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.

[Ned]

I have spent a fair amount of time trying to create a viable financial model for one or more "CAP encampment facilities," and have not been able to come close to a sustainable model.

Bob is correct that trying to build a facility with housing, classrooms, admin space, etc. for 150+ folks is a half-million dollar plus effort.  Short of the Appropriations Fairy making a surprise visit, there are simply no availble resources for one, let alone eight.

So I spent some time trying to work the problem starting with "inherited buildings," say after a full or partial base closure.  I actually spent a lot of hours working with the Fort Ord Reutilization crew, and lesser amounts talking to the authorities about March and Castle AFBs.

The first problems come with the fact that repurposed buildings come with a lot of deferred maintenance, old infrastructure, and things like asbestos.  The Ford Ord project was a fairly typical example.  They were perfectly willing to donate 4 barracks buildings, a dining hall, and an admin building to CAP.  But, we would have to pay for asbestos abatement and bring them into ADA accessibility standards before we could take possession. 

Yes, we were going to have to put wheelchair ramps and elevators into open bay barracks buildings built during WWII.  And they seemed to have asbestos insulation and floor tiles.  We could not do "self-help" asbestos abatement; you have to hire a certified contractor.

But even if I could have talked them out of all that, we would have had to repair roofs and find one or more people who could operate the tempramental boilers used since 1942 for heat and hot water. 

And regular maintenance (cleaning, mowing the lawns, etc) 24/7/52 was also going to be a challenge.  Short of hiring a mantenance crew, it got tricky.

The final problems came with trying to envision keeping the facility active enough to begin to pay for it through reasonable user fees.  Let's say you could run 7-8 weeks of CAP activities each summer (several encampments, a couple of RCLS, various other schools, etc) and say 26 other weekends during the year, the buildings are still going to sit idle 70% of the time, while still requiring power, at least a minimal amount of heat, etc.

I thought about renting it out to other youth groups, but they typically will want to use it at the same time we do - heavily during the summer and a few weekends throughout the year.

I just could never make the numbers work.  Maybe someone smarter than me can do it.

[lordmonar]

Hey Ned!  Don't be raining on my pipe dream with real numbers and things!   

[Eclipse]

We've had the same issue locally with old buildings - generally the reason they are available is because of maintenance or other
issues like asbestos.  If the buildings were really serviceable, they'ed still be in use.

The tax laws that don't allow landlords to get any benefit unless they actually give us the building doesn't help that either.

[ProdigalJim]

Eclipse and Ned are both right, and make fair points.

That said, why do we limit our thinking on these things to pay-as-you-go models or surprise visits from the Appropriations Fairy (luv that term by the way  )?

I ask the above in sincerity, not snark, honest. If we decide there's a problem to solve of some scale...and this thread suggests that while not ALL wings face this issue, enough do to make it a real issue...why not seek to create a dedicated capital fund, for the sole purpose of creating and maintaining permanent, multi-purpose/multi-mission facilities in a few locations around the country?

Solicit corporate and philanthropic contributions to get it started, use the benevolent character of the mission as a main selling point, and the make the capital fund can invest so it can spin off money to help subsidize (a little) continuing operations.

A multi-use facility could attract not only Foundation and corporate funds but potentially other kinds of State and perhaps even municipal funding streams (ops center, staging area, disaster relief cache, multi-agency training academy, etc.).

Yes, it's hard. Yes, it takes a long time. And yes, there would be upkeep. That's why you build in multiple annuity streams to offset appropriations vagaries. Scale in this case actually makes it more attractive to large funders, who want to have the widest possible effect.

[Eclipse]

Few large-scale benefactors are interested in contributing to capital funds, they want to see what you are doing with the money days after the checks clear, and are rarely interested in helping with operating expenses.

As to multi-use facilities, not a bad idea, but most agencies that would have the interest and funding can do it without CAP, and their needs and requirements wind up trumping ours. 

I'd also have to say that capital programs work against our model, which is to be a resource that takes advantage of existing resources and skills to
accomplish the mission.

[Ned]

why not seek to create a dedicated capital fund, for the sole purpose of creating and maintaining permanent, multi-purpose/multi-mission facilities in a few locations around the country?

Of course we could attempt that.  We have given that and similar approaches a lot of thought.

Then it simply becomes a resource allocation problem. 

If I could effectively raise a couple of million dollars (a fairly big "if"), is the currently successful encampment program where I would want to allocate that time and treasure?

IOW, if I could raise a couple of million dollars, do I want to spend that on some buildings and maintenance, or would I want to spend it on things like scholarships, paid CP staff at the local level, professional R&R spots, subsidising current CP costs for things like uniforms and supplies, or any of a hundred other worthy projects?

Or it might make a lot more sense to invest that couple of million dollars in an endowment and use the proceeds to provide needy cadets a subsidy on their transportation costs to encampment?

It's not that the volunteer leadership never thought of the idea, (because that is why we have staffers who identify, weigh, and recommend alternatives such as these), it's just that we cannot commit the fundraising resources necessary given the competing needs of the program.

Especially since the current encampment model is a fairly good fit with existing military resources.  Most encampments happen on an active or reserve military facility whose existing resources have excess capacity and are suited to what we do at encampment.  Sure, some wings don't have adequate military base support, and even in the ones that do we sometimes get bumped or less-than-optimal training windows.  But the encampment program is flexible enough to allow encampments in civilian facilities, and even done on weekends if necessary.

[mmizner]

FYI - There are three buildings at Nellis AFB that we could have for this type of thing.  We would have a cost to be able to use them but the buildings are there.  200 man per building and a DFAC across the yard.

Anyone got a few Million to donate.

[ol'fido]

Tp the best of my understanding, Type A and Type B encampments became Summer(or Winter) encampments and Weekend encampments merely because people used to refer to them as Class A and Class B encampments and there was the perception that this referred to the quality of the respective program. So in order to convey the fact that both had the same basic requirements and were of equal quality(in concept if not reality), the present terms were chosen.

Somebody, in a previous post said that 90% of what went on at encampments wasn't required by regulation. I take this to mean that you are including such activities as eating, sleeping, showering, etc. Because every encampment, no matter what type, must provide the 40 hours of instruction and classes specified in 52-16. I know. I am responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met at the ILWG Summer Encampment to the satisfaction of the CAP-RAPs and the SD.

Since 2003, we have hosted cadets at our encampment from all over the country. We had one cadet from PAWG who had to do an Amazing Race type of cross country jaunt to attend and turned out to be one of our outstanding cadets. We regularly have cadets from TX come up to our encampment. My assistant and one of our ATS instructors are from TXWG.

Every cadet should have a reasonable opportunity to attend an encampment that is within reasonable travel time from home, affordable, and that offers a quality program. In areas where this is not happening, that needs to be identified and a way found to fill in the gap. I know that when I was a cadet, we got to ride ANG buses to the encampment but that is a long shot these days. Units can help with scholarships and COV travel, but, ultimately, it is the cadet's responsibility to get to the activity and I don't see a way to change that.

[Dad2-4]

Just a quick note:
Due to unavoidable scheduling conflicts with the Texas ANG, the TXWG Summer Encampment has changed location and dates several times and will now be held at a location in the neighborhood of 530 miles away from Major Corrales' unit. Ouch.

[Eclipse]

Just a quick note:
Due to unavoidable scheduling conflicts with the Texas ANG, the TXWG Summer Encampment has changed location and dates several times and will now be held at a location in the neighborhood of 530 miles away from Major Corrales' unit. Ouch.

Ugh.

Assuming driving the speed limit, that's 8+ hours.  Further then I'd normally accept apps to ILWG Spring, and a safety and logistics issue at a minimum, especially on the ride home.  Even by plane that's a long GA flight, especially with no bathroom.

[tribalelder]

First, Illinois Wing's two weekend Spring Encampment works great.

In1969 and again in1988, Illinois Wing even conducted an encampments in the Chicago area on a commuter basis. 5 or 6 training days covered all the then-required course of training.  Cadets even packed their lunch, eliminating picky eater/religious/medical diet issues.  This approach does not achieve the cultural immersion of a 7 day residential approach, but the costs of participation are lower, staffing and planning workloads are MUCH  lower. 

In the 1988 encampment different facilities were utilized on different days.

[MajorM]

Replicating infrastructure that is already commercially available would be a poor use of funds.  In real life I develop community-type facilities like this for non-profits.  The utilization rate would need to be nearly continuous to make it feasible for a corporation like CAP to run.  You will never find sufficient capital to build one per wing... not even one per region.

Plus you don't need it.  There are many, many places out there with buildings and facilities that can handle an encampment.  Colleges, private schools, state/fed/local training facilities, etc... are all acceptable venues.  Do they lack the "military-feel"?  Yes.  Do they lack access to USAF or military specific activities and orientations?  Of course.  This makes them inferior to on-base options.  But in our current day scenario, with continued reduced funding for all facets of government, it's a reality we have to adapt to.

So then... how do we address the very real problem of facilities and encampments?  And it's not only a "big wing" problem.  Last year Wisconsin couldn't get into our only real facility so we ended up having to send cadets 8 hours away to Illinois or Minnesota.  Other years Wisconsin has had to use Camp Ripley in Minnesota.  And I remember being in Minnesota and having to go to Grand Forks (and have nightmares still of loading up 125 wooden footlockers from Fort McCoy in western Wisconsin, transporting them 500 miles one-way to Grand Forks, transporting them back, unloading them all by myself in 100 degree temps, and praying the whole time that none fo them got damaged as all 125 of them were signed out under my name).

Well... the problem with commercial facilities is primarily cost.  Therefore it becomes a revenue problem.  Local fundraising can be one solution.  Another solution could be direct subsidy of encampments by NHQ.  Where would that money come from?  Who knows... scale back a few NCSAs, reallocate dollars... I don't know, but where there's a will there's a way.

Encampment is only one of two (RCLS being the other) activities that we mandate cadets attend.  However the organization makes no direct investment into, what the regulation has made out to be, the flagship activity of the youth program.

I would also throw out that the cost of encampment may need to rise as well.  I know that's blasphemy... I've run many encampment in my CAP years.  I've always tried to keep the costs down.  First it was sub-$100.  Then it was keep it under $150.  But have you looked at the cost of similar youth camps?  $400, $500 is not unusual and that doesn't include transportation.  I'm NOT saying encampment should cost $400.  At the same time we may come to the point where we have to realize that $150-$200 for 7-8 days of in-resident camp isn't financially feasible.

This of course leads back to the argument for direct investment as part of NHQ programming.

[Al Sayre]

Maybe we need to change our facilities requirements.  Instead of looking for a "military type" venue, perhaps we should be looking at how the scouts do it.  They seem to be able to have and maintain a fairly large number of (admittedly rustic) facilities where they hold their versions of encampments all summer long, and make those facilities available to the various troops almost year round.  The facilities are generally maintained by a single caretaker who lives on site and is paid a small stipend in addition to his/her housing.  Maintenance and construction is augmented by the various troops or councils that use the facilities, frequently as weekend projects combined with a "camp-out" for the youth.  We don't necessarily need acres of pavement for drill, and open bay barracks for "the military feel".  A combined mess hall and meeting facility, some campground type bathrooms and showers would provide for the basics.  GP Tents or the classic 2 or 4 man cabin tents on pallets would round out the sleeping facilities.  I believe that FL Wing has held their winter encampments at one of these facilities in recent years, and when I was a cadet in FL Wing, we used to use the boy scout camp near Jupiter on a pretty regular basis.   Just something to think about.

[Spaceman3750]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

[Eclipse]

There aren't any facilities requirements, beyond the practical of hots & cots for however many attend.  There's nothing that says
it has to be on a military facility, but considering we are a military auxiliary, and most similar civilian facilities are cost prohibitive,
the choices are limited.

I don't see camping as an option.  A lot (too many IMHO) of our cadets have no interest in "roughing it", nor any relevant experience
in camping.  For the BSA, camping is kind of a core activity, and generally dad and/or mom are with the Scouts when they are younger.
A lot of our cadets suffer from "Couch Crease Syndrome", and have never been away from home overnight, an encampment is not
the place to do that, especially then there's a core curriculum which must be accomplished outside the "learning not to die" part of camping.

Add heat or rain, and you've got a potential disaster, not to mention a bunch of cadets who are going to want their money back when they find there's
no ribbon, because the Tornados canceled the activity.  In the BSA, or even NESA, that would just be an "awesome adventure".

[Al Sayre]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

Guessing you've never been to Disney World/Florida in the summer time...

[Major Carrales]

There aren't any facilities requirements, beyond the practical of hots & cots for however many attend.  There's nothing that says
it has to be on a military facility, but considering we are a military auxiliary, and most similar civilian facilities are cost prohibitive,
the choices are limited.

I don't see camping as an option.  A lot (too many IMHO) of our cadets have no interest in "roughing it", nor any relevant experience
in camping.  For the BSA, camping is kind of a core activity, and generally dad and/or mom are with the Scouts when they are younger.
A lot of our cadets suffer from "Couch Crease Syndrome", and have never been away from home overnight, an encampment is not
the place to do that, especially then there's a core curriculum which must be accomplished outside the "learning not to die" part of camping.

Add heat or rain, and you've got a potential disaster, not to mention a bunch of cadets who are going to want their money back when they find there's
no ribbon, because the Tornados canceled the activity.  In the BSA, or even NESA, that would just be an "awesome adventure".

I have done camping in our unit, I think that this would work for a bivouac style encampment if the scale is limited to about 40 to 50 cadets.  This would involve them cooking (flights would have to assign a camp cook and the like) we do that sort of thing often to get early starts on o-flights.

[Eclipse]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

Guessing you've never been to Disney World/Florida in the summer time...

Disney World has air conditioning, frosty drinks, and fun rides...

[Eclipse]

I have done camping in our unit, I think that this would work for a bivouac style encampment if the scale is limited to about 40 to 50 cadets.  This would involve them cooking (flights would have to assign a camp cook and the like) we do that sort of thing often to get early starts on o-flights.

That's my point - the logistics of living would get in the way of the required curriculum.

On most ES bivouacs I've been a part of, "hots and cots" become a focus of a large part of the day.  That would impede
an encampment since it has nothing to do with camping and little to do with ES.

[Spaceman3750]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

Guessing you've never been to Disney World/Florida in the summer time...

I have. At the end of the day there was an air conditioned hotel room to go back to and as Eclipse said there's lots of cool places to go when you get too hot.

[Extremepredjudice]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

How about sleeves down, gloves, and a 24 hr pack on? It gets really hot...

[Spaceman3750]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

How about sleeves down, gloves, and a 24 hr pack on? It gets really hot...

I've BTDT too, I'm aware. However, I still wouldn't put a 13 year old cadet in a situation where they will be exposed to 95 degree heat for a week with no relief.

[Eclipse]

I've BTDT too, I'm aware. However, I still wouldn't put a 13 year old cadet in a situation where they will be exposed to 95 degree heat for a week with no relief.

Try Mississippi in September.

I have no issues with the "heat + cadets", just not for an Encampment.

[Spaceman3750]

I've BTDT too, I'm aware. However, I still wouldn't put a 13 year old cadet in a situation where they will be exposed to 95 degree heat for a week with no relief.

Try Mississippi in September.

I have no issues with the "heat + cadets", just not for an Encampment.

Hey, you're the sucker that answered the phone .

I don't have an issue either in an ES context where the cadets are trained or in training, but like you I think encampment is a bad place for that.

[ol'fido]

You have to consider what you are trying to accomplish when choosing facilities for anything. If you just need someplace that provides 3 hots and a cot, you can go anywhere. The ILWG's Johnson Flight Academy is held on the EIU campus in Charleston, IL. Although the basic customs and courtesies are observed, the emphasis is on entry level flight training and not on emphasizing a military training atmosphere which is hand in glove what encampments are about.

CAP is not Army Ranger School. We are not trying to toughen up our cadets. We are trying to pass on knowledge and information. Having a room full of cadets that are zoning out because they couldn't get more than a couple of hours sleep due to extreme heat or cold is not the training environment you're looking for. Make learning the material and not enduring the conditions your focus. Several years ago, the ILWG Summer Encampment was held at the Marseilles Training Center, a ILARNG facility about an hour from Chicago. Only the BOQ rooms and the gym had AC. The prime focus and driver that week was the fact that temperatures were in the high 90's about every day. The heat was all anyone thought about. We still accomplished our goal but it was tough.

The last few years we have been in the Illinois Military Academy at Camp Lincoln in Springfield. Centrally located in the state, on a (all be it small) military post, excellent, comfortable facilities, and a very supportive ILARNG staff have made it the preferred destination of many wing activities. They are glad to have us if the facilities are not being used by the Guard or other state agencies( LE mostly) because we up their usage percentages. The Powers That Be don't care who uses it just as long as it gets used.

Hunt around and you can probably find a similar facility near you.

[Major Carrales]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

How about sleeves down, gloves, and a 24 hr pack on? It gets really hot...

I've BTDT too, I'm aware. However, I still wouldn't put a 13 year old cadet in a situation where they will be exposed to 95 degree heat for a week with no relief.

In South Texas, putting a 13 year old in a situation where they will be exposed to 95 degree heat for a week with no relief is referred to as living a week in the summer.  The key would be to regulate hydration and provide relief at periodic intervals.  I mean, when his area was settled in the 16th-early 20th century the heat was just as bad.

[rebowman]

NH and VT Wings are very fortunate to hold their encampment at Norwich University.   The only downside is the cost that Norwich charges us but it is a very high quality encampment.

[Extremepredjudice]

In places like Illinois, Indiana, and most southern states where summer could be mistaken for the gates of Hell, sleeping and messing in non-cooled areas is really not an option.

How about sleeves down, gloves, and a 24 hr pack on? It gets really hot...

I've BTDT too, I'm aware. However, I still wouldn't put a 13 year old cadet in a situation where they will be exposed to 95 degree heat for a week with no relief.

In South Texas, putting a 13 year old in a situation where they will be exposed to 95 degree heat for a week with no relief is referred to as living a week in the summer.  The key would be to regulate hydration and provide relief at periodic intervals.  I mean, when his area was settled in the 16th-early 20th century the heat was just as bad.

No sir. Temperatures were different.

See: http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html