What constitutes "active participation"?

[CadetSnuffy]

What excuse could someone possibly have for not staying safety current? It's so easy it can literally be accomplished while sitting in front of a computer in your underwear in the space of a few minutes. If you don't have a computer (who doesn't these days?), show up at a safety briefing once in a while. Not being safety current over a period of time is just another indication that a member isn't interested in participating. Why waive the requirements for those folks? Communicate the expectations, then say goodbye to the disinterested member if they don't play ball.

You speak from experience? I see what you mean... too bad safety currency doesn't add up, because I've done most of the modules (except for "hurricane preparedness" this is Kansas). Hydration can be done in 5 minutes. The questions can be answered without looking over the material.

[AirAux]

It is becoming a farce because if you have been doing it long enough, you are re-doing prior lessons.  Duhhhhhh.   What a waste.  If National isn't interested enough to prepare new lessons, why should we participate??  Just waive it... 

[Ned]

My personal favorite is "downed power lines."

[CadetSnuffy]

It is becoming a farce because if you have been doing it long enough, you are re-doing prior lessons.  Duhhhhhh.   What a waste.  If National isn't interested enough to prepare new lessons, why should we participate??  Just waive it...

I question national's decision of requiring "safety currency" every month. I am all for being aware of safety, but surely there is a way that actually ensures that cadets are safe at CAP activities (or learn anything related to safety in the first place). Online Safety Education has become a joke.

[Storm Chaser]

Since one wants to 2'B members who are not safety current, one might note that unless an activity requires a GES card to participate, the Unit Commander may waive safety requirements, thereby cleaning up that ugly safety currency requirement...

Commanders at any level may waive all safety education requirements for meetings or activities which do not require a General Emergency Services (GES) rating if, in the opinion of the commander, such waiver serves the best interests of CAP. An example of a situation which might justify such a waiver includes meeting attendance by legislators or distinguished visitors who happen to be CAP members; however, regularly scheduled unit meetings, whether or not they require GES ratings (see above), still require regular safety education and operational risk safety briefings under this regulation, since fire prevention and general housekeeping, warehouse (storage) and hazard communication are valid safety requirements for regularly scheduled meetings and unit facilities. Waivers of safety education requirements should be the exception, not the rule.

Emphasis mine

[CadetSnuffy]

My personal favorite is "downed power lines."

Spatial Disorientation all the way!

[vorteks]

You speak from experience?

No. I attend unit meetings regularly and receive in-person safety briefings, and that's how it should be done IMO. The point is you don't even have to get dressed to meet the requirement, so there's really no excuse for not being current other than not giving a garsh dang.

[FW]

It is becoming a farce because if you have been doing it long enough, you are re-doing prior lessons.  Duhhhhhh.   What a waste.  If National isn't interested enough to prepare new lessons, why should we participate??  Just waive it...

I question national's decision of requiring "safety currency" every month. I am all for being aware of safety, but surely there is a way that actually ensures that cadets are safe at CAP activities (or learn anything related to safety in the first place). Online Safety Education has become a joke.

Actually, it was  CAP-USAF which demanded us to be "safety current". They kinda implied we would be in violation of our "Statement of Work" if we didn't come up with a more "formal program".  NHQ made it as painless as possible to comply.  I actually  don't think about it any longer.  I keep current with AOPA Foundation seminars and courses every month.  It goes right to the FAA, which transfers it to CAP automatically.  I get a substantive education, and remain safety current without a second thought...

[lordmonar]

The question....is not is keeping safety current hard or not.

The question is where in the regulations does it say you maintain safety currency just be a member.

The various wing/group/unit policies to transfer or 2b members who don't maintain safety currency is NOT supported by regulations, nor is it supported by the safety policy itself.

I go back to my original statement.

I question the value of transferring or terminating members simply for not showing up and for not maintaining safety currency.

I have yet to see from anyone who supports doing this....produce a good definition of an "empty shirt".

Let's start with that.

We got one for cadets (three meetings with out a valid excuse).....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".

From there we can debate the pro's and cons of what we should do with said empty shirts.

[Spam]

Spatial D is an excellent module, I agree (and I've taught it at USNTPS). CAP has a few professional Human Factors and Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) engineers that I've worked with or know of (one in Iowa, a couple in California, a couple in Texas, one at Pax). I wonder who the author(s) were...


Half joking here, and this might be a topic for a couple of new threads, but:

1. What is the quickest and easiest Safety module to complete, in case of rare need.

2. What is the most rewarding and best prepared Safety module in terms of content, so that NHQ could emulate it in crafting future modules. Using CT to provide constructive feedback to them would be a productive and useful thing to promote compliance and active participation.

V/R,
Spam

[Eclipse]

The question is where in the regulations does it say you maintain safety currency just be a member.

The various wing/group/unit policies to transfer or 2b members who don't maintain safety currency is NOT supported by regulations, nor is it supported by the safety policy itself.

Please cite where anyone said it is, or is basis for termination.  I certainly didn't say that.

Not maintaining safety currency is simply a short-hand way to find your empty shirts - a member incapable of
that small amount of participation is sure to have other issues, since they are literally doing nothing.

[Eclipse]

....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".

Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.

[lordmonar]

....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".

Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.

Not good enough.   Try again.  Anything that is that subjective is not gonna work as a blanket policy we can communicate to all our units.

[FW]

The question....is not is keeping safety current hard or not.

The question is where in the regulations does it say you maintain safety currency just be a member.

The various wing/group/unit policies to transfer or 2b members who don't maintain safety currency is NOT supported by regulations, nor is it supported by the safety policy itself.

I go back to my original statement.

I question the value of transferring or terminating members simply for not showing up and for not maintaining safety currency.

I have yet to see from anyone who supports doing this....produce a good definition of an "empty shirt".

Let's start with that.

We got one for cadets (three meetings with out a valid excuse).....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".

From there we can debate the pro's and cons of what we should do with said empty shirts.

There is, of course, nothing in the regulations stating safety currency is a requirement for membership, however it is a requirement to participate in CAP activities.  This basically makes those who are not current, Patron members.  Terminating a senior member for not being safety current is ridiculous.  A cadet who is not safety current, is most likely not active.  A cadet may be terminated for inactivity according to regs.

IMHO, an "empty shirt" is a member who does not participate in any of the missions or activities of CAP.  I would transfer these members to PATRON status.  I would never support termination.  We already have enough "disgruntled former members"...

[Eclipse]

....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".

Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.

Not good enough.   Try again.  Anything that is that subjective is not gonna work as a blanket policy we can communicate to all our units.

See the above from FW. 

[lordmonar]

....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".

Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.

Not good enough.   Try again.  Anything that is that subjective is not gonna work as a blanket policy we can communicate to all our units.

See the above from FW.

Still not objective enough.   Is there a time line?   30 days, 60 days, what?   Is keeping safety current enough? 

Let's write the regulation.

Let's write in the exceptions and the waivers too while we are at it.

Then we can see how much admin burden we are adding to our units, and run the cost benefit analysis on whether it is a good idea or not.

[FW]

Patrick, do you think a regulation is needed for this? I would think this issue would fall under "commander's prerogative", and maybe, be dealt with in the UCC curriculum.

Keeping safety current is the basic level of continued eligibility for active participation in CAP.  There are other factors which, I think, play into the process for determining if a (senior) member is an "active participant". It is something that needs to be discussed at the unit level, however it should be the commander who makes the decision what's best for the unit.   IMHO, the current regulations provide enough guidance, and flexibility; as to admin burden, cost effectiveness, or unit moral.

[lordmonar]

No I don't think there should be a regulation for this. 

I don't think we should be doing anything about this.

If you are not safety current....you must get current before you can participate.    Just like the reg says.

All the other policies and actions that people are taking to move empty shirts to patron status, or to 000 squadrons or as some here on CT have suggested termination.....is just point less.

I am demanding a definition from those who support that......to show how subjective a definition it is.   How problematical it would be to administer, and how much damage it can do to CAP.

[Eclipse]

I am demanding a definition from those who support that......to show how subjective a definition it is.   How problematical it would be to administer, and how much damage it can do to CAP.

"Demanding", that's actually funny.  Everybody wants to play Army until they have to get their crayons out.

It's subjective by design, that doesn't make it pointless.  There are plenty of people in CAP who do not serve in a
standard unit model who bring value by their contributions.  The respective commander, to whom the burden of
the membership applies, is free to determine that value.

This is as simple as the fact.  FACT (note the capital letters) that CAP, as an organization, has literally no idea how many
"members" it actually has beyond the number of checks it cashes each year.  The are many MANY (more caps) units with 50%
or more of the roster that never show up or participate in any way.  There are many more that have "members" they have never
seen or who haven't shown up in a decade.

As someone in the military, we'd all expect you to understand the importance of an organization which purports to be
a ready force in times of disaster (in fact is mandated by its charter to that effect), to have an accurate count of the
real status of all its members.

[lordmonar]

I am demanding a definition from those who support that......to show how subjective a definition it is.   How problematical it would be to administer, and how much damage it can do to CAP.

"Demanding", that's actually funny.  Everybody wants to play Army until they have to get their crayons out.

It's subjective by design, that doesn't make it pointless.

This is as simple as the fact.  FACT (note the capital letters) that CAP, as an organization, has literally no idea how many
"members" it actually has beyond the number of checks it cashes each year.  The are many MANY (more caps) units with 50%
or more of the roster that never show up or participate in any way.  There are many more that have "members" they have never
seen or who haven't shown up in a decade.

As someone in the military, we'd all expect you to understand the importance of an organization which purports to be
a ready force in times of disaster (in fact is mandated by its charter to that effect), to have an accurate count of the
real status of all its members.

Yes.....and I as a former military member also know that I need to have clear definitions of what "Cow" is and what a "Duck" is before I report it one way or the other.

I am simply asking you.....for said definitions.

What is an "active" member as opposed to an "inactive" member.

Define it.

Once we can agree on that.  Then we can move on to what that means.