New Cadet Programs Specialty Track Pamphlet P216 published

[PA Guy]

Get over it is not advice nor help.

Sorry if I offended you. Proving once again no good deed goes unpunished.

Out here.

[THRAWN]

Get over it is not advice nor help.

You're right, it's not either. Now I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight, but it does raise some issues with how the PD program is run, and how officers working within the CP specialty are viewed. PD is broken. That is a fairly well established fact. One of the reasons that it's broken is because of random and for the sake of change changes like this. I get the rationale. DDR had to go somewhere to justify its lack of a viable program. That being said, changing the rules in the middle of the game and being told "oops, no biggie, we cut out other stuff when we added this..." just doesn't cut it. When new programs in the Cadet Program are introduced, there is a phase in period and people already on task are allowed to complete the program that they are already in. It should be that way for the PD specialties as well. This is why we lose members. People give a lot of time and treasure, and make many personal sacrifices to contribute to the program, and to make progress within it. Which brings me to the next point of how officers in the CP are perceived. A few posts back made mention of "you should be more concerned with raising cadets than your own progress in the program." I call foul on this. If the person who is running the program isn't progressing, how can that person be effective in motivating cadets to progress? Face it, Mother Teresa isn't running the CP, and service before self is a nice notion but it only goes so far. People who do the job expect to be able to look at a checklist, do the tasks and get the carrot at the end of that stick. Making a longer stick just causes the mules to kick more.

[Storm Chaser]

But I can tell you that when training requirements change they allow (grandfather) those already in a program to finish.  If they changed my cdcs now I wouldn't have to stop and take the new set.

That's not true. Back when I was enlisted and working on my 5-Level (Journeyman), I had 4 CDCs and one test. As I was getting closer to complete my requirements, they were changed to consolidate three shops. My new requirements were now 12 CDCs and 4 tests. What did I do? I worked hard to complete the new requirements and earn my 5-Level.

My anger is proportinate [sic]

No, it's not.

and when explanations are canned and placating I do not have to accept it.

Yes, you do... Membership in CAP is voluntary, but it's also a privilege, not a right. Remember the CAP Oath you signed when you became a member?

I understand membership in the Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right...

I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by CAP Core Values, Ethics Policies, Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws...

I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol...

[THRAWN]

Quote from: abdsp51 on Today at 09:30:26 AM
and when explanations are canned and placating I do not have to accept it.

Yes, you do... Membership in CAP is voluntary, but it's also a privilege, not a right. Remember the CAP Oath you signed when you became a member?

Nope. "Thank you, may I have another" is seldom a valid course of action. Unless you're married....Just because you signed an oath, doesn't mean that you have to accept somebody at a higher echelon doing something that is clearly wrong.

[LSThiker]

doesn't mean that you have to accept somebody at a higher echelon doing something that is clearly wrong.

Depends on the definition of two words in your sentence:  accept and wrong.

Does wrong mean "illegal or against the regulation" or "something I believe is not the correct course of action"?

Does accept mean "agree with" or "follow"?

[abdsp51]

Storm chaser you're wrong.  When I came in in 99 cops who were in their cdcs were allowed to finish them with no change.  Those who graduated from tech from a certain point on were enrolled in the new sets.  It's the same with course 14 now if you were enrolled before they went to course 15 they are allowed to finish in course 14. 

The oath may say abide by, bit sorry it doesn't say agree with or take it in the rear.  This was the wrong move to make.

[THRAWN]

doesn't mean that you have to accept somebody at a higher echelon doing something that is clearly wrong.

Depends on the definition of two words in your sentence:  accept and wrong.

Does wrong mean "illegal or against the regulation" or "something I believe is not the correct course of action"?

Does accept mean "agree with" or "follow"?

Wrong: I'll give you a third option: a norm that deviates from all previously accepted practice.

Accept: in this case its more of a resign your self to....

Sice you're looking for a semantic debate, allow me to make me position clear: Somebody at NHQ screwed up (for the record, I don't really care how many people work in the shop, or that they try really really hard...) and people who are already in process with this specialty are getting screwed. Taking away tasks that can be done independently and adding requirements that must be done in class, and are difficult at best to obtain, doesn't balance the scales.

[Storm Chaser]

Storm chaser you're wrong.  When I came in in 99 cops who were in their cdcs were allowed to finish them with no change.  Those who graduated from tech from a certain point on were enrolled in the new sets.  It's the same with course 14 now if you were enrolled before they went to course 15 they are allowed to finish in course 14. 

The oath may say abide by, bit sorry it doesn't say agree with or take it in the rear.  This was the wrong move to make.

How am I wrong? I told you how it was done in my career field back in the mid to late 90s. Or are you saying that I'm lying? Maybe they grandfathered those members in your case, but that doesn't mean that that's the way it always happens.

I never said you had to agree or even like the change. But your attitude in this thread is out of proportion with the issue at hand. You may not agree with me, but many others in CT, including your commander, have expressed similar sentiments. Are we all wrong but you? Hardly.

Consider this my last post on this thread. Good luck.

[arajca]

When the Comm track was updated, after many years of complaining by Comm folks, I, as wing DCT, had a number folks wanting to complete their Tech rating under the old program because they were almost there and only had one item left. I checked all of the requests myself and found those wanting to keep to the old program were missing one or more of the following: Technician test, net check-ins (most had never checked into a radio net), comm service at ES exercises or missions (most were not even trainees in a position that would use a radio and several did not even have GES), or attending a Comm meeting.

Now, because they enrolled in the track at the last second (literally, many enrolled the same day the new pamphlet came out), should they be allowed to complete their tech rating under the old program?

Not saying this is the case with the folks here, but I wouldn't be surprised if some wing CP folks have the same issues.

[THRAWN]

When the Comm track was updated, after many years of complaining by Comm folks, I, as wing DCT, had a number folks wanting to complete their Tech rating under the old program because they were almost there and only had one item left. I checked all of the requests myself and found those wanting to keep to the old program were missing one or more of the following: Technician test, net check-ins (most had never checked into a radio net), comm service at ES exercises or missions (most were not even trainees in a position that would use a radio and several did not even have GES), or attending a Comm meeting.

Now, because they enrolled in the track at the last second (literally, many enrolled the same day the new pamphlet came out), should they be allowed to complete their tech rating under the old program?

Not saying this is the case with the folks here, but I wouldn't be surprised if some wing CP folks have the same issues.

Yes, they should. Let me counter with an example. CP comes out with a new program (New Leader) that goes into effect on 1OCT and replaces the year old but somehow dated Old Leader. New Leader has 10 added performance tasks. Cadet Tenthumbs joins on 30Sept and is enrolled in Old Leader. Cadet Leftfeet joins on 2 October and is enrolled in New Leader. Should Cadet Tenthumbs have been enrolled in New Leader? Nope, because it did not exist from a regulations point of view.

[Eclipse]

^ So?

Are the tasks and expectations deemed "important" by NHQ somehow "different" because of the calendar?

"We took a look at things and experienced leaders realized it was detrimental to all involved to allow members
to pretend they were doing 'required reading' while at the same time ignoring DDR.  We fixed that."

Etc., etc.

When ES tasks are added, everyone has to do them, no exceptions.

[spaatzmom]

It seems that having better trained CP officers is more beneficial to the CP.

And hose membership in the process.  I bet if they changed the requirements for ES and to be a pilot they'd have a better timeline for execution.

Perhaps you should try meditation.  Even a few minutes a day can help relieve anxiety and tension. 

In all seriousness, though, if I were king of the world, our specialty track ratings would expire and need continuing training to maintain currency. 
Once, WIWAC, they decided to revamp the entire promotion system on us.  They made C/Sgt into C/SrA, added a few more Cadet NCO grades at the top, eliminated C/FO, and created ribbons that I'd never be able to earn because I had already passed them.  When I got my Mitchell, me and 4 other cadets in my unit got them at the same time and were promoted to C/FO.  I kept working and got promoted to C/2d Lt just as the phaseout of C/FO happened, so all my peers who had done nothing also got promoted.  Imagine that, I worked so hard to get myself promoted and that darn NHQ just went and promoted all those slackers.

So then, I became a Senior Member and started working on the 216 specialty track.  I got my technician rating, and was working towards senior and WHAM!  A new course comes out called TLC, and to get my senior rating, I have to attend it.  How dare they demand that I get more training to be proficient at my job while I'm right in the middle of a level! 

Change happens.  Sometimes a few people get hung up in it.  It's not the end of the world, and if you're going to have a heart attack about it, pick one of the specialties that nobody has updated since 1997, like Administration. I think you're making this a way bigger deal than it is.

And perhaps you fail to see that to some it is a big deal especially when you where right at the finish line and it's moved on you.  Change poorly executed as this has been is piss poor leadership.  Hell lets make it to where to be a pilot you need a commercial license, multi engine rating, cfi and 800hrs just to start and you need 1500 just to fly cadets on top of the others.  You have your rating so who cares, who cares that this has screwed people on theirs and pushed it back.  Shoot lets just say that to be ground team you need the sheriffs blessingbon top of ours, oh wait that won't happen because its more important than CP.

I've been sitting idle on this for long enough.


We have discussed this back in Jan to ensure that your timeline for completion of the senior rating is not as severely impacted.


After a review of both the 2011 and 2014 (April) pamphlets, it seems a grand total of 4 requirements (2 knowledge, 2 service) have been added to your senior rating.  Of the knowledge requirements, we've already discussed them and I have no problem as your OJT supervisor and commander saying they are complete.  For the service requirements, the first you are already working on and could argue is actually already complete.  You are scheduled for TLC at the end of this month, something that people are bending over backwards to have happen. Just give me two ideas for improvement of our cadet program that you learned in the course and you're good, bam you have your senior rating.  You could easily have this accomplished NLT the first weekend in May.


Seriously, it is NOT worth it to get so worked up over this.  There are bigger fish to fry and bigger pots to stir. I'd rather not lose an otherwise stellar officer, mentor and friend, I know the cadets wouldn't either.

Chris,

From the response above, it appears that Tim has a handle on this and you should have your senior rating in a month.  He regards you as a positive to CAP and as a friend and would not like to lose that over this.  Is it really a war that you want to declare?  Things in life are always fluid, constantly changing, some for better others not so much.  It is how you deal with the set backs that define you as seen by others.  Yes, you are entitled to your frustration over it, but when that frustration develops venom, it poisons not only you but how you are perceived by others around you.  Breathe, finish what you started and Tim is helping you with, take a break if needed, but please get back on an even keel for your own sake and especially your blood pressure.  Just being a long distance Mom.  Good luck.

[Eclipse]

For the service requirements, the first you are already working on and could argue is actually already complete.  You are scheduled for TLC at the end of this month, something that people are bending over backwards to have happen.  Just give me two ideas for improvement of our cadet program that you learned in the course and you're good, bam you have your senior rating.  You could easily have this accomplished NLT the first weekend in May.

OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.

TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10?  Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?

[LSThiker]

OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.

TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10?  Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?

TLC has been required for CP since 2004.  The program was not made until late 2004-early 2005.

[Eclipse]

OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.

TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10?  Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?

TLC has been required for CP since 2004.  The program was not made until late 2004-early 2005.

Right, but it wasn't required for CP Senior until about 2009, or "Strongly suggested" for unit staff until
a few years ago (which might no longer be the case when they re-do the SUIs).

But in either case the requirement isn't "recent".

[NC Hokie]

OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.

TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10?  Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?

Sort of.  Completing TLC used to be the requirement, but they added that you should "use the knowledge you obtained to make two recommendations to your unit commander on how the unit’s cadet program can be improved."

I did an item by item comparision of the senior rating requirements of the Apr 14 and Apr 09* editions of CAPP 216 and concur with Tim Medeiros' assessment that there are only four additions to the previous list (including the additional clause re: TLC).  IMHO, none of them are particularly onerous.  Here they are:

Correctly describe in detail the CAP policies regarding respect for others
and fraternization / dating, as described in CAPR 52-16.

Correctly describe in detail the proper DDR program implementation
strategies at the unit and wing level.

Mentor a cadet officer or NCO leading a class or training activity of 20
minutes or longer in duration on Drug Awareness and Prevention, or lead
an activity from the Drug Demand Reduction Excellence guide.

Complete the Training Leaders of Cadets course, and use the knowledge
you obtained to make two recommendations to your unit commander on
how the unit’s cadet program can be improved.

Yes, the goalposts were moved, but the new requirements shouldn't take much more than a week or two to complete.

* The Apr 09 edition is the only old edition I have on my handy-dandy thumb drive, but the CP shop stated that there were, "[n]o substantive changes," in the Apr 11 edition when it came out (see http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?updates_for_april_15&show=entry&blogID=341).

[Eclipse]

Correctly describe in detail the CAP policies regarding respect for others
and fraternization / dating, as described in CAPR 52-16.

Don't.

Correctly describe in detail the proper DDR program implementation
strategies at the unit and wing level.

Drugs are bad, we're not close enough to a USAF base to get money, drugs are bad.

Mentor a cadet officer or NCO leading a class or training activity of 20
minutes or longer in duration on Drug Awareness and Prevention, or lead
an activity from the Drug Demand Reduction Excellence guide.

That should take about, hm...20 minutes.

Complete the Training Leaders of Cadets course, and use the knowledge
you obtained to make two recommendations to your unit commander on
how the unit's cadet program can be improved.

Anyone who knows the CP well enough to deserve a Senior rating can do that in 1 minute, including stopping for coffee along the way.
Example:

1 - "Did you know PT is required?"
2 - "Apparently there are some sorts of tests required for each promotion."

[jimmydeanno]

So the issue isn't that you object to the training itself, because well trained CP officers are beneficial to the success of the program.  The issue is that now it'll take a bit longer for you to be able to wear a bronze star on your CP badge.  Because that is the only thing that is going to be affected.

What a sword to fall on. 

[LSThiker]

OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.

TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10?  Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?

TLC has been required for CP since 2004.  The program was not made until late 2004-early 2005.

Right, but it wasn't required for CP Senior until about 2009, or "Strongly suggested" for unit staff until
a few years ago (which might no longer be the case when they re-do the SUIs).

But in either case the requirement isn't "recent".

No. It was 2003 requirement for senior rating. My apologies for the date error.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/u_082503085038.pdf

But yes not recent.

[Eclipse]

Wow - didn't realize it went that far back - I remember taking one of the first sessions in my Region, if not the
country after it was rolled out.