Drill in PT and Blues?

[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!