exercise participation is not only subjective, but lacks standardization. For example, an AOBD can be qualified while managing 10 aircraft or one, three sorties or 15; there's no specific requirement. Because it's up to the skills evaluator and each commander or designee to decide whether someone is ready or not, members get qualified in some of these positions while being held to different standards depending on unit, group or wing.