Cadet Membership Inactive Status Code?

[RADIOMAN015]

Wondering what others think about establishing an "inactive" status code for cadets in e services   Basically if a cadet stops showing up for meetings and doesn't contact/return calls from the DCC they could be put into an "inactive" status category.   Those in an "inactive" status category would not be mailed a renewal notice BUT would remain on the unit rolls until their membership expired.

As we all know teenagers can be indecisive on what they want to do and what organizations they want to join/retain membership in.   The "inactive" status is non punitive BUT ensures that statistics such as safety training & cadet program progressions is not impacted by the cadet membership that is inactive.  The cadet could be taken out of this status IF they returned to the unit and started active participation prior to the membership expiration date.  It would also save postage for National HQ in sending out renewal notices. 

RM 

[Al Sayre]

This was discussed at length at the last NB IIRC, NHQ is supposed to be working on some way to handle it instead of transferring inactive/safety delinquent members to XX-000.

[Eclipse]

Patron status works just fine, just add cadets to the list.

[Tim Medeiros]

CAPR 35-3 3.c works as well.

[capmaj]

'Patron' is a category of Senior membership and Cadets cannot be placed in that category.

[davidsinn]

'Patron' is a category of Senior membership and Cadets cannot be placed in that category.

We know. Cadets should be added to the list of categories that can be placed in patron status.

[a2capt]

Point is 100% compliance with safety and other required training is impossible in this organization.

The last Wing CC was constantly harping about grounding units because of it.

What they need to concentrate on is auditing activities and participation if that is what they say you can't do if you're not current. 

Of course, opening said activity with a detailed safety brief and ORM discussion about that activity, as applicable will then fulfill the currency requirement and be relevant to the subject. What a concept.

Oh, wait- we do that anyway.

[Spaceman3750]

My RG/CC recently sent out a memo regarding 100% compliance on monthly safety... The idea of 100% compliance with monthly briefings is silly because 100% of my unit is not active all the time - and since the regs only requires safety currency for participation, 100% compliance isn't required.

[davidsinn]

Here's a novel concept: how about we get rid of this stupid management by statistics, MBA bullcrap and actually do the mission and not worry so much about the administrative BS.

[Spaceman3750]

Here's a novel concept: how about we get rid of this stupid management by statistics, MBA bullcrap and actually do the mission and not worry so much about the administrative BS.

+1,000

[EMT-83]

Here's a novel concept: how about we get rid of this stupid management by statistics, MBA bullcrap and actually do the mission and not worry so much about the administrative BS.

I would be interested in learning if the mandatory training has reduced the number of incidents, or severity of incidents occurring.

For example, has ground handling training had any impact on hangar rash?

[lordmonar]

Point is 100% compliance with safety and other required training is impossible in this organization.

No it's not. 

2b your dead weight, patron those who want it....conduct your monthly safety education and monitor your member's complaince.

We have about 70 members in my squadron and we do just fine.

The last Wing CC was constantly harping about grounding units because of it.

What they need to concentrate on is auditing activities and participation if that is what they say you can't do if you're not current.

The problem with that is once you are at the mission base or gathering to transport out to the activity site.....there is no easy way to get everyone complaint.

Of course, opening said activity with a detailed safety brief and ORM discussion about that activity, as applicable will then fulfill the currency requirement and be relevant to the subject. What a concept.

Oh, wait- we do that anyway.

As clearly expressed by the safety boffins......on site safet breifing is NOT considered safety education and does not count toward complaince.

Battle already fought and lost.....move on.

[Eclipse]

As clearly expressed by the safety boffins......on site safet breifing is NOT considered safety education and does not count toward compliance.

This is incorrect.  On-site safety briefings absolutely qualify for safety compliance.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I would be interested in learning if the mandatory training has reduced the number of incidents, or severity of incidents occurring.
For example, has ground handling training had any impact on hangar rash?

That is an excellent question. A lot of volunteer time goes into the current safety requirements. If there is not sufficient return on that investment, continuing to do the same thing would fit the definition of insanity. 

[davidsinn]

Point is 100% compliance with safety and other required training is impossible in this organization.

No it's not. 

2b your dead weight, patron those who want it....conduct your monthly safety education and monitor your member's complaince.

We have about 70 members in my squadron and we do just fine.

Last I checked safety was not the mission. Let's put more effort in the actual mission.

[/quote]

The last Wing CC was constantly harping about grounding units because of it.

What they need to concentrate on is auditing activities and participation if that is what they say you can't do if you're not current.

The problem with that is once you are at the mission base or gathering to transport out to the activity site.....there is no easy way to get everyone complaint.

Of course, opening said activity with a detailed safety brief and ORM discussion about that activity, as applicable will then fulfill the currency requirement and be relevant to the subject. What a concept.

Oh, wait- we do that anyway.

As clearly expressed by the safety boffins......on site safet breifing is NOT considered safety education and does not count toward complaince.

Battle already fought and lost.....move on.
[/quote]

Then they are idiots. It is far more useful to hear about safety considerations today for my task at hand then to sit through yet another cold weather briefing when I've lived here my entire life.

[lordmonar]

Agree on all points....look at my posts on when the implemented the new safety program requirments.

Like I said......battle fought and lost.

Until we get a change in the safety boffins....we just have to move on.