TIME TO BRING BACK THE "TYPE B" ENCAMPMENT in Large Wings

[Major Carrales]

Sorry folks...I think we need to bring back an encampment alternative.   More later...but, please comment now.

[jeders]

Or if not the Type B, at least offer multiple encampments in the giant states like Texas and California. Group 1 in TXWG is nearly as big geographically as some regions. Of course this is why we encourage our cadets to go to NM instead for encampment.

Of course even smaller "group" encampments face large problems. A wing only has so many people willing and able to staff an encampment. So by making smaller encampments, you spread your available talent out too much. You also lose much of your standardization.

Although, if we were able to cut the size of an encampment in TXWG by more than half, it would be possible to get them back onto AF bases.

[lordmonar]

Okay......I know that used to be a type A and type B Encampments....but what was the difference....and what does that mean to our cadets and their advancement in the cadet program?

i.e.  what is the porblem that bringing back the type B would solve?

[ßτε]

Essentially, a Type A was held at a USAF facility for a continuous period not to exceed 14 days. A Type B was anything else that satisfied the requirements, that is not at an AF facility and/or not for a continuous period. The requirements were essentially the same except that Type A required 10 hours in visitations at the base.  This was substituted with an Aerospace Education requirement, including an aerospace facility tour, for a Type B.

Source: CAPM 50-16, 2 February 1978

[PA Guy]

The most significant difference was the Type A was done over a period of a week+.  The Type Bs were usually done in a weekend format.  That option is still available.  As previously mentioned the big issue is finding trained and willing staff.  An encampment should be more than a long squadron meeting.

[Eclipse]

Agree.

We've been doing it for 21 years.  No need for a different type, or opening up the discussion of one being better then the other, just make the curriculum fit and run with it.

[Major Carrales]

Okay......I know that used to be a type A and type B Encampments....but what was the difference....and what does that mean to our cadets and their advancement in the cadet program?

i.e.  what is the porblem that bringing back the type B would solve?

The problem, which will be elaborated more upon by me in time as per it's real world details develop, is the distance involved in a large Wing for travel makes attendance logistically cumbersome, whereas having a smaller "GROUP LEVEL" encampment would provide 1) more opportunity for attendance by cadets challenged by travel issues/extra financing required for gas et al, 2) smaller encampments for  use at smaller facilities and 3) potentially more control over scheduling (since Wings do not control when these things can happen or can get bumped out of these facilities at the last moment causing confusion, waste of effort and a damaging of credibility.

Encampment should be centrally located in places where cadets have an opportunity to attend.  They should not be obstacles to advancement or put cadets, parents and squadrons "out" trying to get them there.  They should occur more often, the large size precludes available times.

Group Level Encampments should be an option to those willing to put them on.  They should be of the week long type.

These are real issues. 

Preemptive points...
By the way, before it is asserted here...there is no requirement in the regs that cadet travel over 500 plus miles to attend an encampment.  There is also no requierment that everything has to be a finiacial "sacrifice."  There is, however, a requirement to attend and encampment.   Some will mention Scout Camps, however, more than one Scout camping acivity is offered, and in local proximity, for those to attend.  Thus making advancement and badging actually possible.

[Spaceman3750]

Why not do a TXWG East and TXWG West? Illinois already does that to some extent (though it's not explicit about it) where you have ILWG Spring in North Chicago and ILWG Summer in Springfield.

[lordmonar]

From my read of 52-16.....an "encampment" can be hosted at any level (squadron, group, region, national)....it just requires wing (or higher) approval.

The regs already allow for the week end option...I myself used that option when I was commanding an overseas squadron.

Yes it is not the same as a "regular" encampment....but 90% of the stuff that goes on at regular encampments are not even mandated by regulations.

I know that TX is a big state and travel is a pain....so I don't see any real reason why you can't hold group level encampments.....except that it means you are going to have to do several of them with typical duplication of effort.

So with that said....if you can find local faclities, local staff, etc.....then go for it.

Personally.....I think that we should go the other direction....we should regionalise our encampments.
We should find a facilty that could run all summer long and hold week long sessions....that not only include "encampment" activities but also mini-NSCAs (NESA, HGA, PFA, GFA, etc).  UNITs go to "encampment" as a unit...but first timers go to the "basic" program and returning cadets could sign up for one (or more) of the other programs.

Staff would be "hired" for the entire summer where possible.
Logistic issues could be shared by nearby units join up and going to encampment at the same time (i.e. it is hard to get 15 cadets to encampment....too many for the CAP vans not enough to hire a commercial bus...but two or three units joining forces could share the costs of a bus.

We save money as CAP by economy of scale.....setting up 50 different facilities for a week each is more expensive then setting up 8 facilities for 8 weeks.

Finding staff would be harder (at least on the senior side) but could be off set by having permanant cadet staff and rotate our the seniors as they come available.

YMMV.

But back to the OP......if you can find the support for it locally.....go for it.

[Pylon]

Joe, as has been stated, there are encampments already which are sponsored/hosted by Groups and encampments which are run over the course of successive weekends.  The designator of "Type A" and "B" went away, but the ability to format the schedule of encampments as such did not go away.  It's still do-able.

If you have a Group who is willing to play host and arrange such an activity, then I'd say pull together a proposal and get approvals up the chain to Wing.  It's that easy (okay, actually nothing about encampment planning is easy, but you get my point ).

[a2capt]

Distance isn't always a definer of cost, though.

For example, in trying to get cadets interested in HIWG encampment the absolute first thing I heard was "it costs to get there.. I can go a couple states away.. "

So, would you believe it costs less to get to HNL than it cost to get to Dayton, to the tune of about $100 less airfare $500-vs-$600, from Southern California?

But wait, before you say .. "well, Dayton isn't a (fill in your word here) destination"..  Yup, like Montgomery, AL. Or like, hey, Paris, TX.  Except that DFW is really the only option there, and while DFW might mean a cheaper flight, someones gotta foot some gasoline to get 'em to PRX. Or goes Great Lakes or some weed whacker airline fly to PRX? ... which of course would jack up the fare.

My point is, most encampments are probably not held near a metro area. The last two CAWG ones were at Camp Pendleton, a lot closer to many transportation options than SLO town.  A lot less central, too.

I'm kinda backing up your argument I guess, too. Point is, you either live close to one, or not. Your wing, or someone else's, as you say, you're near ELP? Great, NMWG Encampment is closer. There's probably 35-40 encampment options a year, with the bulk of them in the Winter or Summer, for obvious reasons. If you drop the Wing barrier mentality and pick the closest one, or if you have to travel, look further than just yours. If you decide an airline trip is in the cards, it may be cheaper to "way over there" than just right over two states.

Even the weekend scheduled one means you've now got to block out three weekends, or four, you've got several round trips to one place, might as well pool all that together and find a cheap flight and just do it.  The senior members, the cadet staff, all of it. Unless of course, you've got such a large unit that you could run your own encampment, with your Wing backing you, since it has to be a wing level activity.

[Spaceman3750]

You know, it's only 8 hours to the LA wing encampment instead of 12 :angel:.

[Major Carrales]

You know, it's only 8 hours to the LA wing encampment instead of 12 :angel:.

I know....Brownsville is going and I would send some of mine but they are full and it it too LATE!!!! 

[lordmonar]

well...when we did the weekend encampment....it was local...no travel.  In that case the issue was a "continous  block of time" for the staff.

And when you are talking about travel.....a lot depends on where you are and where you are going....HIWG, PRWG, AKWG, and the overseas squadrons are pretty much screwed if it is not local (or semi local).

Here in NV 80% of the cadets are down in the LV metro area....but the encampment is in Reno....8 hours away by car or $100 by plane.  Going to CA, AZ, or UT is farther away.

My idea for regional encampments would start with CAP getting a full time facility like those at PAWG or NESA or Oshkosh, that could handle say 200-300 cadets at a time.  Run it for 8-10 weeks (2d week of June-3rd week of Aug)...8 regions means that means there are at least 64 encamampent opportunites.  Someone can't go the week your squadron is going they can go another week.  Squadrons can mix it up over the years and go to another regions encampment.

Benifits:
More encampment opportunities.
Better standardisation between training programs....it is easer to get 8 training programs on the same sheet of music then it is to get 50. (eliminate those bozos with the smokey bear hats or want their encampments to be FMJ wannabees)
If we spend money on buying and maintaining permanant training facilities we could use them year round for other training events. (RCS, RCOS, Regional NESA, NCC, winter/spring/fall encampments, regional conferences, NCSAs).
Reduced costs due to economy of scale.

Cons:
More up front costs.
Staffing would be more difficult.
Travel costs would increase for most squadrons/individuals.

[Spaceman3750]

I say request a couple of GA8's and turn them into people movers .

Or military o-flights to and from, maybe out of Lackland?

I know *getting there* wasn't exactly the objective of the thread, but it's worth discussing.

[lordmonar]

I say request a couple of GA8's and turn them into people movers .

Or military o-flights to and from, maybe out of Lackland?

I know *getting there* wasn't exactly the objective of the thread, but it's worth discussing.

Cheaper rent buses. 

[a2capt]

Cheaper rent buses. 

With NON-CAP member drivers 

[Major Carrales]

My idea for regional encampments would start with CAP getting a full time facility like those at PAWG or NESA or Oshkosh, that could handle say 200-300 cadets at a time.  Run it for 8-10 weeks (2d week of June-3rd week of Aug)...8 regions means that means there are at least 64 encamampent opportunites.  Someone can't go the week your squadron is going they can go another week.  Squadrons can mix it up over the years and go to another regions encampment.

Benifits:
More encampment opportunities.
Better standardisation between training programs....it is easer to get 8 training programs on the same sheet of music then it is to get 50. (eliminate those bozos with the smokey bear hats or want their encampments to be FMJ wannabees)
If we spend money on buying and maintaining permanant training facilities we could use them year round for other training events. (RCS, RCOS, Regional NESA, NCC, winter/spring/fall encampments, regional conferences, NCSAs).
Reduced costs due to economy of scale.

Cons:
More up front costs.
Staffing would be more difficult.
Travel costs would increase for most squadrons/individuals.

One solution to the issue I am talking about it FACILITIES.

I agree with Wings having their own training centers.  Facilities that would handle an encampment or other training could be maintained in a variety of ways with several benefits.

1) The facility is under the control of CAP, right now Texas is having a major problem with it's encampment...either paying an "ALERT ACADEMY" huge fees for use or dealing with the cancellation of the activities or the Texas National Guard and other deployment related activities that cancel or move the encampment.  Having it's own facility would mean an end to last minute cancellations, postponments and having to movie around due to other peopke's schedules.

2) The facility can be leased out to other organizations for other training to pay for upkeep.  Imagine all the IS 300 and 400 classes that could be held there as well as other training that related organizations might do there.

3) Tailor made facilities that meet CAP needs.


While I support that idea of local encampments as a solution to the issues I am dealing with...having a steady centralized place that met all the needs of an encampment would be great.

[NCRblues]

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark... and say that your idea stems from the "on oh wait off oh wait on again" antics of TXWG for this summers encampment?

[Eclipse]

As with everything, the first question is, who pays for this?

A large number (most?) encampments run their activities at-cost, and rely on infrastructure and activities benevolently provided by the military.

The types of building and facilities we're discussing, billeting for 150-200+ people (with gender segregation), mess halls, etc., would cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, especially if you include the land, have annual operating costs that would exceed the operating budgets of most
wings, and would require full-time staff to maintain.

Now, you could go full-on roughing it, say a helicopter hanger or large outbuildings, but that's not what cadets are looking for in an encampment - this isn't NESA or HMRS, there's full curriculum to meet, and that requires classrooms, internet, not to mention conditioned air, etc.   The first year or so
you'll get plenty of interest, and then by year 3, when the word gets out that everyone had to mow the lawn and mend the fences before PT every morning, your numbers will drop to nothing.

Then there's the need.  TXWG, and a couple of others, might be in a unique crunch, but in most wings, less than 1/3 of the cadet population in any given year cares enough about encampments to be involved, and whether by chance or design, most wing encampment schedules tend to normalize to the need.  There are people in my wing who believe a third encampment is a good idea, but no one has been able to show the demographics that would support it, because frankly it would be a subset of the "same 200" and by the third dance in a calendar year, most members are ready for the Fall break, not another large activity.  (Remember the "more people" discussions?)

That's a huge part of the equation - staff, both senior and cadet.  Encampments take 6-months to prep, and are basically in process over the course of the entire year.  Adding facilities and dates won't add experienced people capable or willing to staff additional large-scale activities.  Again, in most wings, the "A-Teams" tend to normalize around the scale and the activities, which means you'll be drilling into the "B-Teams" at best, not to mention
the "uninvited" from the other encampments who see a new opportunity to get involved and cause issues.

Now you have the activities.  Everything fun is still deployed, that's changing, but then the draw-downs are eating a lot of the extras - that means
Military O-rides and other "cool" stuff, the things that get cadets back year-to-year, are scarce, especially for "new" activities.  Finding a place to sleep
and eat isn't generally enough - you need a few mil-spec things to do to round out the experience and keep cadets coming back.  Again, an encampment
that turns into a military academy with nothing fun to do is a risk as a 1-year activity.

As Lord says, anyone can host an encampment, but ultimately they are wing-level activities that have to be vetted and approved by the LRADO.
Weekend encampments are a good solution for the problem, because they can usually take advantage of facilities that might be full during the week,
and they can be held while school is in session, but they come with their own pitfalls.

Cramming the 40 hours into 2 weekends is a Herculean challenge, especially if you don't control the whole schedule (which you usually don't on a military base).    Then there's the safety issues of having participants drive a long way 4 times in a seven-day period, which usually equals a limitation on travel distance.  Over 6 hours on the drive becomes very difficult to manage on the in-bound day, and dangerous on the way home.

Not to mention the logistics of double the in -process / contraband inspections, etc.  Worse still is your venue doesn't let you leave things in place mid-week.

Adding the third week is almost a non-starter, since few adults can give away 3 weekends in a row to CAP, and you inevitably lose cadets along the way to attention span and family.

I don't know what the fix for this is - perhaps the Sea and Army Cadet models of large, annual, required training is the way to go.  National Facilities
would be easier to maintain and fund, but it's still a big proposition.