Drill in PT and Blues?

[Reader5567]

Is there any specific regulation stating that drill cannot be performed while in a PT or Blues uniform?

[Eclipse]

No.   And if you think it through logically, if there were, NCC would be pretty short.

[Reader5567]

No.   And if you think it through logically, if there were, NCC would be pretty short.

Do you have a specific regulation stating that Drill can be performed in any uniform? I am composing an email to my DCC regarding issues in the squadron, and am  attempting to find sources I can cite.

[Eclipse]

Do you have a specific regulation stating that Drill can be performed in any uniform?

No, however you will not find one which prohibits it, either.  I can't imagine why anyone would say otherwise.
Granted there is no "PT uniform", per se, but D&C is a standard part of the CP and has been done in
Class "A" & "B" since John Curry was calling facing movements.

I suppose you could look at the NCC manual for their uniform info.

17 years and you think you've heard it all...

[Reader5567]

Thank you very much, sir. I was recently appointed Flight Commander and intend to fix all the issues in my squadron. (There are several)

[stillamarine]

Drilling in a PT uniform or blues is an issue?? You realize a formation run is a form of drill? Color Guard is a form of drill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NIN]

Drilling in Blues?

The photos in the manual tell all.

Even for double time.

[cnitas]

I once had a Squadron Commander inform me that it was unsafe to drill in the damp grass.  Someone might slip and fall.   We were in BDUs that night.   

[TheSkyHornet]

Curious to know what the issue was here that brought this up...

[Storm Chaser]

Do you have a specific regulation stating that Drill can be performed in any uniform?

No, however you will not find one which prohibits it, either.

I don't disagree with you. In fact, you're 100% correct. But this supports the counterargument that something not explicitly authorized in a regulation is automatically prohibited. In some cases, that is true. But as we can see here, that's not always the case.

[Eclipse]

It does, I understood the contradiction as I typed it.

The issue here is that CAP's regs are such a mess that pretty much anything is possible, interpretations abound, and
even when things "are" they aren't.

There isn't enough, really, to argue that all things authorized are only in the text, and there isn't
enough, really, to say the opposite, but we all know that CAP has never operated in an environment of "that which is not
prohibited is implicitly authorized", either as some would assert.  That would be the civilian world chaos.

Frankly, the question breaks my logic subsystem from both this perspective, and how it's actually a question to start with.

[Holding Pattern]

No.   And if you think it through logically, if there were, NCC would be pretty short.

Do you have a specific regulation stating that Drill can be performed in any uniform? I am composing an email to my DCC regarding issues in the squadron, and am  attempting to find sources I can cite.

AIR FORCE MANUAL 36-2203
20 NOVEMBER 2013

Section 7B—Parade Ceremony
7.3. Definition of a Parade. A parade is a review with honors. A parade is also a ceremony
within itself when respect is paid to the US Flag, as in retreat.
7.4. Suggested Checklist for Commander of Troops.
7.4.1. Establish the time, date, and place.
7.4.2. Determine the type of formation; that is, squadrons in mass or extended mass and
number of squadrons and groups.
7.4.3. Determine the type of ceremony, honors, or decorations.
7.4.4. Select who will perform in command positions and as color guard.
7.4.5. Mark the parade field, including the final line and line of march as shown in Figure
7.1
7.4.6. Make arrangements for the band and public address system. Communicate with flight
line personnel to coordinate flyovers, if desired.
7.4.7. Arrange for and hold practice, if needed.
7.4.8. Announce the uniform for the ceremony.
7.4.9. Arrange for the Colors appropriate to the grade of the reviewing officer

[Holding Pattern]

CAPP 52-4, February 2015

1-9. Uniform Requirements
Uniform requirements may vary year-to-year depending on the host facility's lodging situation. It is
conceivable that cadets will live in field conditions, in which case only BDUs may be required. If
"blues" are listed as the uniform of the day, cadets will wear ribbons, though "short stacks" are
permissible (see CAPM 39-1, 11.1.1.1.2). When participating in drill and ceremonies events, cadets will
wear a white shoulder cord on their left shoulder (if in blues) to recognize their status as members of
a drill team or color guard. Teams may wear a low-cost PT uniform of their choosing during the
appropriate events.

[Tim Day]

Thank you very much, sir. I was recently appointed Flight Commander and intend to fix all the issues in my squadron. (There are several)

I encourage you to start with a conversation with your Cadet Commander, if you have one, or your Deputy Commander for Cadets if you do not. The subject of the conversation should be the issues that he or she would like to fix, in priority order, in your Squadron. This issue may be on the list, if not, ask a question about it.

This way you are showing that you support your chain of command and respect the fact that they are accountable to their chain of command for Squadron issues. That also helps disarm any defensiveness they may have and you may be able to argue for a higher priority on this particular issue - or you may realize that other issues should be fixed first.

When you eventually become the one in command, you'll appreciate subordinate commanders who want to be part of your team and support your priorities. The reason we have one Commander is because sometimes the relative importance of issues are a matter of opinion or perspective, and it helps the team when one person can be the ultimate priority-setter.

Lastly, I think it's excellent that you have a list of issues you'd to fix in your Squadron. Evaluating your team's effectiveness is something that leaders do. The best way to approach that is a subject for life-long learning.

[dwb]

The issue here is that CAP's regs are such a mess that pretty much anything is possible, interpretations abound, and even when things "are" they aren't.

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear? Especially as it pertains to OP's concerns?

Note that not everything allowable under CAP regulations is a good idea. There is no uniform prescribed for basic drill, but I would advise against doing it in stiletto heels. You need sound judgment in addition to the regulatory framework. I think OP can make a compelling argument that any clothing good enough to be the UOD (including PT gear) is appropriate to wear for 15 minutes of drill practice.

[Storm Chaser]

The issue here is that CAP's regs are such a mess that pretty much anything is possible, interpretations abound, and even when things "are" they aren't.

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

[NIN]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

"Can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear? Especially as it pertains to OP's concerns?"

Ready? Go!

[Storm Chaser]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

"Can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear? Especially as it pertains to OP's concerns?"

Ready? Go!

Regarding the OP's concerns? No, there's nothing unclear about that. I never said there was. You're welcomed to reread my posts on the matter.

Are there regulatory guidance that may be unclear (at least enough to generate debate and different interpretations)? Absolutely. In fact, a few discussed here in CAP Talk come to mind.

For example, the criteria for the Community Service Ribbon has some believing it applies to community service while a CAP member only, while others believe it can be applied to any community service, regardless of when it happened. Some believe that if the community service is done as part of another organization's requirement then it shouldn't be credited for the ribbon in CAP. Others disagree. Meanwhile, the regulation is too vague on the matter other than stating it requires 60 hours of community service outside of CAP. What constitutes creditable community service is not defined.

Another example is the criteria for the Red Service Ribbon and it's clasps. Some believe it should be active service, while others believe it doesn't matter as long as the member was paying his or her annual dues. Again, the regulation is not clear on the intent of this ribbon. Are we rewarding paying annual dues or active service and contributions to CAP?

The Air SAR, DR, and CD Ribbons also come to mind. We've had discussions about what constitutes a sortie for purposes of these awards. Some believe that each SAR sortie must be at least 4 hours to count, while others believe that any sortie should count even if less than 4 hours and that 4.1 should count for 2 sorties instead of 1. Some believe that a relocation sortie should count as well, while others believe only sorties executing the mission should count.

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

[Tim Day]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

[Holding Pattern]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

More specifically:

5.2. Introductory Communications Users Training (ICUT). The initial training for all CAP
personnel using CAP radios is the Introductory Communications User's Training (ICUT).

Some people like to think that they can initially train on SQTRs instead of doing ICUT first.

[RogueLeader]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

More specifically:

5.2. Introductory Communications Users Training (ICUT). The initial training for all CAP
personnel using CAP radios is the Introductory Communications User's Training (ICUT).

Some people like to think that they can initially train on SQTRs instead of doing ICUT first.

Playing Devil's advocate, is that stated in  CAPR 60-3?  If not, there is no basis for requiring ICUT prior to training in an SQTR.

[NC Hokie]

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

That's easy, just eliminate the word unsupervised in your quoted text.

Follow that up by removing any individual radio tasks from the SQTRs and move ICUT from the Advanced Training sections to the Familiarization and Preparatory Training sections.

[Holding Pattern]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

More specifically:

5.2. Introductory Communications Users Training (ICUT). The initial training for all CAP
personnel using CAP radios is the Introductory Communications User's Training (ICUT).

Some people like to think that they can initially train on SQTRs instead of doing ICUT first.

Playing Devil's advocate, is that stated in  CAPR 60-3?  If not, there is no basis for requiring ICUT prior to training in an SQTR.

It is not a prereq for training in an SQTR. It IS a prereq before using CAP radios.

[Storm Chaser]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

More specifically:

5.2. Introductory Communications Users Training (ICUT). The initial training for all CAP
personnel using CAP radios is the Introductory Communications User's Training (ICUT).

Some people like to think that they can initially train on SQTRs instead of doing ICUT first.

Playing Devil's advocate, is that stated in  CAPR 60-3?  If not, there is no basis for requiring ICUT prior to training in an SQTR.

It is not a prereq for training in an SQTR. It IS a prereq before using CAP radios unsupervised. (added in bold)

Again, if all our regulations were clear, detailed, and specific, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Holding Pattern]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

More specifically:

5.2. Introductory Communications Users Training (ICUT). The initial training for all CAP
personnel using CAP radios is the Introductory Communications User's Training (ICUT).

Some people like to think that they can initially train on SQTRs instead of doing ICUT first.

Playing Devil's advocate, is that stated in  CAPR 60-3?  If not, there is no basis for requiring ICUT prior to training in an SQTR.

It is not a prereq for training in an SQTR. It IS a prereq before using CAP radios unsupervised. (added in bold)

Again, if all our regulations were clear, detailed, and specific, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not sure what could be more clear about "The initial training for all CAP Personnel using CAP radios is ICUT."

[Storm Chaser]

I wonder sometimes whether you and I are in the same CAP.

Besides hand-wavy "it's a mess", can you name some specific areas where the regulatory guidance on allowable/not allowable is unclear?

We have plenty of discussions in CAP Talk that prove Eclipse' point. Otherwise, why would experienced, trained, and intelligent members disagree on many areas covered in CAP regulations?

We just recently had a discussion regarding ICUT. Some of us believe that a member without ICUT may operate a CAP radio under supervision of someone who is qualified. Others believe that this is prohibited other than for the purpose of completing ICUT. We're all reading the same regulation and yet arriving at different conclusions.

I have many more examples, most discussed here in CAP Talk. But I think these illustrate my point.

How would you re-write this:

All members with duties including unsupervised operation of radios on CAP frequencies must complete ICUT training.

to be more clear and prevent people from every possible misinterpretation?

More specifically:

5.2. Introductory Communications Users Training (ICUT). The initial training for all CAP
personnel using CAP radios is the Introductory Communications User's Training (ICUT).

Some people like to think that they can initially train on SQTRs instead of doing ICUT first.

Playing Devil's advocate, is that stated in  CAPR 60-3?  If not, there is no basis for requiring ICUT prior to training in an SQTR.

It is not a prereq for training in an SQTR. It IS a prereq before using CAP radios unsupervised. (added in bold)

Again, if all our regulations were clear, detailed, and specific, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not sure what could be more clear about "The initial training for all CAP Personnel using CAP radios is ICUT."

Many trained, qualified, experienced, and intelligent members are reading the same regulations and arriving at a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?

[Holding Pattern]

Because "That's the way they've always done it."

Because the regulations in the past may have allowed it.

And some variation thereof.

[Storm Chaser]

Because "That's the way they've always done it."

Because the regulations in the past may have allowed it.

And some variation thereof.

Negative. If all regulations were 100% clear, then everyone reading the current ones would interpret them the same way. Of course, everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct one. But that's not always the case. And while we can and should seek guidance and clarification from above, well written regulations could prevent some of these confusions and differences in interpretation.

[stillamarine]

I think this is the first time a uniform thread turned into something else........ :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[PHall]

I think this is the first time a uniform thread turned into something else........ :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

No it isn't, but it is rare!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Many trained, qualified, experienced, and intelligent members are reading the same regulations and arriving at a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?

People putting emphasis on different sections of what they read?

[Holding Pattern]

Many trained, qualified, experienced, and intelligent members are reading the same regulations and arriving at a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?

People putting emphasis on different sections of what they read?

And indeed, I find it interesting that people are relying on section 5.2.1 for their argument that "Supervised communication is allowed for SQTR training of comm stuff because it only talks about unsupervised comms" when 5.2, the paragraph right above it, makes it crystal clear that this isn't the case by stating the initial (definition:existing or occurring at the beginning) training for all CAP personnel using CAP radios is ICUT.

Fruthermore, there is a section for both supervised and unsupervised communications use by non-CAP members. They made a policy for allowing it for non-CAP members, they did NOT make it a policy for CAP members. Thus, 5.2 is clear and those relying on 5.2.1 for a different interpretation (and an interpretation by implication no less) are simply ignoring 5.2 because it doesn't support their regulatory worldview.

But that isn't how regulations work. Sub-paragraphs build on the main paragraph; and exceptions are carefully carved out as seen in section 5.6, where exceptions to the rule are defined:

5.6. Operation of CAP Radio Equipment by Non-members.
5.6.1. The NTIA manual states that "the station should be operated by an employee . . . or by a
person who operates under the control of the department or agency on a contractual or cooperative
agreement and who is under the supervision of the department or agency sufficient to ensure that
agency instructions and limits are met." (NTIA paragraph 8.2.17.1.c). It is CAP's policy that nonmembers
may operate CAP radios for CAP business, provided they are directly supervised by a
qualified CAP member, except as in paragraphs 5.6.2. and 5.6.3. below.

A defined exception is in this paragraph. There is no defined exception in 5.2 to ICUT being the initial training for using radios.

[Storm Chaser]

Many trained, qualified, experienced, and intelligent members are reading the same regulations and arriving at a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?

People putting emphasis on different sections of what they read?

And indeed, I find it interesting that people are relying on section 5.2.1 for their argument that "Supervised communication is allowed for SQTR training of comm stuff because it only talks about unsupervised comms" when 5.2, the paragraph right above it, makes it crystal clear that this isn't the case by stating the initial (definition:existing or occurring at the beginning) training for all CAP personnel using CAP radios is ICUT.

Fruthermore, there is a section for both supervised and unsupervised communications use by non-CAP members. They made a policy for allowing it for non-CAP members, they did NOT make it a policy for CAP members. Thus, 5.2 is clear and those relying on 5.2.1 for a different interpretation (and an interpretation by implication no less) are simply ignoring 5.2 because it doesn't support their regulatory worldview.

But that isn't how regulations work. Sub-paragraphs build on the main paragraph; and exceptions are carefully carved out as seen in section 5.6, where exceptions to the rule are defined:

5.6. Operation of CAP Radio Equipment by Non-members.
5.6.1. The NTIA manual states that "the station should be operated by an employee . . . or by a
person who operates under the control of the department or agency on a contractual or cooperative
agreement and who is under the supervision of the department or agency sufficient to ensure that
agency instructions and limits are met." (NTIA paragraph 8.2.17.1.c). It is CAP's policy that nonmembers
may operate CAP radios for CAP business, provided they are directly supervised by a
qualified CAP member, except as in paragraphs 5.6.2. and 5.6.3. below.

A defined exception is in this paragraph. There is no defined exception in 5.2 to ICUT being the initial training for using radios.

You may quote the regulation all you want (in fact, you tried to do just that in another thread), but that doesn't change the fact that different people are reading the regulation differently. You believe that your interpretation is the correct one; maybe it is, maybe it's not. Frankly, I don't know who you are or what your background is. I don't know if your interpretation carries some weight or authority or whether it's just your opinion.

In fact, unless you're speaking for National (in which case, I'm all ears), I don't really care one way or another. The purpose of the post that started this discussion about regulations was to make the point that unless the language of the regulation is clear, concise, and specific, different people will interpret it differently. This discussion proves that point.

[Holding Pattern]

Many trained, qualified, experienced, and intelligent members are reading the same regulations and arriving at a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?

People putting emphasis on different sections of what they read?

And indeed, I find it interesting that people are relying on section 5.2.1 for their argument that "Supervised communication is allowed for SQTR training of comm stuff because it only talks about unsupervised comms" when 5.2, the paragraph right above it, makes it crystal clear that this isn't the case by stating the initial (definition:existing or occurring at the beginning) training for all CAP personnel using CAP radios is ICUT.

Fruthermore, there is a section for both supervised and unsupervised communications use by non-CAP members. They made a policy for allowing it for non-CAP members, they did NOT make it a policy for CAP members. Thus, 5.2 is clear and those relying on 5.2.1 for a different interpretation (and an interpretation by implication no less) are simply ignoring 5.2 because it doesn't support their regulatory worldview.

But that isn't how regulations work. Sub-paragraphs build on the main paragraph; and exceptions are carefully carved out as seen in section 5.6, where exceptions to the rule are defined:

5.6. Operation of CAP Radio Equipment by Non-members.
5.6.1. The NTIA manual states that "the station should be operated by an employee . . . or by a
person who operates under the control of the department or agency on a contractual or cooperative
agreement and who is under the supervision of the department or agency sufficient to ensure that
agency instructions and limits are met." (NTIA paragraph 8.2.17.1.c). It is CAP's policy that nonmembers
may operate CAP radios for CAP business, provided they are directly supervised by a
qualified CAP member, except as in paragraphs 5.6.2. and 5.6.3. below.

A defined exception is in this paragraph. There is no defined exception in 5.2 to ICUT being the initial training for using radios.

You may quote the regulation all you want (in fact, you tried to do just that in another thread), but that doesn't change the fact that different people are reading the regulation differently. You believe that your interpretation is the correct one; maybe it is, maybe it's not. Frankly, I don't know who you are or what your background is. I don't know if your interpretation carries some weight or authority or whether it's just your opinion.

In fact, unless you're speaking for National (in which case, I'm all ears), I don't really care one way or another. The purpose of the post that started this discussion about regulations was to make the point that unless the language of the regulation is clear, concise, and specific, different people will interpret it differently. This discussion proves that point.

Yet you still haven't explained to me how initial means anything other than what it means. You are focusing on a supporting paragraph to the exclusion of a primary paragraph dictating the order of training and authorization.

You in fact left that thread once I answered your question of which portion of the regulation prohibited what you wanted to do, and now that you know it, you are telling me you don't care what I (or it) says.

It seems to me that if you felt your interpretation was correct, you could support it by showing where the exception to the initial training requirement is.

[Spam]

Ah, interpretation...


It is all about interpretation, isn't it? Wow, guys, I feel like we're in Yeshiva, arguing Talmud....

V/R
Spam

[Storm Chaser]

Many trained, qualified, experienced, and intelligent members are reading the same regulations and arriving at a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?

People putting emphasis on different sections of what they read?

And indeed, I find it interesting that people are relying on section 5.2.1 for their argument that "Supervised communication is allowed for SQTR training of comm stuff because it only talks about unsupervised comms" when 5.2, the paragraph right above it, makes it crystal clear that this isn't the case by stating the initial (definition:existing or occurring at the beginning) training for all CAP personnel using CAP radios is ICUT.

Fruthermore, there is a section for both supervised and unsupervised communications use by non-CAP members. They made a policy for allowing it for non-CAP members, they did NOT make it a policy for CAP members. Thus, 5.2 is clear and those relying on 5.2.1 for a different interpretation (and an interpretation by implication no less) are simply ignoring 5.2 because it doesn't support their regulatory worldview.

But that isn't how regulations work. Sub-paragraphs build on the main paragraph; and exceptions are carefully carved out as seen in section 5.6, where exceptions to the rule are defined:

5.6. Operation of CAP Radio Equipment by Non-members.
5.6.1. The NTIA manual states that "the station should be operated by an employee . . . or by a
person who operates under the control of the department or agency on a contractual or cooperative
agreement and who is under the supervision of the department or agency sufficient to ensure that
agency instructions and limits are met." (NTIA paragraph 8.2.17.1.c). It is CAP's policy that nonmembers
may operate CAP radios for CAP business, provided they are directly supervised by a
qualified CAP member, except as in paragraphs 5.6.2. and 5.6.3. below.

A defined exception is in this paragraph. There is no defined exception in 5.2 to ICUT being the initial training for using radios.

You may quote the regulation all you want (in fact, you tried to do just that in another thread), but that doesn't change the fact that different people are reading the regulation differently. You believe that your interpretation is the correct one; maybe it is, maybe it's not. Frankly, I don't know who you are or what your background is. I don't know if your interpretation carries some weight or authority or whether it's just your opinion.

In fact, unless you're speaking for National (in which case, I'm all ears), I don't really care one way or another. The purpose of the post that started this discussion about regulations was to make the point that unless the language of the regulation is clear, concise, and specific, different people will interpret it differently. This discussion proves that point.

Yet you still haven't explained to me how initial means anything other than what it means. You are focusing on a supporting paragraph to the exclusion of a primary paragraph dictating the order of training and authorization.

You in fact left that thread once I answered your question of which portion of the regulation prohibited what you wanted to do, and now that you know it, you are telling me you don't care what I (or it) says.

It seems to me that if you felt your interpretation was correct, you could support it by showing where the exception to the initial training requirement is.

I still believe you've failed to support yours. So let's do this. Since neither of us really speak with any authority on the matter, why don't we let National provide the clarification needed to settle this argument? Regardless of who's correct, we'll know for sure and be able to apply the correct regulatory guidance. I have no problem with that. Do you? The way I see it, it's a win-win for all.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ha, HAA!

Clarification?

Part of the problem is that some people read the regulations with the intention of finding justification for their point of view. And ignore what does not fit their frame of mind.

[Storm Chaser]

Ha, HAA!

Clarification?

Part of the problem is that some people read the regulations with the intention of finding justification for their point of view. And ignore what does not fit their frame of mind.

And who decides what the meaning or intent is? Within a particular unit, group, wing, etc., it's the appropriate commander or designee. But if we all want to be on the same page, then that clarification needs to come from National.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Storm, I did not mean to imply your advice was wrong. By all means it needs to come from NHQ. the problem is that because of human nature it will be always misunderstood despite all best intentions...

These discussions will never end...

[PHall]

Storm, I did not mean to imply your advice was wrong. By all means it needs to come from NHQ. the problem is that because of human nature it will be always misunderstood despite all best intentions...

These discussions will never end...

They might if you guys would stop posting....

[Holding Pattern]

Many trained, qualified, experienced, and intelligent members are reading the same regulations and arriving at a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?

People putting emphasis on different sections of what they read?

And indeed, I find it interesting that people are relying on section 5.2.1 for their argument that "Supervised communication is allowed for SQTR training of comm stuff because it only talks about unsupervised comms" when 5.2, the paragraph right above it, makes it crystal clear that this isn't the case by stating the initial (definition:existing or occurring at the beginning) training for all CAP personnel using CAP radios is ICUT.

Fruthermore, there is a section for both supervised and unsupervised communications use by non-CAP members. They made a policy for allowing it for non-CAP members, they did NOT make it a policy for CAP members. Thus, 5.2 is clear and those relying on 5.2.1 for a different interpretation (and an interpretation by implication no less) are simply ignoring 5.2 because it doesn't support their regulatory worldview.

But that isn't how regulations work. Sub-paragraphs build on the main paragraph; and exceptions are carefully carved out as seen in section 5.6, where exceptions to the rule are defined:

5.6. Operation of CAP Radio Equipment by Non-members.
5.6.1. The NTIA manual states that "the station should be operated by an employee . . . or by a
person who operates under the control of the department or agency on a contractual or cooperative
agreement and who is under the supervision of the department or agency sufficient to ensure that
agency instructions and limits are met." (NTIA paragraph 8.2.17.1.c). It is CAP's policy that nonmembers
may operate CAP radios for CAP business, provided they are directly supervised by a
qualified CAP member, except as in paragraphs 5.6.2. and 5.6.3. below.

A defined exception is in this paragraph. There is no defined exception in 5.2 to ICUT being the initial training for using radios.

You may quote the regulation all you want (in fact, you tried to do just that in another thread), but that doesn't change the fact that different people are reading the regulation differently. You believe that your interpretation is the correct one; maybe it is, maybe it's not. Frankly, I don't know who you are or what your background is. I don't know if your interpretation carries some weight or authority or whether it's just your opinion.

In fact, unless you're speaking for National (in which case, I'm all ears), I don't really care one way or another. The purpose of the post that started this discussion about regulations was to make the point that unless the language of the regulation is clear, concise, and specific, different people will interpret it differently. This discussion proves that point.

Yet you still haven't explained to me how initial means anything other than what it means. You are focusing on a supporting paragraph to the exclusion of a primary paragraph dictating the order of training and authorization.

You in fact left that thread once I answered your question of which portion of the regulation prohibited what you wanted to do, and now that you know it, you are telling me you don't care what I (or it) says.

It seems to me that if you felt your interpretation was correct, you could support it by showing where the exception to the initial training requirement is.

I still believe you've failed to support yours.

Can you then do me a favor and please explain to me how "initial" means anything other than "This goes before everything else?" Because you haven't explained that yet.

So let's do this. Since neither of us really speak with any authority on the matter, why don't we let National provide the clarification needed to settle this argument? Regardless of who's correct, we'll know for sure and be able to apply the correct regulatory guidance. I have no problem with that. Do you? The way I see it, it's a win-win for all.

I have no problem with that, especially since if I keep doing what I'm doing, regardless of which interpretation is correct, I can't be in violation.

Would you like me to send in the helpdesk ticket?

[Luis R. Ramos]

P, that response was... great and an inspired one!