Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 13, 2018, 12:52:45 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Encampments & NCSAs  |  Topic: Raised encampment PT standards?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All Print
Author Topic: Raised encampment PT standards?  (Read 5089 times)
I_Am_Twigs
Member

Posts: 96
Unit: RMR-ID-069

« on: June 12, 2018, 12:35:42 AM »

So, for Mountain Eagle VIII (Idaho 2018 encampment) the encampment CC has decided to raise the PT standards. For example, I normally have to run a 9:04 minute mile, but to qualify for my intended position at encampment (Flight commander) I have to run a 7:30 mile. I'm personally terrible with running, thankfully I had help from my C/CC (he's one of those 5:00 minute mile guys) and it dropped from 8:19 - 7:29. Anyway, back to the point, here's the requirements:

http://www.idahowingcap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Encampment-Fitness-Standards.pdf

I personally like what he's trying to do, but I think that it's impractical. What I'm wanting to know is if these raised standards are even allowed, is there anything is regs that would prohibit it?
Logged
Mitchell #68874
1st Encampment 2016 
2nd Encampment 2017
3rd Encampment 2018
C/2nd Lt, CAP
 
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,234

« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2018, 01:57:55 AM »

Sounds like the "Good Idea Fairy" is back.
Logged


Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,141
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2018, 02:29:07 AM »

Hi, Twigs.

I'd be interested in hearing Ned's take on this.  In a sense I get where I think they're coming from in that the minimum fitness standard now for the Curry Ribbon is to have a pulse (and this is the attempt to introduce Challenge). Interesting topic. Let me take a first try at it based only on your comments, and the document you link to:


The part that I think you question is this prerequisite to attend your Wing Encampment, right?:
"All cadets must demonstrate the successful accomplishment of their Encampment Fitness Evaluation within the 6 weeks preceding the submission of their Encampment Application" the implication being that the unfit are not encouraged to apply, or will not be accepted, at an Idaho Wing Encampment, even if they've met the Curry Ribbon (eh, which now has effectively NO fitness test any more...).


So, do the approved, NHQ regs grant him the authority to raise encampment entry physical fitness standards? No and Yes:  "NO" to adding requirements to ATTEND, but "YES" to adding fitness as a SELECTIVE factor for STAFF jobs.


Here are the elements I think apply:
CAPR 60-1 1 FEBRUARY 2018
"9.2.2. Program Guidance. CAP encampments will be conducted in accordance with CAPP 60-70, Cadet Encampment Guide. Encampments may issue operating plans, handbooks, training materials, etc., that amplify, but do not contradict or lessen, that documentís guidance".
"9.2.5. Eligibility. To participate, cadets must have completed Achievement 1, and receive per-mission from their parent or guardian and unit commander via a CAPF 60-81...".
"9.2.6. Equal Access. CAP maintains a nondiscrimination policy (CAPR 36-1, CAP Nondiscrimination Policy) to promote equal access to cadet activities, among other reasons. Encampment commanders will make reasonable accommodations to cadets who possess physical, mental, or
learning disabilities so that those cadets may participate in encampment to the greatest extent possible...".
"9.3.1. Curriculum Requirements. CAPP 60-70, Cadet Encampment Guide, outlines the encampmentís curricular requirements. ... The encampment commander is the final authority in determining which participants earn graduation or attendance credit".

CAPP 60-70 March 2017 Cadet Encampment Guide
"1.2 Key Program Guidance
f. Eligibility. To participate, cadets must have completed Achievement 1 and receive permission from
their parent or guardian and unit commander via the online encampment application in eServices. Some
host facilities will require parents to sign additional releases. If space is available, encampments should
allow cadets from other wings to participate".
4.2 Cadet Cadre Selection Exercise
In an ideal world the cadet cadre will be selected several weeks prior to encampment during a comprehensive
cadre selection exercise. Through a program of resume submissions, interviews, a test of academic
knowledge, performance during team leadership problems, and demonstration of practical skills in drill, fitness,
public speaking, and the like, an encampment not only completes the administrative task of selecting
cadets for the various cadre positions, but offers those NCOs and cadet officers a learning opportunity.


The Encampment/CC is clearly encouraged to select staff (like you) competitively (see emphasis on fitness as a selective factor in 4.2) but may not (unless covered in a Supplement) apply tougher standards to attend the encampment. By the regs, ANY Curry cadet should be able to attend regardless of their fitness level (anyone gets in) but your fitness could be a selective factor for staff. The Encampment Commander must conduct the activity under 9.2.2, 9.2.5, et al, which means to apply the standards as is, without modification, unless those publications are modified per an approved Wing or Region Supplement. So, is there such approval? 

Doesn't appear so, currently.  Any IDWG approved Supplements (and there are none, apparently) should be posted at https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/members/publications/approved-supplements-and-ois-by-region/rocky-mountain-region-supplements-and-ois/. None are, as of tonight. There are no RMR (Region) ones either. So, that clears that issue immediately - only the NHQ materials are under consideration then. Could there be such approval in the future? Sure, if IDWG/CC approves, and staffs it through RMR/CC to NHQ for review and signature and posting.


V/r
Spam

(PS, my respectful recommendation to defuse any possible conflict and demonstrate compliance would be to revise the document to clarify that those "Encampment Fitness Standards" are part of a Section 4.2 Cadet Cadre Selection Exercise, and apply only to Cadet Staff applicants as staff selective factors, and not as barriers to attendance for either Students or Cadre.  I think the activity would then be in compliance with policy and regulations).




Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,202

« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2018, 03:41:50 AM »

Interesting.

I am currently in Montenegro on a State Department gig.  Sounds like I need to have a few coversations once the sun is up in the US.
Logged
I_Am_Twigs
Member

Posts: 96
Unit: RMR-ID-069

« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2018, 11:06:23 AM »

From what I've heard the Wing CC has approved it, and the reason as to why. But i have heard nothing about a region approval, does there need to be one? Also I haven't seen a public document of any sort to approve the change, in that case would it be allowed?

Quote
PS, my respectful recommendation to defuse any possible conflict and demonstrate compliance would be to revise the document to clarify that those "Encampment Fitness Standards" are part of a Section 4.2 Cadet Cadre Selection Exercise, and apply only to Cadet Staff applicants as staff selective factors, and not as barriers to attendance for either Students or Cadre.  I think the activity would then be in compliance with policy and regulations

So, you're saying that there should be no fitness standards for the basics and staff, but it will be a competitive factor for selecting staff?

I can get behind that.


The reason I heard for the raised standard is because of safety, and so we don't end up like last year (it was easy, very easy). Last year we also had a few cadets that had broken an arm or sprained an ankle before they came, this lead to a handful of cadets getting a free ride all around the base yet still getting the same encampment credit as everyone else who was marching 3-5 miles every day in the heat (our encampment is on a military base that has all of our activities spread out). And for the safety aspect, the mile run is to make sure everyone can march that 3-5 miles everyday (I honestly kind of agree with this, but I and many other cadets were no where close or just barely meeting our PT mile time, yet we pushed through and marched), my point is, running and marching are completely different. The push-ups and sit-ups I have no idea why they're there.

It might help to mention that for the push-ups and sit-ups it is not the crummy 4" "curl-up" or the 3 second push-up, it's as many push-ups as you can in a minute, same with the sit-ups ACTUAL SIT-UPS, I love the actual sit-ups  ;D even if I do suck at them.
Logged
Mitchell #68874
1st Encampment 2016 
2nd Encampment 2017
3rd Encampment 2018
C/2nd Lt, CAP
 
Cadetter
Seasoned Member

Posts: 224

« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2018, 11:46:24 AM »

I doubt mandating any particular PT scores for attend is allowed, however I don't think there would be any issue requiring a certain fitness level to serve in a staff position.

I'm rather dubious on the female standards. For instance, a female 17-yo cadet officer needs 10:22, but a male needs 7:04 (a 3:16 difference)? That's an even worse split than any HFZ requirement (biggest difference being 1:16) although still not as egregious as the largest old PT difference (4:05 difference for a 17-yo airman).
Logged
Wright Brothers Award, 2013
Billy Mitchell Award, 2016
Earhart Award, 2018

Planned: Eaker Award, late 2018 or early 2019; Spaatz Award, summer 2019
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,234

« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2018, 11:50:21 AM »

Spam can defend his own points, which I agree with, but to add my voice...

So, you're saying that there should be no fitness standards for the basics students and staff, but it will be a competitive factor for selecting staff?

FTFY

Of course there are, every cadet needs to have passed the Curry, that's the baseline standard.

The most you can do is hold a cadet to the standard for his respective HFZ, and the number you indicate
is lower then for 18 yo Phase IV, infact, it's a Spaatz-level run for females.  That's rediculous for an encampment FC
who is likely to be about 15-16, and isn't even required to run a mile at all.

The reason I heard for the raised standard is because of safety, and so we don't end up like last year (it was easy, very easy). Last year we also had a few cadets that had broken an arm or sprained an ankle before they came, this lead to a handful of cadets getting a free ride all around the base yet still getting the same encampment credit as everyone else who was marching 3-5 miles every day in the heat (our encampment is on a military base that has all of our activities spread out). And for the safety aspect, the mile run is to make sure everyone can march that 3-5 miles everyday (I honestly kind of agree with this, but I and many other cadets were no where close or just barely meeting our PT mile time, yet we pushed through and marched), my point is, running and marching are completely different. The push-ups and sit-ups I have no idea why they're there.

Those cadets with injuries didn't get a "free ride", they were afforded an opportunity to participate despite their limitations.  I would question
whether it was a good idea for them to do this, but once there, it's no fun to be at an encampment with a broken arm or not being able to
participate fully.

Based only on your comments here, someone is trying to make an argument using facts that are irrelevant to the intention.
Saying that the intention is to insure that the staff can march the 3-5 miles (which you apparently believe is a lot, and
really isn't that big a deal, encampment-movement-wise).  The problem is, they aren't the one's to be worried about, it's
the students that will be the issue, and their standard is Curry, and in many cases, that Curry is going to be fresh
the week of encampment for a cadet who has been in the org a month. 

In those cases, having Quicksilver as the FC isn't going to make a bit of difference, and may well influence
an environment which would be inclined to haze cadets not living up to this new, artificial expectation.

I just checked the document linked below, and there's also increased expectation for student cadets as well.
That's 100% not allowed and isn't going to fly.  The requirement is Curry, period.  The other evaluations are
for development, not a gating factor. 

Hopefully Ned's phone call will adjust expectation in this regard.
Logged


kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915

« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2018, 12:09:00 PM »

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff.  You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers.  Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.
Logged
I_Am_Twigs
Member

Posts: 96
Unit: RMR-ID-069

« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2018, 12:11:42 PM »

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff.  You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers.  Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.

This is one thing I'm worried about, there are several NCOs around the wing that I've seen that would make excellent flight sergeants, but they can't make the cut-off time.
Logged
Mitchell #68874
1st Encampment 2016 
2nd Encampment 2017
3rd Encampment 2018
C/2nd Lt, CAP
 
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,234

« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2018, 12:23:25 PM »

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff.  You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers.  Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.

This is one thing I'm worried about, there are several NCOs around the wing that I've seen that would make excellent flight sergeants, but they can't make the cut-off time.

The other practical issue is how small IDWG is, how does ID even have the numbers to artificially limit cadets from participating?

Also >*UGH*< the Wing is still referring to students as "Basic Cadets" - seriously, it's been like 7 years.
Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,519

« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2018, 02:00:24 PM »

I'll just add this, having any type of PT requirement above CAP regulations really doesn't serve a purpose for an event like encampment, that includes staff.  You want a cadet staff made up of leaders and teachers.  Having a fast run time does not mean you are a good leader or teacher.

This is one thing I'm worried about, there are several NCOs around the wing that I've seen that would make excellent flight sergeants, but they can't make the cut-off time.

Conversely, you want to make sure that the Cadet NCO leading PT is actually able to lead it. The cadet who's 250 lbs and can't run the mile shouldn't be the shining example of fitness.

Maybe it's not "nice" to say that, but that's the real world. Balance out opportunity with practicality.

That said, to Eclipse's point, in the application process, you really have to watch who you're limiting from participating. Having a staff-wide standard does impose restrictions on participation. I heard scuttle from my Encampment that there was an age limit put on Flight Sergeants and First Sergeant; that the cadets had to be at least 14-years-old. Now, that's just gossip to me, and maybe by someone who was hurt over not getting the slot they wanted. But you start opening all kinds of wormy cans there.

Quote
the Wing is still referring to students as "Basic Cadets"

There are a few people floating around who continue to call first-time students "Basics" despite knowing that they're called "Students." One of the comments I had said to me was that the logic was we were calling them "Basics" which could be taken as meaning "Non-exceptional." A few seniors I know of took that as trying to be politically correct, so they refuse to say "Students."


Logged
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,654

« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2018, 02:37:37 PM »

Funny thing about annual CAP activities. When you make a little tweak (like what to call first time attendees) and enforce it, in a couple of years 90% of your staff and 100% of your students will have never known it any other way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,234

« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2018, 03:02:15 PM »

Funny thing about annual CAP activities. When you make a little tweak (like what to call first time attendees) and enforce it, in a couple of years 90% of your staff and 100% of your students will have never known it any other way.

Depends what the "tweak" is and if you have people who "know better" actively ignoring the change.

It was "basic cadet" for something like the first 10 years I was involved, that's hard wiring to undo,
so I slip up more then a little - a verbal slip is one thing, when a wing is writing content and can't be
bothered, or worse doesn't know, or worse still clings to some of the other nonsense, inappropriate
terms they have always used "because", that's another.
Logged


Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,141
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2018, 03:20:56 PM »


Language shapes thoughts, and vice versa...

The terms "Student" and "Cadre" were adopted from USAF current usage and have been standard for several years now. They connote the proper relationship between a learner and the staff, whose term "Cadre" was chosen by our USAF customer to reflect a military instructional heritage.
That's from the national Encampment Handbook - not from Spams opinion, nor scuttlebutt, and it isn't politically correct in any way. My Wing (Georgia) has been quite slow to adopt that new curriculum, and despite the best efforts of the DCP and staff, the in processing instruction for next weeks encampment still had a leaker: it directed "Basic" students to report to _____. Old habits die hard. We will continue the process until the desired result is obtained.


On the staff selective process. The handbook does lay out a model process as an example for how to treat staff selection as a leadership practical problem in and of itself ("what criteria would YOU use, cadet commander and top cadets"?). It is an interesting read, and its worth considering as a field problem to present, in the light of day, to cadet staff so they can be involved - and that transparency could help cut down on the gossipy crap (no "smoky back room deals").


When I've served as a Squadron Commander I've tried to employ participative leadership by inviting all the cadet officers and senior C/NCOs to a jam session with a white board and membership/training list to "game out" and update the cadet staff road map. I've tried, with general success over the years, to shortcut the gossipy drama crap by actually involving them in forming a cooperative recommendation every six months (term limits)  for the next two C/CC selections (C/CC and designee who will understudy as C/CD), and then after concurring I've ordered the selectees (C/CC and C/CD) to mimic the process over the next week without me there, and deliver a recommended staff plan for my consideration.  In short, I like maintaining high standards and I set the bar high, then step back and let them work the leadership problem with as little coaching as necessary. My feeling is that's the intent for encampment staff as well (i.e. read the pubs, its there).


R/s
Spam

Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,519

« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2018, 09:01:28 AM »

Funny thing about annual CAP activities. When you make a little tweak (like what to call first time attendees) and enforce it, in a couple of years 90% of your staff and 100% of your students will have never known it any other way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you make a tweak, and then next year, the next staff makes their own tweak, everyone starts with the "But last year...!!!"

Logged
I_Am_Twigs
Member

Posts: 96
Unit: RMR-ID-069

« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2018, 09:26:07 PM »

So is there anything that I'd be able to do? I don't want to be seen as insubordinate and I don't want to give up my possible staff position, but I also don't want to let it happen if it's not allowed. Is this just one of those things that I have to sit back and watch it take its course?
Logged
Mitchell #68874
1st Encampment 2016 
2nd Encampment 2017
3rd Encampment 2018
C/2nd Lt, CAP
 
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,202

« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2018, 10:26:22 AM »

I have had a chance to speak with the IDWG leadership, and it sounds like they have an outstanding encampment planned.  I would love to visit and see it, but I have a conflict with another CAP activity.

It appears that there was a miscommunication in their website and outreach materials, because all student cadets who meet the standards outlined in the 60-1 will be welcomed, including all cadets with disabilities that can be reasonably accommodated.  IDWG had set aspirational PT goals to help ensure that all cadets will succeed, but even cadets not meeting the aspirational goals will be welcome

I believe they will be updating their website and outreach materials to eliminate any confusion.

Ned Lee
National CP Manager
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 10:31:49 AM by Ned » Logged
I_Am_Twigs
Member

Posts: 96
Unit: RMR-ID-069

« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2018, 10:46:55 AM »

I have had a chance to speak with the IDWG leadership, and it sounds like they have an outstanding encampment planned.  I would love to visit and see it, but I have a conflict with another CAP activity.

It appears that there was a miscommunication in their website and outreach materials, because all student cadets who meet the standards outlined in the 60-1 will be welcomed, including all cadets with disabilities that can be reasonably accommodated.  IDWG had set aspirational PT goals to help ensure that all cadets will succeed, but even cadets not meeting the aspirational goals will be welcome

I believe they will be updating their website and outreach materials to eliminate any confusion.

Ned Lee
National CP Manager

Ok, thank you Ned, that clears some things up.
Logged
Mitchell #68874
1st Encampment 2016 
2nd Encampment 2017
3rd Encampment 2018
C/2nd Lt, CAP
 
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,519

« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2018, 11:06:19 AM »

I have had a chance to speak with the IDWG leadership, and it sounds like they have an outstanding encampment planned.  I would love to visit and see it, but I have a conflict with another CAP activity.

It appears that there was a miscommunication in their website and outreach materials, because all student cadets who meet the standards outlined in the 60-1 will be welcomed, including all cadets with disabilities that can be reasonably accommodated.  IDWG had set aspirational PT goals to help ensure that all cadets will succeed, but even cadets not meeting the aspirational goals will be welcome

I believe they will be updating their website and outreach materials to eliminate any confusion.

Ned Lee
National CP Manager

And this is a fine indicator as to why it's important that these types of questions be raised. Sounds like a matter of clarification, not disobedience.

Nice to know that the higher ups keep an eye out for stuff like this and step in just as a courtesy check.
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,141
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2018, 02:17:33 PM »

Agreed!  Also, I admire adding a challenging, higher standard to meet for staff selection, or even to try to make a positive change in physical fitness habits for day to day cadet life.

I know that in my prior command (my original cadet squadron of entry), we had done the USAF style sports oriented PT on occasion after completing the regular CPFT, but for decades that unit has run 3 mile PTs, and team fitness station runs which I can't physically keep up with any more (grin - knees are going, going...). For a good while we had also structured our PT events (no, not the test for advancement, but the additional activities) around the ES mission. We did one man fireman short carry, two man "seat" carry, and team litter carry competitions, did ops loaded rucksack races, etc.  It would seem that the services are in fact moving back towards that type of PT themselves, based on recent combat experience. See:

http://www.combatreform.org/apft.htm

I want to emphasize that I'm not at all suggesting combat standards PT for cadets, but, there are some useful fun and ops-relevant concepts there for units that are heavily invested in the ES mission (which is OPTIONAL for all members and is not, I should stress, a mandatory CP element). The popular activity at our just-completed GA WG encampment was, I'm told, the ropes courses and HAA rappelling (REAL rappelling) which was central to a fun week in the Georgia heat at Ft. Stewart.


V/r
Spam

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Encampments & NCSAs  |  Topic: Raised encampment PT standards?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.091 seconds with 25 queries.