Test Programs and CAP regulations

[RiverAux]

So, we seem to have at least two tests of potentially large-scale CAP programs underway at the moment -- the Junior Cadet program and the Volunteers Serving the Air Force (VSAF) program.

Each program, if enacted on a national scale would require quite a few regulation changes to implement. 

The question that has arisen during discussions of both programs is:  Just how are these test programs authorized so that the program itself and any CAP members participating in these programs are in full compliance with existing CAP regulations? 

Lets assume for the sake of argument that somewhere up at NHQ there are nicely organized documents outlining how each program will work and noting any differences between what the program is doing and what is required by CAP regulations. 

Now, under the CAP constution the CAP National Commander can implement emergency regulations without National Board approval.  I had thought that CAPR 5-4 said that this had to be done with an Interim Change Letter, but a close reading of part 4 of that regulation reveals that it is not.

4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.

That may (empahsis mine) would seem to give the latitude for the National Commander to make a decision either verbally or maybe through an informal memo or email to "approve" such programs without having to issue a formal ICL. 

Now, for the sake of members that could get in legal trouble for not being in compliance with regulations, I would hope that something more than verbal approval of these programs has been issued, and I assume it exists. 

But, is issuing a formal ICL for a test program the best option?  I imagine that as they're testing things out, they're probably constantly finding conflicts with existing regulations and re-doing the ICL every time could be cumbersome in comparison to just getting written approval. 

So, what do you think would be the best way to "cover" such test programs in a regulatory sense during the test period?  What should be the process?  Should there be a clause in CAPR 5-4 coving test programs in particular that outlines how they can be governed? 

[SamFranklin]

Personally I do not think any additional regulations are needed to allow NHQ and members in the field to work together to test new programs.

To regulate means to make regular, to make the norm, to standardize. Of course, test programs are by nature in opposition to those words.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt anyone would ever get in "legal trouble" (your words) for participating in a test program. Who is the injured party? No one. What law is being violated? None.

What you're describing is a problem in search of a solution. 

[RiverAux]

For example wearing a uniform not authorized by CAP regulations?  For example, something laying out specifically whether VSAF missions are considered AFAMs or corporate missions (and the related mission authorization, legal liability, injury/death coverage, etc.). 

[NIN]

For example wearing a uniform not authorized by CAP regulations?  For example, something laying out specifically whether VSAF missions are considered AFAMs or corporate missions (and the related mission authorization, legal liability, injury/death coverage, etc.). 

IIRC, isn't the uniform specified in the VSAF materials?

"You're never wrong when you wear the uniform your commander specifies."

If that letter is signed by the National Commander, its as good as a regulation. Its a "DIRECTIVE." Look the word up. Its pretty clear.

There is not a lot that indicates what, say, my color guard's recent flag-raising performance at the grand re-opening of the local McDonalds is covered under (AFAM or Corporate?).  Whats the point?

Clearly the VSAF mission is AFAM, its been bloody well advertised by the USAF, eh?  I would think that someone at the JAG/SJA level has undertaken an analysis of the legal ramifications of this program, and the status afforded to members participating in it.  Just because nobody has shared those findings with you doesn't mean it hasn't been undertaken.

[RiverAux]

NIN, you missed the entire point of the topic.  Please refer to the other threads if you want to discuss the specifics of VSAF or Junior Cadets. 

The question before us is what sort of documentation should be required to back up these test programs and make sure our members are operating within some sort of formal CAP framework when aspects of the program being tested go against existing CAP regulations?

Whether or not the details of this approval are made public to the CAP membership at large is irrelevant to the question. 

[NIN]

NIN, you missed the entire point of the topic.  Please refer to the other threads if you want to discuss the specifics of VSAF or Junior Cadets. 

The question before us is what sort of documentation should be required to back up these test programs and make sure our members are operating within some sort of formal CAP framework when aspects of the program being tested go against existing CAP regulations?

Whether or not the details of this approval are made public to the CAP membership at large is irrelevant to the question. 

And you clearly missed mine.

Just because you're not specifically in the loop doesn't mean such approval don't exist.

[RiverAux]

I'm not asking to see what may or may not have been done for these programs.  I assume some written plan exists for each and I assume some written approval of such was made.  This assumption is probably wrong as far as having a real plan, but for the sake of this thread, I'll go with it. 

I'm asking what SHOULD be done for such large scale national test programs since our regulations currently have no specific guidance on how they can be carried out within our system. 

[RiverAux]

If we must use examples, try this:

Say we want to test a program to use cadets as Mission Scanners.  This obviously would contradict at least one existing regulation and since it would involve AFAMs, would also probably require AF approval of the test. 

[Pylon]

I'm asking what SHOULD be done for such large scale national test programs since our regulations currently have no specific guidance on how they can be carried out within our system. 

What most corporations do.  The day-to-day leadership (your National Commander in this case) signs something or gives verbal okay to do the program.  The NB doesn't need to approve every single baby step the organization wishes to take.  A corporation could never move forward if this were the case.  They'd need a full-time board to just sit in a boardroom and vote everyday.  This is why you have full-time leadership empowered to allow the organization to move forward and keep the board appraised of progress.

As NIN pointed out, simply because you aren't aware of framework existing, or authorizations having been put in place, doesn't mean that they don't exist and weren't well examined and thought through.

Since programs like these are almost always each a unique opportunity, setting a regulatory framework for new programs, initiatives or missions would be counterproductive.  Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. 

[FW]

Test programs start out a few ways.  
It begins with a "benchmark" program at wing level.
   ex:  Wing Banker Program
It begins with an idea by a member.
   ex:   Aircraft Consolodated Maint. Program
It begins as an idea from an "outside force"
   ex:  Junior Cadet Program
It begins as a joint idea from CAP and USAF
   ex:  VSAF program

Most ideas are vetted by the NEC or NB before the ideas are put out in the field
Some ideas, like VSAF, go forth on approval by CAP/CC and EX.

No matter how they start, each program begins with a written "Action Plan" or "Business Plan"  (for the corporate types).  Each program is evaluated on a regular basis over an extended time frame.  At the conclusion of the "test period", the program is accepted or rejected.  

As to "coverage";  Members participating are considered involved in a CAP activity and are covered by CAPR 900-5.  and, if approved by CAP/USAF, FECA/FUTA.

Other issues are agreed on by all parties involved (like junior cadet program) before start up.

Hope this helps.  IMHO, I agree "regulating" this process is counter productive.

[RiverAux]

No matter how they start, each program begins with a written "Action Plan" or "Business Plan"  (for the corporate types).

Says who?  There is no evidence that this is the case.  Should there be?  Yes, but there is nothing requiring a formal written plan to carry out a program that would not be compliance with existing regulations. 

What most corporations do.  The day-to-day leadership (your National Commander in this case) signs something or gives verbal okay to do the program.  The NB doesn't need to approve every single baby step the organization wishes to take.  A corporation could never move forward if this were the case.  They'd need a full-time board to just sit in a boardroom and vote everyday.  This is why you have full-time leadership empowered to allow the organization to move forward and keep the board appraised of progress.

Keep in mind that I am not asking about a test program that doesn't "violate" existing CAP regulations.  Sure, if a program falls entirely within our current regulatory system, you don't really need anyone's approval to do it.

However, the National Commander does not have the authority to approve violations of regulations, either verbally or on paper.  What she can do is approve an emergency change to the regulations under certain circumstances.  I think that is a small, but important distinction. 

In the context of my fictious example, I think it would be hard to justify the National Commander using emergency authority to change a regulation to allow the use of cadets (under 18 -- forgot to specify that) as scanners on AFAMs.  This is not an emergency problem.  So, under what authority could she authorize such a test program since it would violate existing regulations? 

So, here is my proposal:  In a non-emergency situation where a test program would "violate" an existing CAP regulation, any necessary variances from existing regulations could be implemented as part of the test program following approval by the National Executive Committee subject to review by the National Board and Board of Governors. 

[FW]

Says who?  There is no evidence that this is the case.  Should there be?  Yes, but there is nothing requiring a formal written plan to carry out a program that would not be compliance with existing regulations. 

So, here is my proposal:  In a non-emergency situation where a test program would "violate" an existing CAP regulation, any necessary variances from existing regulations could be implemented as part of the test program following approval by the National Executive Committee subject to review by the National Board and Board of Governors. 

Sorry Riv, I'm not following you.  All the test programs that have been instituted that I'm aware of, except for the VSAF program, have gone through a process similar to what you have described. (I was present at every single meeting where these programs were approved.)  The VSAF program was approved jointly by Command.  The question in my mind is:  Where are CAP regs being violated?  Are you referring to uniforms?  The Junior Cadet Program has no uniform as such.  Then junior cadets are not members of CAP (yet). The teachers are Aerospace Ed. members and are not required to wear uniforms.
VSAF?  It is not yet a full fledged CAP program and the "uniform" required during the test doesn't violate the regs.  Members volunteering to participate are "asked" to wear Khaki's and a CAP Command Patch Shirt.  It's a program not requiring supervision of cadets or flying CAP aircraft, etc., so no violation of regs IMHO.

As for hypothetical programs, I guess there may be a test program some day for allowing cadet aircrew under 18.   But, before it starts, I can guarantee  there would be a mountain of prior approvals, waivers, permissions, policy letters, etc., etc., etc.

[RiverAux]

Okay, no one gets what I'm asking, so forget about it. 

[Major Carrales]

Okay, no one gets what I'm asking, so forget about it. 

Simply word what you mean.  The way you are coming across is "Look at this!!!  Scandalous!!!  Let's fight about it."

It seems to me that these tests, such as VSAF, are authorized by the USAF as one of "their" test programs.  Once it gets put in effect it will be covered by CAP regualtions.

Others are various "movements" with in CAP.  Sometime there are grassroots things that start out small and evolve into official CAP programs.  For example, I can imagine that some CAP units have been making presentions to elementary schools for years.  The next logical step is for the school to develop its own version of a cadet Program.  In Kingsville Perez Elementary has such a cadet program, likely the brainchild of some motivated teacher.  In Brownsville, CAP 1st Lt Hector Galvan has been running an aerospace club called the "Flying Knights."  Though not begun as a CAP sponsored activity, it is the first step.

We don't tend to micro-manage CAP.  If you sit around waiting for policies to be written from the TOP down, you will be sitting a LONG, LONG time.

[NIN]

Okay, no one gets what I'm asking, so forget about it. 

I think Sparky hit the nail on the head, pretty much.

There is no "2nd shooter" or "grassy knoll" at Maxwell AFB, no shadowy force "behind all this."

Its sounds to me like you're trying desperately to make some kind of a tempest in a tea pot.  And yet there is no tea, nor is there a teapot, nor is there a low pressure area to help out.  So you're standing there flapping your wings and making squawking noises about .... nothing..

[RiverAux]

I think Sparky hit the nail on the head, pretty much.

There is no "2nd shooter" or "grassy knoll" at Maxwell AFB, no shadowy force "behind all this."

Its sounds to me like you're trying desperately to make some kind of a tempest in a tea pot.  And yet there is no tea, nor is there a teapot, nor is there a low pressure area to help out.  So you're standing there flapping your wings and making squawking noises about .... nothing..

The fact that you write this shows that neither of you understand what I was wanting to talk about in the first place.  The 2 current test programs are irrelevant to the discussion and I tried to give a better example just to avoid discussing them here.