First Aid requirements

[RogueLeader]

I'm not opposed to the idea that it be part of GES, but only is the burden to seek and pay for this training is removed from the members and put on CAP.

And this money comes from where?  Our membership dues?  Our funding from Congress?  In an era at where we are already seeing a cutback on financial capabilities (IE awards printing/approvals/etc) what missions would you have us cut to pay for the Training.

I absolutely think 1st Aid should be a part of GES.  I would propose that First Aid would be good for 4 years for all Specialties except for GTM and UDF, which would be good for 2 years.  My reasoning is that the GTM and UDF have the greater likelihood of actually needing to use the training than any others; so it would be a good idea to have those that need it, should have it.  I won't get into whether we should be doing any more advanced things like IV's and such, but I honestly believe that EVERYBODY should know First Aid, even if they aren't in CAP.

edited to correct my typing speed error.

[lordmonar]

Free....except for the cost of the training supplies.......I we write our own First Aid SQTR/Task Guide/Training Text.

[Eclipse]

CADET squadrons only do CADET programs.   Senior squadrons only do ES...

To the continued detriment of the organization, not to mention potential members of the opposite status who are turned off then they learn they aren't needed / wanted.

Rarely do either unit types thrive at a level that rises above.  Generally they stagnant at smaller numbers and the designation is a result of "can't be bothered", not
some mission-driven purpose.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not opposed to the idea that it be part of GES, but only is the burden to seek and pay for this training is removed from the members and put on CAP.

And this money comes from where?  Our membership dues?  Our funding from Congress?  In an era at where we are already seeing a cutback on financial capabilities (IE awards printing/approvals/etc) what missions would you have us cut to pay for the Training.

If we don't have the money for this training, then we shouldn't make it mandatory for everyone. There are ways to work around the budget constraints and provide the training in-house, but we would have to change some regulations.

I absolutely think 1st Aid should be a part of GES.  I would propose that First Aid would be good for 2 years for all Specialties except for GTM and UDF, which would be good for 2 years.  My reasoning is that the GTM and UDF have the greater likelihood of actually needing to use the training than any others; so it would be a good idea to have those that need it, should have it.  I won't get into whether we should be doing any more advanced things like IV's and such, but I honestly believe that EVERYBODY should know First Aid, even if they aren't in CAP. (emphasis mine)

First Aid should be good for 2 years for every specialty, except for GTM and UDF, which should be good for 2 years? Am I missing something here?

I don't disagree that First Aid is a skill that is good for everyone, including those not in CAP or working in ES.

[Storm Chaser]

CADET squadrons only do CADET programs.   Senior squadrons only do ES...

To the continued detriment of the organization, not to mention potential members of the opposite status who are turned off then they learn they aren't needed / wanted.

Rarely do either unit types thrive at a level that rises above.  Generally they stagnant at smaller numbers and the designation is a result of "can't be bothered", not
some mission-driven purpose.

I've seen that happen over and over. In fact, it was the reason for my previous break in membership. Many folks join with certain expectations, which are then not fulfilled. I've seen members leave because they were underutilized. I've also seen members leave because they got burned out.

CAP can be a very rewarding organization, but it can also be extremely frustrating at times.

[lordmonar]

CADET squadrons only do CADET programs.   Senior squadrons only do ES...

To the continued detriment of the organization, not to mention potential members of the opposite status who are turned off then they learn they aren't needed / wanted.

Rarely do either unit types thrive at a level that rises above.  Generally they stagnant at smaller numbers and the designation is a result of "can't be bothered", not
some mission-driven purpose.

Yup.....MISSION DRIVEN......when has wing/region/national ever pushed mission taskings to the units?
See my posts on the 200 hour goal....and my post on the idea squadron thread.

[Eclipse]

..when has wing/region/national ever pushed mission taskings to the units?

Never, but that doesn't really change the conversation or situation, it just means that commanders need to rise up to the challenge themselves and
not accept mediocrity.

I think as you look around CAP and you find the units, activities, and missions that were / are really successful, not accidentally successful, or anecdotally successful,
or get press but cause a of of issues, the honestly successful ones, you'll find knowledgeable commanders who picked up the full mantle and didn't accept
mediocrity or fall into "no one cares so neither do I mode".

A good commander knows the difference between "good" and "good enough".  The truly successful ones in the best sense of the word are never satisfied
with the former, and are continually frustrated by those that accept the latter, especially when you consider how simple CAP really is when you get to the core of it.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Lord-

What CAP regulation or just for Pete's sake, which CAP publication does it state that "Cadet squadrons only do cadet programs, while Composite squadrons are to do ES?"

In my 12 years of CAP service I have seen squadron commanders of cadet squadrons pushing their cadets to attend ES training. Actively participating in SAREX and other ES training.

It may really be a matter of preference, in which some senior members misread the phrase "cadet squadron" at the end of the name to mean "so we are not to do ES."

If we follow that logic, we would not be doing Aerospace Education at all, since we have no "Aerospace Education" squadrons!

Flyer

[lordmonar]

So.....basically you are saying if you are not a world class IC, Master CP guy and Master AE guy.......you are embracing mediocrity?

As you say all the time CAP is not everything to everybody.

The same is true for units. 

Also.....I have question about your definition of "successful"?  With out benchmarks....."successful" is a little nebulous at best.

[lordmonar]

Lord-

What CAP regulation or just for Pete's sake, which CAP publication does it state that "Cadet squadrons only do cadet programs, while Composite squadrons are to do ES?"

In my 12 years of CAP service I have seen squadron commanders of cadet squadrons pushing their cadets to attend ES training. Actively participating in SAREX and other ES training.

It may really be a matter of preference, in which some senior members misread the phrase "cadet squadron" at the end of the name to mean "so we are not to do ES."

If we follow that logic, we would not be doing Aerospace Education at all, since we have no "Aerospace Education" squadrons!

Flyer

?

"Can only"  Never said "Can only".

I said that CAP has built in the concept that there is a division of labor.....Senior, Cadet, Composite.

Sure senior squadrons can support cadet activities.......just as cadet squadrons can support ES activities.  My statements were directed to Eclipse who suggested that Cadet Squadrons who don't do ES are somehow not fulfilling their obligations and senior squadrons who don't do CP are lacking as well. 

CAP's missions are ES, CP, and AE.......just like the USAF's mission is to Fly, Fight, Win........not every squadron flies or fights.....but they do their portion of the mission to get it done.

CAP is the same thing.......If Squadron X want to just CP.....fine......the help CAP to fulfill the missions.  Just like the Squadron Y doing just ES.

To keep harping on "you are not doing enough" is one of the reasons why we have the US vs THEM attitude in a lot of places.

[Eclipse]

So.....basically you are saying if you are not a world class IC, Master CP guy and Master AE guy.......you are embracing mediocrity?

Of course not, and you know that, however in regards to a unit's manning table, you could certainly make a valid argument.

As you say all the time CAP is not everything to everybody.

Correct, which why we need >more<, so that we have enough to get the job done.

Also.....I have question about your definition of "successful"?  With out benchmarks....."successful" is a little nebulous at best.

Sadly, you're correct, with self-actualization being the only strategic direction, success is in the eyes of the beholder.

But like another nebulous concept defined by a judge "You know it when you see it", and I would be willing to bet that
if we surveyed our respective wings' units together, we would not be very far apart on which are successful and which
are not.

50 real members where a CC is taking a legit shot at trying to accomplish the full mission vs. 4 cadets showing up
and the two seniors sit in the corner talking to the parent about Desperate Housewives while the "cadets are over there doing their stuff..."
would probably the two sides of the pendulum and I bet we've both seen those.

The mid points of the swing aren't the issue, it's the fact that the outliers make up too much or the arc, especially the low-enders.

To keep harping on "you are not doing enough" is one of the reasons why we have the US vs THEM attitude in a lot of places.

No, allowing an "us" vs. a "them" instead of a "we", is the issue.

[RogueLeader]

If we don't have the money for this training, then we shouldn't make it mandatory for everyone. There are ways to work around the budget constraints and provide the training in-house, but we would have to change some regulations.

You know as well as I do that it costs money to play.  We need to be upfront about what the costs are.  not to mention that ES is not mandatory of all members in a unit.  I consider the cost of First aid and CPR like the costs of Gear maintenance.

First Aid should be good for 2 years for every specialty, except for GTM and UDF, which should be good for 2 years? Am I missing something here?

I typed too fast.  See my edit.

[lordmonar]

I guess we see the same problems but look at the solution differently.

I see the status quo and look at ways to build on that to make it better.

Embrace the Cadet and Senior specialization but MANDATE, through detailed OPLANS and Mission Tasking and Goals to meet CAP overall mission goals.

That let's individuals to choose which squadron they want to join and be used to their fullest potential.

Instead of mandating all squadrons to all missions (i.e. we are all composite squadrons) but not giving them the tools they need.

There are somewhere around 2000 squadrons in CAP......only 550 +/- aircraft......ergo it is difficult for some squadrons to embrace the air side of ES.
With only around 900 vehicles it is difficult for all squadrons to embrace the GT side of ES.
When you throw in age restrictions for ES (both regulatory and customer driven) it is hard for some CP units to embrace Emergency Services.

Either way......we should judge a squadron on what they do......or more specifically How they do what the choose to do and not how or why they don't do all the missions in CAP.

My beef with you is that (at least to me) you marginalize the good work a unit does.....simply because they do everything.....even though they have not been given any benchmarks to meet from higher up.   If that was not what you were doing I apologize.

[Eclipse]

There are somewhere around 2000 squadrons in CAP....

As of last week, there are less then 1300 squadrons in CAP.

only 550 +/- aircraft......ergo it is difficult for some squadrons to embrace the air side of ES.
With only around 900 vehicles it is difficult for all squadrons to embrace the GT side of ES.

Having an assigned aircraft isn't required, nor does it make it that much easier to be involved in air ops, and I have no idea what
having a van has to do with ground ES.  As someone who has had both vans and ICP trailers assigned, I found that
just like pools and pets, "other people's vehicles" are a lot less hassle.  If you need a van or a plane, you reserve it and get it. 

When you throw in age restrictions for ES (both regulatory and customer driven) it is hard for some CP units to embrace Emergency Services.

Age restrictions?  That's in regard to outside agencies, not internal.  The vast majority of our missions are never impacted by an age restriction in anyway, and
if we got to a point where we were a credible force in the ES community, we could manage the age situation better.  A lot of agencies will tell you initially
that responders have to be 18, until you tell them that they will always be supervised and under CAP control, at which point the responsibility shifts from
them to us and the conversation changes.  I had this literal conversation 2 weeks ago in regards to a major agency and PODS response.

Any discussion about age issues in CAP ES is a red herring, not a valid justification for non performance.

My beef with you is that (at least to me) you marginalize the good work a unit does.....simply because they do everything.....even though they have not been given any benchmarks to meet from higher up.   If that was not what you were doing I apologize.

I'm not trying to marginalize performance, but I have to see it first.    Your cup is 1/2 full in this regard, I don't know if that's your attitude or your hands-on experience,
but I can tell you that my experience is that units that choose to specialize generally do it because the commanders don't want to be bothered, or have no program knowledge and are not inclined to seek it out.  With no command imperative from on high, they just walk in a circle and then we ask "why".

Show me a trend of cadet units that are Spaatz factories and leading their wings on all points, or Senior units leading from the front on ES implementation
and execution.  What I see are mostly units that succeed or fail by coincidence, accident, and circumstance, and a lot of senior units that are essentially flying clubs
without base staff or ground ops.

[lordmonar]

And there you have it.

If you want units to do it.....you have got to mandate it.  Not as in a regulation "every squadron will do ES".....but in wing telling the Hommer J. Simpson Composite Squadron......"You will have 10 MP, 10 MO, 10 MS, 3 AOBD, 3 PSC, 1 OSC, 1 IC, 1 FASC, 1 MIO, 2 FLS, 3 MRO to satisfied your part of our wing's ES commitment.  You will have at least 40 cadets to fulfill your part of the wing's CP commitment.  You will perform 1 exertal AE presentation per quarter, you will "fly a teacher' at least 4 teachers in your AOR to fulfill your part of the wing's AE commitment.  You will fly at least 40 O-rides this year".

That is how you get it done.

Yes....I know today you can't just say "get it done" and it will get done.   If you are starting from zero.....you set the "end state goal" and set a realistic time line.  Then you monitor and assist as necessarily to get it done.

We are doing this in our squadron right now.

WE self actualized what we wanted our ES and CP goals to be.....and we got a 2 year plan.  Our master plan is to prove that this model works for use....then the whole bunch of us are going up to group and we are going push.....yes push it onto the other squadrons.....while we work the OPLANS and support agreements with our customers to have an actual integrated ES program.

[Eclipse]

As is the case recently, we're in more agreement then disagreement.

I agree wholeheartedly that the majority of the issue is lack of goals and mandates.  Even if you can't actually "force" someone to do something,
you can certainly hold them accountable, and in comparison to their peers, and sometimes that peer pressure is all you need.

I continue to be disappointed and frustrated by CAP's complete lack of interest in hard numbers, and the kinds of Manager / Planning 101 tasks
that a successful lemonade stand needs, let alone a national organization with a congressional appropriation.

We have zero knowledge of baseline information, trends, or even an agreed upon understanding of important terms like "member" (i.e. an empty shirt
is noting but a donation, yet we count it as a personnel asset), and when members try to put that information together and the ghastly picture
begins to gel, eyes glaze over and we go back to discussing uniforms and airplanes.

Because one is painful and one is fun.

[lordmonar]

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

So much of this is Leadership 101 for me, from my military background.

I ran a Communications Maintenance Shop.  Not because I wanted to....but because we had a need for comm equipment and it needed to be maintained.

Some bright boy at AF Manning Center came up with the number of people I need to maintain my assigned equipment.  It was my job to yell at leadership when the manning fell below our benchmark.  It was my job to ensure that those people assigned where trained to do their job.  I had to develop a training plan and we had tools to help track "task coverage" and project any short falls 90 to 180 days out.

It was my job to weekly report my training status, my equipment readiness status and report any shortfalls and how I was going to fix them.

BUT I CAN"T do any of that if they did not first give me the benchmarks I need to meet.

And that's where CAP is right now.  No bench marks....then every squadron is successful if they don't diddle with the cadets, loose accountable property or misplace some money.   Those are the only hard benchmarks I have ever been able to find in CAP.

All else seems to be forgivable.

[Eclipse]

That's why I find awards like QC, SOM, etc., amusing (at best), including the SOM my unit received while I was CC.

In most cases, units make (or don't make) these numbers as a matter of chance or circumstance (2 big families join, 3 active cadets
age-out, etc., etc), yet many tack the cert on the wall as a validation of their operation, despite the fact that nothing they did that year was by design, and nothing
they did is scalable or repeatable.

[lordmonar]

Yes....while I do thing the QU, SOM, SOD are good things to have....they are at least a step in the right direction.   But as you say they are not necessarily a true indication of a "successful" unit.

You may take this as sour grapes.....We have the largest most active squadron in the wing.....and yet did not get the QU this year (or last year).  It was primarily we focused on program instead of numbers.

[Eclipse]

You may take this as sour grapes.....We have the largest most active squadron in the wing.....and yet did not get the QU this year (or last year).  It was primarily we focused on program instead of numbers.

Not at all, it's part and parcel of the problem, and a great way to demotivate members is not receiving what is essentially a baseline award to a unit that isn't struggling,
just isn't on the curve for the award.  For example, at least in my wing, a unit with 34 cadets, especially 34 active, is what you'd consider "good", but that's one short of
making QC, even if you exceed every other criteria.

The SOM and SOD is so subjective both in scoring and actual award as to be all but useless in comparing recipients between wings and regions, which basically defeats its purpose.