CAPP52-23

[davidsinn]

New pamphlet on the implementation of CPPT. I like how it describes intensity levels but the case studies at the end are useless because they are the obvious extremes. They need to be in the gray area which is the source of most of the heart burn.

[NIN]

New pamphlet on the implementation of CPPT. I like how it describes intensity levels but the case studies at the end are useless because they are the obvious extremes. They need to be in the gray area which is the source of most of the heart burn.

The problem there becomes that you have a hard time defining "gray". By that I mean "I think you and I can agree that black is over here on this extreme, and that 9 times of 10, we'll both identify black correctly. And white is way over here on this end of the spectrum, and 10 times out of ten, we can both ID white correctly. But what you define as "50% gray" I think is really "25% gray".....

I think thats the point: If you can ID your spectrum, you can better understand the points along the continuum. 

It is *difficult*, nigh unto impossible, for the reg to provide sufficient examples to satisfy everybody. So you put in the "range limits" and then figure out the middle on a case-by-case basis.

And thats where we all get to use brains, common sense (yeah, I know), experience, intuition, value structures, etc.

[davidsinn]

New pamphlet on the implementation of CPPT. I like how it describes intensity levels but the case studies at the end are useless because they are the obvious extremes. They need to be in the gray area which is the source of most of the heart burn.

The problem there becomes that you have a hard time defining "gray". By that I mean "I think you and I can agree that black is over here on this extreme, and that 9 times of 10, we'll both identify black correctly. And white is way over here on this end of the spectrum, and 10 times out of ten, we can both ID white correctly. But what you define as "50% gray" I think is really "25% gray".....

I think thats the point: If you can ID your spectrum, you can better understand the points along the continuum. 

It is *difficult*, nigh unto impossible, for the reg to provide sufficient examples to satisfy everybody. So you put in the "range limits" and then figure out the middle on a case-by-case basis.

And thats where we all get to use brains, common sense (yeah, I know), experience, intuition, value structures, etc.

The problem always come in the gray areas. We need examples to learn from. The examples given are so blatant that it was a waste of time to read them.

[NIN]

The problem always come in the gray areas. We need examples to learn from. The examples given are so blatant that it was a waste of time to read them.

Yeaah, I just took 10 minutes to read that and I can't disagree: those case studies were, well... lets just say that I've seen more complex Tinkertoys..

Something that stuck out at me (two things, actually) which I think was quite salient. 

One: "Not every mismatch between the training to be conducted and the proper military intensity level amounts to hazing."

I swear, this needs to be a pull quote found elsewhere in large, friendly letters (on the cover, perhaps?)

All too often I've heard from zealous seniors who don't get that
a) the cadet program is a laboratory for cadets and mistakes are bound to happen; and
b) not every raised voice, spoken correction or potentially unkind word is an immediate foray in the "hazing zone," or that a particular activity, event, or behavior is "hazing." 

Look, man, I breathe every day, but its not "oxygen poisoning."

But seriously: just because 2Lt Milquetoast thinks that it was "hazing" for C/SSgt Bufftuck to correct C/Amn Schmuckatelli at formation for having his cover on backwards (because he did it in front of others and Schmuckatelli was probably "embarrassed because he was singled out. Which is hazing!"**) does not mean that it actually *IS* hazing.  And perhaps 2Lt Milquetoast might wanna come back into the senior office, sit down, have nice hot cup of something, and chill out a little.

The other things that I noticed was this, and I think it could stand to be worded differently lest people tend to take it *too* literally:

"Of course, senior member supervisors are always present at cadet activities, and stand ready to intervene if a cadet leader's poor leadership begins to amount to prohibited hazing."

I fully and completely agree with the intent & spirit of this statement.

However, as written, there are officers who will take this prima facia evidence of their god-given right to stand outside with their arms crossed just within the peripheral vision of the C/SMSgt teaching D&C to the Week 2 basic training cadets because this is their interpretation of the imperative that they "stand ready to intervene" _all_times_ "just in case there is some hazing.."

Seriously, the cadets in my old unit would go outside the Armory to practice D&C on the hardstand just outside the big roll-up door to the drill hall, and for a few of the seniors they were like the @#$% Keystone Kops falling over one another to get outside to "supervise."

I had to reign them in.  "Guys, the cadets are 50 ft away thru an open door. We can hear what they're doing. I'm reasonably certain the C/NCOs and the C/Officers can adequately supervise their charges and nobody will die or be hazed because we're in here and they're out there.."

One officer went so far as to tell one of the C/NCOs conducting basic D&C for our Basic Flight that he couldn't march the cadets more than the length of the back of the armory for "safety" and so they'd stay in "earshot" for "supervision." I had to put the kibosh on that right ricky-ticky.

But eventually, the C/NCOs got the opportunity to lead, the C/Officers got the opportunity to supervise and everybody was happy.

Not everybody sees some of these things for what they are, however. Because my senior member officers were right there, the cadet officers tended to see them, and emulate them.   They'd stand around in little knots and watch and chat, not really doing anything constructive, but there "just in case." NO! Thats not what C/Officers are out there for. They're there to supervise and ensure that the training is being delivered and monitored by the C/NCOs.  Not play tilt-nipple to a bunch of no-rank fuzzbutts.

So I think while the intent of this phrase is *excellent*, it could stand to be reworded a little to discourage too many seniors from leaning so far forward in the saddle that they fall off the horse...


** I literally had a senior member come to me and say that verbatim.  Really.

[Spaceman3750]

The "tradition" in my squadron is that when the cadets go out the door (50ft away, as NIN said), two seniors in my squadron HAVE to go outside. That means that two people get interrupted and have to go stand outside for some undefined amount of time to watch the cadets march in circles when they're literally right outside the door. Ugh.

I've tried to break up this "tradition", but it is right there with the "tradition" that you MUST have (as in, you're going to hell and getting kicked out of CAP if you don't) two seniors of opposite sexes when a cadet is present (which, according to the regs, is recommended, not required)

EDIT: Isn't this the same paper Ned previewed here a few months ago?

[peter rabbit]

The requirement for SM supervision is there because of the times that cadets have been unsupervised and hazing, throwing rocks, and other things happened - including injuries. There is a need for balance - the SMs don't have to stand right next to the cadets and they normally shouldn't need to interfere. IMO, they do need to be within visual range.

[Pylon]

IMO, they do need to be within visual range.

Disagree.  If I can't trust and feel comfortable being in the next room while the cadet staff trains cadets next door; or me in the squadron office while the cadets drill outside, then I shouldn't have selected those cadets as staff.  I'm not saying don't be around at all, but being in close proximity (so as to be available should something happen or if there are questions) and performing some occasional popping-your-head-around-the-corner ought to be sufficient in most cases.  How well can cadets really learn to lead and take control if they've got helicopter SM's hovering two feet off the deck?

[Ned]

The examples given are so blatant that it was a waste of time to read them.

I am honestly glad you think so.  It shows me that such things could not happen with volunteers as mature and dedicated as you are.

But, FWIW, these were not "hypotheticals" as much as they were actual events with the names deleted and locations changed.  Things that I saw the paperwork on, not some third-hand rumor.

Yeah, in hindsight they are obvious to an experienced CP professional.  Any yet the actual AF member was imprisoned, the cadet conference attendee assualted, and the cadet commander dies exactly as described.

At the time, the situations were not obvious to everyone, which is why I included them.

[arajca]

IMO, they do need to be within visual range.

Disagree.  If I can't trust and feel comfortable being in the next room while the cadet staff trains cadets next door; or me in the squadron office while the cadets drill outside, then I shouldn't have selected those cadets as staff.  I'm not saying don't be around at all, but being in close proximity (so as to be available should something happen or if there are questions) and performing some occasional popping-your-head-around-the-corner ought to be sufficient in most cases.  How well can cadets really learn to lead and take control if they've got helicopter SM's hovering two feet off the deck?

Visual range is NOT "hovering two feet off the deck." Would you consider two or three SMs watching the cadets drill from a picnic table on the side of the parking lot overkill? How about if those same seniors wanted to learn how the cadets handle themselves while drilling? Can this be done from the next room or watching through a window? Or the cadets came up with a new team building activity and the seniors want to judge its effectiveness.

Most common way I've seen the supervision is seniors NOT hovering over the cadets, but sitting/leaning/standing in the vicinity of the cadets (edge of parking lot), usually discussing issues related to the squadron while keeping an eye and ear open.

[lordmonar]

Do what you are comfortable with.

To use the legal jargon (I am not a lawer) about what a resonable person would consider as "supervised".
A lot would depend on the context, the activity, location, personel involved.

Cadets teaching in the next room, doing drill outside, moving from one training venue to the next at encampment.
IMHO....with the cadet I put in charge.....no need to have a SM within visual range.

Out on a mission, new cadets, model rocketry, around aircraft.....different story.

One good thing I like about the black and white examples is that we establish the extremes with out getting into all the gray areas.  We should be training and trusting our CP leaders do use their judgement and do the right thing.

No reason we can't discuss it.

There is a range of options.

"I personally drill the cadets"
"I got an SM who must be within 20 feet of the cadets at all times"
"I got an SM who maintains LOS on the cadets at all times"
"The cadets can drill in the parking lot with the door open"
"The cadet can drill down at the football field 1/2 mile from the squadron and the cadet leader has my cell phone number"
"The cadets drill on Saturdays with no SM present"

Only one of these is against regulations....one is against the aims of the CP......somewhere in the middle is the context that is the right fit for your unit, location, pesonnel or activity.

It is very hard to teach that in a pamplet.
The only way to really make it work is to TEACH your CP leaders.  TLC is a good start.  Getting your CP leaders to encampment with their cadets is a good idea.  Having wing and group CP leaders visit squadron activites often and offering advice is absolutely critical.

We have to remember that sometimes squadrons are very small.
And a commander can only be in one place at a time.
If you have cadets out drilling, your leadership officer is with you C/CC making next weeks schedule, your personnel officer is doing testing and updateing records, and you are leading a PD course for your new members......you only got so many people.

You have to make the call....base on the situation.