Quote from: Eclipse on January 30, 2012, 09:08:39 PM
^ Um, I can think of one in the last month.

That's one of em

Addressing the original question - Participation in ANY activity requires the unit commanders permission, cadet or senior.

If "Cadet Goofoff" is not meeting the standards, then it is the commander's duty (and staff as directed) to take corrective action.

Search the site for examples of how to conduct counseling that is both effective and fair.

Your commander should check with higher headquarters on what to do if it is decided to suspend the members participation in ES activities. They may suspend any or all qualifications upon a commander's recommendation alone, or may require actual documentation.

Quote from: wacapgh on January 30, 2012, 09:23:24 PM
Addressing the original question - Participation in ANY activity requires the unit commanders permission, cadet or senior.

If "Cadet Goofoff" is not meeting the standards, then it is the commander's duty (and staff as directed) to take corrective action.

Search the site for examples of how to conduct counseling that is both effective and fair.

Your commander should check with higher headquarters on what to do if it is decided to suspend the members participation in ES activities. They may suspend any or all qualifications upon a commander's recommendation alone, or may require actual documentation.

It's not up to higher HQ to decide who gets suspended - in this case the unit commander holds that authority.

Obviously, I'd like to prevent that from happening by "screening" folks beforehand (I've just been specifically inviting cadets who we think would do well), but it's always a possibility, like I brought up in my original post.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on January 30, 2012, 08:21:05 PM
. The simple truth of it is, in the eyes of the law, cadets under 18 are children. (Not going to argue this point of law with anyone). 

Just like senior members under the age of 18.  (Yes, there are dozens.)

And of course, emancipated minors under the age of 18 are NOT children, legally speaking, in their states.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, which is maybe why you correctly declined to argue "points of law" here on CT.  If the issue ever really arises, just ask your friendly neighborhood JAG.


Also remember that the age of majority is not 18 in all states and commonwealths where CAP has members.

(It is always helpful to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.  Apples and oranges.  The Air Force has cadets as old as 30 and as young as 12, and treats all of them well.  So should we.)

Quote from: JeffDG on January 30, 2012, 07:00:27 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 30, 2012, 03:21:31 AM
cadets ought to be able to train for aircrew, leader, director and cheif levels of ES.

Well, except for Section Chief, cadets can train for all of those.  And actually, the PSC SQTR online doesn't have an age eligibility in it either (the others do).

The pre-reqs for PSC via AOBD or GBD require a minimum age of 18 - MO, MO, MS, GTL.

Quote from: SarDragon on January 30, 2012, 09:45:28 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on January 30, 2012, 07:00:27 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 30, 2012, 03:21:31 AM
cadets ought to be able to train for aircrew, leader, director and cheif levels of ES.

Well, except for Section Chief, cadets can train for all of those.  And actually, the PSC SQTR online doesn't have an age eligibility in it either (the others do).

The pre-reqs for PSC via AOBD or GBD require a minimum age of 18 - MO, MO, MS, GTL.

True...what I meant (and somehow you didn't read my mind ) was that the other SC's (OSC, LSC, FASC) have a age requirement of 21, so no cadets allowed for those.

Quote from: Ned on January 30, 2012, 09:38:29 PM

(It is always helpful to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.  Apples and oranges.  The Air Force has cadets as old as 30 and as young as 12, and treats all of them well.  So should we.)

:clap:

Quote from: Private Investigator on January 30, 2012, 03:05:04 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2012, 09:34:45 PM
If we are not going to let them participate....let's not waste our time training them.

More to ES than Cadet Ground Teams. MSAs, MROs and plenty of things to at Mission Base for Cadets.

Exactly.  We utilize cadets in lots of ways.  All I was getting at is a cadet won't be on a ground team for a suspected fatal crash.  They'll participate in some other way.  IF they can show up for training! 

Quote from: Woodsy on January 30, 2012, 10:06:19 PM
All I was getting at is a cadet won't be on a ground team for a suspected fatal crash. 

In your unit perhaps...

Quote from: Woodsy on January 30, 2012, 10:06:19 PM
Exactly.  We utilize cadets in lots of ways.  All I was getting at is a cadet won't be on a ground team for a suspected fatal crash.  They'll participate in some other way.  IF they can show up for training!

If your crystal ball tells you that it's a suspected fatal crash; shouldn't it also tell where the crash occurred, so you don't need a ground team to search for it in the first place?

Just wondering how you would know whether or not to include cadets when you leave mission base.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 30, 2012, 08:57:17 PM

Quote from: commando1 on January 30, 2012, 08:53:58 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on January 30, 2012, 08:49:48 PM
As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

I wanna know how many people have actually died while on a mission within the last 25 years...

How many are acceptable?

What about injuries?  What are acceptable there?

Well that's the rub.

If the answer is ZERO then we have to stop all operations and close down CAP.

Driving to your weekly CAP meeting involves risk.

Flying involves risk.

Somewhere between closing shop and "the mission no matter what the cost" is where CAP needs to be.

Quote from: wacapgh on January 30, 2012, 09:23:24 PM
Addressing the original question - Participation in ANY activity requires the unit commanders permission, cadet or senior.

Not quite true.  ES call outs can come down from wing or group level.  It is possible for squadron member to be deployed with out squadron commander knowledge.

QuoteIf "Cadet Goofoff" is not meeting the standards, then it is the commander's duty (and staff as directed) to take corrective action.

and the team leader, GBD, AOBD's job.

Quote from: Ned on January 30, 2012, 09:38:29 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on January 30, 2012, 08:21:05 PM
. The simple truth of it is, in the eyes of the law, cadets under 18 are children. (Not going to argue this point of law with anyone). 

Just like senior members under the age of 18.  (Yes, there are dozens.)

And of course, emancipated minors under the age of 18 are NOT children, legally speaking, in their states.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, which is maybe why you correctly declined to argue "points of law" here on CT.  If the issue ever really arises, just ask your friendly neighborhood JAG.


Also remember that the age of majority is not 18 in all states and commonwealths where CAP has members.

(It is always helpful to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.  Apples and oranges.  The Air Force has cadets as old as 30 and as young as 12, and treats all of them well.  So should we.)

I guess I have to ask how do you become a SR member if your under 18? As to the age of majority, diff states etc., just not going there.  No one said we should not treat cadets well...

Join the military on AD.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 30, 2012, 11:11:55 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on January 30, 2012, 08:57:17 PM

Quote from: commando1 on January 30, 2012, 08:53:58 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on January 30, 2012, 08:49:48 PM
As soon as you start thinking of safety in terms of "acceptable losses" or "acceptable injuries", I invite you to take those acceptable, and decide which husbands/wives/parents you're willing to let know that their husband/wife/son/daughter was an acceptable loss.  These are most definitely not statistics, but individual and family lives at stake.

If you're not willing to take some time to evaluate that risk, and take the steps necessary to minimize it, yet you're also not willing to tell the family about their loved one being just an "acceptable loss", you're a hypocrite.

I wanna know how many people have actually died while on a mission within the last 25 years...

How many are acceptable?

What about injuries?  What are acceptable there?

Well that's the rub.

If the answer is ZERO then we have to stop all operations and close down CAP.

Driving to your weekly CAP meeting involves risk.

Flying involves risk.

Somewhere between closing shop and "the mission no matter what the cost" is where CAP needs to be.

So, you're quite willing to inform a pilot's wife "You know, we could have taken 5 minutes to do a fuller weather brief, but well, we haven't lost anyone lately, and statistically, your wife was just an acceptable loss.

Or tell Cadet Snuffy's mom "We went through the entire SAREX without any injuries, and that last sortie, we looked at the stats, and we were due for an injury, so we didn't bother briefing the hazzards, and Cadet Snuffy stepped in a hole that we knew about and broke his leg.  But, like I said, the statistics tell me we were due for an injury, so it was entirely acceptable.  Oh, you have a college scout coming to his basketball game later this week...well, that's certainly bad timing, he should have gone on an earlier trip so we hadn't built up enough injury free hours to justify an injury."

That's why "safety" isn't, and should never be, about stats, or checking some briefing box.  On a line long enough the survival rate for everyone is zero.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 31, 2012, 12:08:44 AMSo, you're quite willing to inform a pilot's wife "You know, we could have taken 5 minutes to do a fuller weather brief, but well, we haven't lost anyone lately, and statistically, your wife was just an acceptable loss.

This is a trick question, right?  The bus driver is wearing a blue hat or is his own grandfather or something?

Quote from: JeffDG on January 31, 2012, 12:08:44 AM

Or tell Cadet Snuffy's mom "We went through the entire SAREX without any injuries, and that last sortie, we looked at the stats, and we were due for an injury, so we didn't bother briefing the hazzards, and Cadet Snuffy stepped in a hole that we knew about and broke his leg.  But, like I said, the statistics tell me we were due for an injury, so it was entirely acceptable.  Oh, you have a college scout coming to his basketball game later this week...well, that's certainly bad timing, he should have gone on an earlier trip so we hadn't built up enough injury free hours to justify an injury."

So instead we ban cadets from participating in ES? To be quite honest ES is the only reason I am in CAP. I couldn't care less about aerospace. I will, however, sit through hours of classes in order to go out on missions.

I never said we should throw safety out the door.

Where did I ever say that?

We do all the smart things we need to do to keep the mission going as safe as possible.  A presortie beifing is always in order, and you definatly check the weather brief before flying......these are as automatic as buckeling your seat belt, wearing gloves when handeling ropes, and other smart safety stuff.

But monthly safety education and a one hour "safety breif" by the MSO/Wing safety at the start of the mission on how to fill out forms and ORMS basics.........is just a plain stupid.

Also safety should not be running around stopping operations because they "think it is not safe"......operational calls are done by those doing the operations and the operational chain of command.


But yes...I am willing to tell the family member that "your loved one died volunteering to help others"

CAP is a dangerous game.....there are acceptable risks.  If the level is ZERO then there is no CAP.


Like I said.....somewhere between Shutting down CAP and "mission no matter the cost" is where CAP should be.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 31, 2012, 12:21:34 AM
CAP is a dangerous game.....there are acceptable risks.  If the level is ZERO then there is no CAP.

To get back on the topic of cadets in ES (before this devolves into a uniform thread)  How much risk to cadets is "acceptable." That word is a matter of opinion...