April 06, 2020, 11:19:59 am

Cadets as CULs

Started by GreatValuePAO, January 24, 2020, 04:08:15 am

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GreatValuePAO

I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on cadets serving as CULs. I'm currently a cadet (under 18) and I'm a CUL trainee. Do you feel that cadets, especially minors, can be effective CULs? What advantages or disadvantages come with cadets being CULs?

TIA

Holding Pattern

How are you planning to complete ICS-300?

glm705

January 24, 2020, 04:32:52 am #2 Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 04:36:24 am by glm705
Quote from: Holding Pattern on January 24, 2020, 04:27:15 am
How are you planning to complete ICS-300?

Most local EMAs offer it and I've never seen any age restrictions
Regulation Nerd and PA Geek

GreatValuePAO

Quote from: glm705 on January 24, 2020, 04:32:52 am
Quote from: Holding Pattern on January 24, 2020, 04:27:15 am
How are you planning to complete ICS-300?

Most local EMAs offer it and I've never seen any age restrictions

Looking on doing it during a school break through my local EMA or Fire Department. The system let me register for the course enrollment system with my minor DoB, and none of the ICS-300 courses have any age limitation.

CAP9907

Quote from: GreatValuePAO on January 24, 2020, 04:08:15 am
Do you feel that cadets, especially minors, can be effective CULs?


No.

CUL is very much a management position: leading a team and reporting to a Section Chief. As such, the position carries a heavy leadership responsibility, not to mention the tech knowledge required. I'm not convinced, generally, that any young Cadet is ready for that.

Can it be done? Of course it can, but it will not be easy and I believe the Cadet will be setting up for a mission fail.

Should it be done: No.

YMMV,

~9907
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

Fester

Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 05:30:41 am
Quote from: GreatValuePAO on January 24, 2020, 04:08:15 am
Do you feel that cadets, especially minors, can be effective CULs?


No.

CUL is very much a management position: leading a team and reporting to a Section Chief. As such, the position carries a heavy leadership responsibility, not to mention the tech knowledge required. I'm not convinced, generally, that any young Cadet is ready for that.

Can it be done? Of course it can, but it will not be easy and I believe the Cadet will be setting up for a mission fail.

Should it be done: No.

YMMV,

~9907


We have a cadet in our Wing that is not only a qualified, experienced CUL, she is also on Wing, Region and National Comms Staff.

So I disagree with your blanket statement of "No".
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996

Spam


I have known two CUL qualified cadets - meaning, they met the SQTR training requirements and were signed off to the same standards as any other member, age regardless (but, NOT maturity regardless).  During the review phase, there were some significant differing opinions from some adults regarding the propriety of signing one off, which were not (to my memory) related to or substantiated by any task related performance, nor to any exhibited immaturity. So, while we've seen some "controversy" with unit leader level quals for cadets, it has been my experience that this has been due to the personal opinion of some adults that 18 year olds should not be put in positions of responsibility.

Which brings me to 9907s point; as he says, a "young cadet" may not be ready for leadership responsibility. I fully agree, actually. Which is why we have the checks and balances imposed by requiring SET evaluator approval, plus unit level, Group and finally Wing level review of suitability, safety, and training mission experience. Other leadership slots have an age 18 minimum (see below for thoughts on that)...

Having seen more than a few adult members (some with decades of life experience) fail to exhibit either technical task mastery or the leadership ability necessary to hold down a unit leader slot, I feel that we've arrived at a solid system requiring evaluation to standards plus the checks and balances of a multi-person eval and qual system - which should qualify people based on demonstrated ability, rather than on age, race, sex, or any other qualities or preferences.

Yet I however have to point out the inconsistency that CUL does not have an age 18 check for prerequisites as many other team leadership positions do (e.g. GTL, aircrew, flight line supervisor).  I feel that it would be consistent to reexamine national standards with an eye to revising standards for any such supervisory positions to include a minimum age.  I've seen no indications that we have any active effort to update or revise national standards in anything other than a patchwork and ad hoc method (e.g. SUAS operators) so I've zero hope of this being done.


R/s
Spam




Holding Pattern

Quote from: GreatValuePAO on January 24, 2020, 04:49:19 am
Quote from: glm705 on January 24, 2020, 04:32:52 am
Quote from: Holding Pattern on January 24, 2020, 04:27:15 am
How are you planning to complete ICS-300?

Most local EMAs offer it and I've never seen any age restrictions

Looking on doing it during a school break through my local EMA or Fire Department. The system let me register for the course enrollment system with my minor DoB, and none of the ICS-300 courses have any age limitation.


Awesome. As you can see from the above conversation, you have an uphill battle in convincing senior staff that cadets can do the job and well.

Being a self-motivated person that has actively hunted down and registered for an ICS-300 class shows more motivation than I've seen from a lot of CUL candidates on the senior side. Good luck!

Also, while you are young and have more spare time than responsibilities, I strongly suggest you hammer out ICS-400 if the opportunity presents itself as well.

Holding Pattern

Quote from: Spam on January 24, 2020, 10:06:55 am

Yet I however have to point out the inconsistency that CUL does not have an age 18 check for prerequisites as many other team leadership positions do (e.g. GTL, aircrew, flight line supervisor).  I feel that it would be consistent to reexamine national standards with an eye to revising standards for any such supervisory positions to include a minimum age.  I've seen no indications that we have any active effort to update or revise national standards in anything other than a patchwork and ad hoc method (e.g. SUAS operators) so I've zero hope of this being done.


R/s
Spam


I'm thinking the CUL is a holdover exempt from age restrictions given how much we used to let cadets do but now restrict them from.

Originally I thought there might have been a difference between field vs base positions, but then I saw that MSO has a minimum age of 21.

I hope they keep the exemption of age and rely on the beliefs of the commander's authorizations and IC's faith in the cadets for the position.

CAP9907

Quote from: Fester on January 24, 2020, 09:09:28 am
Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 05:30:41 am
Quote from: GreatValuePAO on January 24, 2020, 04:08:15 am
Do you feel that cadets, especially minors, can be effective CULs?


No.

CUL is very much a management position: leading a team and reporting to a Section Chief. As such, the position carries a heavy leadership responsibility, not to mention the tech knowledge required. I'm not convinced, generally, that any young Cadet is ready for that.

Can it be done? Of course it can, but it will not be easy and I believe the Cadet will be setting up for a mission fail.

Should it be done: No.

YMMV,

~9907


We have a cadet in our Wing that is not only a qualified, experienced CUL, she is also on Wing, Region and National Comms Staff.

So I disagree with your blanket statement of "No".


Feel free to disagree, your example may very much be the exception than the norm.

I'm not one to block advancement: if they meet the SQTR, then they get the Ops Qual. Based on my experience as a Comms director and an Ops guy, I'm still not convinced that generally CUL is a good idea for a young Cadet.

~9907
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

PHall

Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 06:32:33 pm
Quote from: Fester on January 24, 2020, 09:09:28 am
Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 05:30:41 am
Quote from: GreatValuePAO on January 24, 2020, 04:08:15 am
Do you feel that cadets, especially minors, can be effective CULs?


No.

CUL is very much a management position: leading a team and reporting to a Section Chief. As such, the position carries a heavy leadership responsibility, not to mention the tech knowledge required. I'm not convinced, generally, that any young Cadet is ready for that.

Can it be done? Of course it can, but it will not be easy and I believe the Cadet will be setting up for a mission fail.

Should it be done: No.

YMMV,

~9907


We have a cadet in our Wing that is not only a qualified, experienced CUL, she is also on Wing, Region and National Comms Staff.

So I disagree with your blanket statement of "No".


Feel free to disagree, your example may very much be the exception than the norm.

I'm not one to block advancement: if they meet the SQTR, then they get the Ops Qual. Based on my experience as a Comms director and an Ops guy, I'm still not convinced that generally CUL is a good idea for a young Cadet.

~9907



Since you seem to be really, really stuck on the word "young". How about an 18 or 19 year old cadet? You have any problems with that?

Holding Pattern

Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 06:32:33 pm
Quote from: Fester on January 24, 2020, 09:09:28 am
Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 05:30:41 am
Quote from: GreatValuePAO on January 24, 2020, 04:08:15 am
Do you feel that cadets, especially minors, can be effective CULs?


No.

CUL is very much a management position: leading a team and reporting to a Section Chief. As such, the position carries a heavy leadership responsibility, not to mention the tech knowledge required. I'm not convinced, generally, that any young Cadet is ready for that.

Can it be done? Of course it can, but it will not be easy and I believe the Cadet will be setting up for a mission fail.

Should it be done: No.

YMMV,

~9907


We have a cadet in our Wing that is not only a qualified, experienced CUL, she is also on Wing, Region and National Comms Staff.

So I disagree with your blanket statement of "No".


Feel free to disagree, your example may very much be the exception than the norm.

I'm not one to block advancement: if they meet the SQTR, then they get the Ops Qual. Based on my experience as a Comms director and an Ops guy, I'm still not convinced that generally CUL is a good idea for a young Cadet.

~9907


The last 2 live missions I was involved with, the comms shack was run entirely by cadets.

Cadets in your area might not have the maturity level for the job; I hope that no one ever uses that as confirmation bias to add an age restriction to the job for all cadets.

CAP9907

Quote from: PHall on January 24, 2020, 06:42:37 pm
Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 06:32:33 pm
Quote from: Fester on January 24, 2020, 09:09:28 am
Quote from: CAP9907 on January 24, 2020, 05:30:41 am
Quote from: GreatValuePAO on January 24, 2020, 04:08:15 am
Do you feel that cadets, especially minors, can be effective CULs?


No.

CUL is very much a management position: leading a team and reporting to a Section Chief. As such, the position carries a heavy leadership responsibility, not to mention the tech knowledge required. I'm not convinced, generally, that any young Cadet is ready for that.

Can it be done? Of course it can, but it will not be easy and I believe the Cadet will be setting up for a mission fail.

Should it be done: No.

YMMV,

~9907


We have a cadet in our Wing that is not only a qualified, experienced CUL, she is also on Wing, Region and National Comms Staff.

So I disagree with your blanket statement of "No".


Feel free to disagree, your example may very much be the exception than the norm.

I'm not one to block advancement: if they meet the SQTR, then they get the Ops Qual. Based on my experience as a Comms director and an Ops guy, I'm still not convinced that generally CUL is a good idea for a young Cadet.

~9907



Since you seem to be really, really stuck on the word "young". How about an 18 or 19 year old cadet? You have any problems with that?


Likely because the OP specified that in his post (minor)?

I have no objections, I simply said it wasn't a good idea. I also said that I follow the regulations and if they pass the tasks, then so be it. Doesn't mean I have to use them at my ICP if I am not confident in their ability to handle the position. I follow the rules but also have opinions (which the OP asked for), those 2 things need not align to stay within the guidelines.

~9907

21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

etodd

Quote from: Spam on January 24, 2020, 10:06:55 am

.... patchwork and ad hoc method (e.g. SUAS operators)



Hey! ..... oh never mind.  Not going to sidetrack even though I'm baited. 🤣
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO - ESO

sUAS MP - sUAS Instructor - sUAS Check Pilot

ZigZag911

This is one of the rare mission management positions where age doesn't factor in for legal, licensing or liability  reasons.

My earliest ES service was in comm, given that I  already had a background  in ham radio.  A CUL needs technical knowledge as well as  people skills.

A strong argument favoring allowing suitable cadets to serve as CULis the fact that many wings rely on cadet's as MROs. In those instances they  wouldn't be overseeing seniors all that often.

Another consideration is the fact that we allow cadet's to serve as GTL. It may be lower on the formal org chart, but can often be a greater responsibility. Very often the escorts senior is primarily the van driver, with little field experience

At least a cadet CUL will be in the ICP, with the IC and other mission managers available to intervene if things go off track.

Eclipse

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2020, 09:23:15 pm
This is one of the rare mission management positions where age doesn't factor in for legal, licensing or liability  reasons.


You don't think the lawyers wouldn't go after the fact that the "radios never worked right" if it could be proven
that the CUL was incompetent and someone died in the straps because comms were down?
And that "field day mode" would not be engaged if they find out the CUL was 15?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2020, 09:23:15 pm
Another consideration is the fact that we allow cadet's to serve as GTL.


Yes, but they are over 18. Which is the primary discussion point, not their status as a cadet, per se.
You cannot discount maturity, and that maturity and life experience is where good CULs find the
fortitude to press forward when things (as they often do), go sideways.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2020, 09:23:15 pm
Very often the escorts senior is primarily the van driver, with little field experience


Not if they are following the regulations and common sense.

"Ground Team Adult escort / Driver" is not a "thing", and the wings that do it need to knock it off.



Holding Pattern

January 24, 2020, 09:57:27 pm #16 Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 10:18:24 pm by Holding Pattern
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2020, 09:43:03 pm
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2020, 09:23:15 pm
This is one of the rare mission management positions where age doesn't factor in for legal, licensing or liability  reasons.


You don't think the lawyers wouldn't go after the fact that the "radios never worked right" if it could be proven
that the CUL was incompetent and someone died in the straps because comms were down?
And that "field day mode" would not be engaged if they find out the CUL was 15?


If the IC was dispatching ground teams when the radios never worked right and was ignoring that the MROs and CULs had problems yet they still released the ground teams, that isn't a CUL problem. That's a failure of the GBD and IC for not isolating the CUL problem at the outset.

And regardless, that is why things like the volunteer protection act exist.

Eclipse

Quote from: Holding Pattern on January 24, 2020, 09:57:27 pm
If the IC was dispatching ground teams when the radios never worked right and was ignoring that the MROs and CULs had problems yet they still released the ground teams, that isn't a CUL problem. That's a failure of the GBD and IC for not isolating the CUL problem at the outset.


Or the 15 year old CUL is sending through ops normal messages even though he hasn't heard from the GT3 in 2 hours
because he flustered and hoping "any minute we'll hear from them..."

That kind of thing happens now, with poorly trained adults ("no contact must mean ops normal, right?")

Quote from: Holding Pattern on January 24, 2020, 09:57:27 pm
And regardless, that is why things like the volunteer protection act exist.


Good luck with that.



Spam


A couple of points seem in order:


CAPR 60-3 26 DECEMBER 2012
1-10. General.
"e. Use of qualified CAP cadets is encouraged as much as possible on appropriate missions. Cadets should be trained in the various functions of mission operations and support as permitted. Cadets qualify no differently than adult members in emergency services qualifications, and can be properly utilized in age-appropriate scenarios. Additional guidance for employing cadets on missions can be found on the NHQ CAP/DOS website".

then

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2020, 09:43:03 pm
"Ground Team Adult escort / Driver" is not a "thing", and the wings that do it need to knock it off.


CAPR 60-3 26 DECEMBER 2012
1-17. Ground Operations.
"(3) Composition of the ground team, urban DF team, or Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) will vary depending upon the assignment.... All ground operations must still meet the requirements for cadet protection and vehicle usage"
and
(6) Only members qualified in accordance with CAPR 77-1, Operation and Maintenance of Civil Air Patrol Vehicles, may operate CAP vehicles"

applies, along with:

CAPR 77-1 26 DECEMBER 2012
1-7. Vehicle Operators and Authorized Passengers.
"a. Members 21 years of age or older, who are properly licensed to operate specific vehicle types according to applicable local and state laws and who hold current CAP driving permissions are permitted to operate COVs or TUVs. Members under 21 years of age, but at least 18 years of age, may be permitted to operate general purpose CAP owned vehicles (sedans, station wagons, 7-passenger vans or pickup trucks). They may not carry passengers or tow trailers. They must also have written or electronic approval from their unit commander to do so. Members between the ages of 18 and 21must comply with licensing provisions and documentation requirements listed in Paragraph 1-5".


Therefore, it is certainly in accordance with CAP regulations to have age 18+ cadet GTLs leading a team in the field, as long as CPP policy is adhered to by ensuring the team includes an approved senior member (who is also at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie). If the team will use a COV, members under 21 (including under 21 year old FO/TFO/SFO qualified GTLs) may not be the vehicle driver, thus requiring an over-21 qualified driver (who again must be at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie).

Tactically, I've seen this work out just fine. I've had multiple age 19/20 year old cadets (Spaatz cadet GTLs, even) tactically leading a team with a 40 year old driver under their command. My oldest cadet officer GTL son just turned 21 but was in the same situation. Not an issue.

And IAW policy, too.

R/s
Spam




Eclipse

Quote from: Spam on January 24, 2020, 11:05:10 pm
Therefore, it is certainly in accordance with CAP regulations to have age 18+ cadet GTLs leading a team in the field, as long as CPP policy is adhered to by ensuring the team includes an approved senior member (who is also at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie). If the team will use a COV, members under 21 (including under 21 year old FO/TFO/SFO qualified GTLs) may not be the vehicle driver, thus requiring an over-21 qualified driver (who again must be at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie).

Tactically, I've seen this work out just fine. I've had multiple age 19/20 year old cadets (Spaatz cadet GTLs, even) tactically leading a team with a 40 year old driver under their command. My oldest cadet officer GTL son just turned 21 but was in the same situation. Not an issue.


The key being all members are team-qualified,

You can't send slick-sleeve / no rating "super nice Lt carter who has a CAP DL" with the team as
a "chaperone, driver, "safety senior", whatever, unless they are qualified to be there.

And it happens all the time for expedience.
"Well unless he drives we can't send the team..."

Then then don't go.



Spam

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2020, 11:12:42 pm
Quote from: Spam on January 24, 2020, 11:05:10 pm
Therefore, it is certainly in accordance with CAP regulations to have age 18+ cadet GTLs leading a team in the field, as long as CPP policy is adhered to by ensuring the team includes an approved senior member (who is also at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie). If the team will use a COV, members under 21 (including under 21 year old FO/TFO/SFO qualified GTLs) may not be the vehicle driver, thus requiring an over-21 qualified driver (who again must be at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie).

Tactically, I've seen this work out just fine. I've had multiple age 19/20 year old cadets (Spaatz cadet GTLs, even) tactically leading a team with a 40 year old driver under their command. My oldest cadet officer GTL son just turned 21 but was in the same situation. Not an issue.


The key being all members are team-qualified,

You can't send slick-sleeve / no rating "super nice Lt carter who has a CAP DL" with the team as
a "chaperone, driver, "safety senior", whatever, unless they are qualified to be there.

And it happens all the time for expedience.
"Well unless he drives we can't send the team..."

Then then don't go.


Agreed. GTM3* - top half prereqs minimum.

V/r
Spam

Spam


But back to the core question: can (should) cadets (especially minors) be effective CULs.

My answer, aside from the demonstrated skills as I've said, is that I need my subordinate mission staff to be able to "carry a message to Garcia". I've used the "Message to Garcia" teaching tool with my cadet NCOs and officers for a couple of decades, and frankly that is the caliber of person I want, calendar age regardless, sixteen or eighty six years of age.

GreatValue - that's my litmus test. Go look it up and read it, and give us a summary of how a cadet CUL would take on similar tasks.


V/r
Spam






ZigZag911

Agreed.

"Just a driver" should stay in the van while teams carries out tasking.

I was referring to cadet GTL  with senior GTM3, possibly  new to qualification.  Such a senior is responsible for safety and CPP, but not directing accomplishment of tasking.


Eclipse

No. "Just a driver" is not allowed on the sortie.

"Just a driver" can't even sign into the mission in most cases.

And no, MSAs and GES only are not drivers.



Spam

Someone who is "only" a driver (meaning, a CAP driver, but not at a minimum GTL3 trainee) should never even leave mission base. If he's not GES minimum, he shouldn't even be signed into the mission.


V/r
Spam


Spam

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2020, 11:08:27 pm
No. "Just a driver" is not allowed on the sortie.

"Just a driver" can't even sign into the mission in most cases.

And no, MSAs and GES only are not drivers.


Heh.  In sync.

V/r
Spam

Fubar

Quote from: Spam on January 25, 2020, 11:09:56 pm
Someone who is "only" a driver (meaning, a CAP driver, but not at a minimum GTL3 trainee) should never even leave mission base.


You have to find a GT qualified person to drive the van the sUAS guys are in? That seem like a waste of resources. Or what about the safety officer who deploys to the FOB to have eyes on scene? Or the Chaplain who heads to the find location to comfort family members and/or searchers?

These are not edge cases, these are things I've seen done. People should be qualified for their assignment, driving a vehicle simply requires a CAP driver's license.

Spam

Sure, Fubar. Its about risk management and addressing liability via avoidance of negligent appointment and negligent supervision to standards of practice.

- To drive a vehicle to non ES events, a CAP DL is required.

- To drive a vehicle on a ground sortie on a vehicle checked in to an AFAM, you need to be released.

- To drive a vehicle on a GT ground sortie on a vehicle checked in to a AFAM, you need to have the CAP DL and be entered on the GT sortie in WMIRS (and as part of the GT, be legally deployable, at least as a trainee GTM3 (top half prep and fam tasks) under the supervision of the GTL.

- To deploy one of the cases you mention, your sortie should still be tracked in WMRS and briefed by the IC/GBD. By the current regs, they thus manage and mitigate the risk of sending people on air or ground sorties. Sending solo drivers not GT qualified into an incident scene possibly in the back country isn't (shouldn't be) an unmanaged risk (I was on a mission in MDWG in the late 90s where a solo driver fell asleep during demob coming down after a night on the mountain, and was killed).


Thus we use this often maligned system to manage risk. We train to task to manage risk. To return to the main thread topic, we manage risk for CULs via a qualification on the basis (regardless of age, in the CUL case) of gaining the recommendation of the SET evaluator on SQTR tasks, passing the formal ICS training, and performing adequately on two training missions. There is a fairly interesting section on standards and liability in SAR in some of the "Managing the Search Function" courses, if you're interested, that speaks to this.


V/r
Spam



CAP9907

On topic, please. Start a new thread to debate this if you wish.

~9907
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0