Drill in PT and Blues?

[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....