All this does for me is solidify why we have a Cadet Protection Program to begin with, and that, while everyone sighs when the "CPP/CPPT card" is drawn, there's a seriousness to be said about it. And this applies to "Adult Leaders" as well as cadets over 18.

The reality of it is that it's in your backyard, not some theoretical thing that occurs in other organizations.

Quote from: MSG Mac on Today at 01:56:02 PM

What impact does this have on CAP?

About as much as it does for the Air Force: none.

I wouldn't say that's accurate necessarily.

CAP has been rewriting its regulations to align itself more toward Air Force practice. For example, the new Cadet Programs regulations and pamphlets are structuring cadet chains of command (e.g., squadron level, Encampment) to a more common Air Force structure (e.g., eliminating "Executive Officers" and developing "Mission Support"). Wings are seeing changes to use the Chief of Staff role rather than Wing XOs.

So I don't know what that would do with the Wing-Group-Squadron structure for CAP, but for individual duty positions, there's an Air Force realignment going on. It's apparently.

Will this affect CAP directly? No. CAP doesn't have mission-specific units (e.g., Medical Squadron, Ground Rescue Squadron, Maintenance Group). But as far as staffing, possibly.

Customer: "Hey, thanks Hawaii CAP, these photos are great, they really help out."

If that is truly all that matters ... lets get rid of 90% of the CAP regs and guidelines. Would make life easier and recruiting would be a breeze. I'm all for it. 

(When I started the thread, I actually figured the MS in the back of the plane was probably an AP, but the PAO or whoever wrote the article didn't know and just assumed MS in back seat. Then it was funny the replies I got, so I took it and ran. LOL)

US News: "Civil Air Patrol Doing Great Mission In Hawaii"

CAP-Talk:
"They didn't say in that news piece that the scanners were AP qualified. I bet nobody is qualified."
"Why did I bother to get AP if any old scanner can fly?"
"See, this is why we need a nationwide standard."
"I have no information whatsoever, but I'm good at making assumptions. No insurance coverage!"
"I'd do it, even though I'm not qualified, send me to Hawaii."
"Bring the right uniform!"
"Nobody should be wearing a uniform anyway."
"I'm self deploying to Hawaii for some of that sweet, sweet flying, what uniform should I bring?"
"I'm an AP, and I prefer this unifrom"
"Nobody wears that uniform in a plane! Are you crazy?"

Customer: "Hey, thanks Hawaii CAP, these photos are great, they really help out."

What impact does this have on CAP?

About as much as it does for the Air Force: none.

What impact does this have on CAP?

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Men-s-Interceptor-Force-Boot/55333429 We recommend our cadets go to Walmart and purchase these boots. The price is right and the break-in period is minimal. The boots hold up well and do come in the smaller sizes.

What's the point in launching a crew and investing two or more hours in machine time if the product captured by the camera is coarse, low resolution, and worse, not acceptable to our customer? 

Agree ... so should an aerial photography mission for a customer be "required by regs" to have an actual AP on-board performing the photography? With an obvious exception made for emergency situations where an AP wasn't available?

Or maybe thats an Incident Commander decision during an event whether to require APs or not?

I'm a professional aerial photographer by trade, have much better gear than supplied by CAP,  and learned nothing new in the AP training, but did it anyway because I thought it was "required". I could have saved myself the time and trouble, if I had only known. 

Worked well for 5 decades. Why make the wheel more round?

I don't think our "5 decades" of past experience with aerial photograpy "worked well", it just got by (mostly).  Personal cameras may (or may NOT) capture 'good' images.  What's the point in launching a crew and investing two or more hours in machine time if the product captured by the camera is coarse, low resolution, and worse, not acceptable to our customer?  I've flown more than one sortie where the available 'personal camera' wasn't up to the task. 

Good photo equipment is just one thing.  Good aerial photography may require skills other than 'point and shoot'.   While 'point and shoot' level skills may get acceptable images, and sometimes even 'great' images, I've noticed a lot of blurry and poorly framed shots.  IMHO, investing crew and machine time in a one-time-only mission means we need high quality images that are effectively composed and framed - every time.  I think AP training can be helpful for most of us.

As an AP Evaluator, I have someone in my Squadron asking about starting to work on the AP SQTR sheet, so that he can sign up for AP missions. I thought it was necessary. But scheduling has been an issue lately. I'll let him know he doesn't "have" to be an AP to be eligible for those missions. He will be happy.