So how does this apply to activities such as CCOC, which use "rubber ducks" as a part of the course? My squadron has been participating in Combat Water Survival Training with the local Marine unit (under their instruction) during which rubber ducks are used, and recently our Wing Commander gave us the thumbs down citing the above as a reason. So I would like to know if there is anyone out there who has any visibility on a waiver process for this issue. Thanks in advance for the help.

Well .....as your wing commander gave the thumbs down....your only recourse at this point is to go up the chain of command.

Having said that.......Why do your cadets need to use simulated M-16s for training?

Your Wing Commander has said no. Yes, you can appeal this to your Region Commander who will probably back up his Wing Commander and say no also. (Knowing the Region Commander in question I'm pretty sure about this.)
But, here's the question, is this issue worth falling on your sword for? Going to the Region Commander about this will definitely not make your Wing Commander happy and will probably have consequences down the road.
So, is this issue worth it?

It's not that I want to jump the Wing Commander in the chain, the absolute opposite, I would just like to know what the process is for getting a waiver, apparently it's possible (CCOC and other CAP activities) and how to go about that, that way we and the WG/CC are covered and it gives him a warm and fuzzy about the training.

And as far as the "need" for the use of simulated weapons is concerned:
A. Part of the course requirements (the same standard that the Marines use) is to swim with kevlar/flak/ruck/weapon
B. The cadets think it's cool, and it doesn't hurt anyone (well not anymore than any other piece of hard rubber ever has)

Well to get a waiver you would have to jump over the wing commander......as for CCOC and SFFC, I don't think the issue even came up. The simulated weapons are just part of the course, national knows about it but never said anything.

Put together a letter for your wing commander explaining the unit's participation in the activity, the value of the training, the fact that the "weapons" are not used even in a tactical sense (ie. people are not even pointing them) since they're inert, they're non-functional metal, and no more a 'weapon' or 'tactical' than the Kevlar and flack jacket are in this particular instance. They're a part of the overall USMC/DoD Combat Water Survival certification process and to eliminate them would reduce the experience/sense of accomplishment/etc. (talk about things like "attention to detail" and such like that. "One of the key elements in CWST is to teach the cadet to avoid panic and think clearly in controlled moments of high stress. As such, the cadets will be wearing kevlar, rucksack, etc, and per the standards must not lose these items during the test..." )

Have reg cites (ie. the DoD or USMC [or even better, USAF/AETC] regs that cover the conduct and qualification) and then describe things in as narrow a way as possible. So, for instance, you might say "The training requires that the subject swim with the rifle, not drop it in the pool, as part of the certification." At the same time, you can say "Due to the way this training is conducted by our USMC hosts, the cadets are not afforded the opportunity to carry these mock rifles outside of the training environment. Even moreso, due to the limited availability of these mock rifles, the cadet is handed the rifle only a few short seconds before he or she drops into the water, and relinquishes it at the other end to allow another participant to enter the water.."

I'll leave it to you as an exercise to complete this kind of letter, but I think you get the gist.

...and really, in addition to our combined 23 years of military experience, both SGT Dusty and I are CAP Majors. As such not only are we completely and thoroughly versed in the Composite Risk Management/Risk Assessment process but we have been around to know what is both "cool" and what can be feasibly done in a safe environment. Call me crazy, It is my humble opinion that this is a thinly veiled attempt to involve the CAPR 52-16 in effort to de-militarize the image of Civil Air Patrol cadets.

It is really unfortunate that a highly motivating and safe event sponsored generously by multiple outside agencies, including the United States Marine Corps and a community pool who would have agreed to let us dirty their indoor, heated pool for free, has to be scrubbed all because their is a concern about the appearance of a 14 year old cadet carrying a rubber rifle. Now that I have expressed my opinions, let me just clarify that I completely understand that it is black and white in the 52-16. I guess regs are regs...right?

Ned and Curt, if you guys are reading this...something needs to be added to the reg that allows some leeway here. Let's support our Squadron CCs and allow them to demonstrate good judgement and add a little "flavor" to their own program!

I wouldn't read anything quite so sinister into that reg, BTW.

But then again, cadets can have a fun time with rubber ducks involved:

Concur.

I suspect when that portion of the 52-16 was written, the authors simply weren't thinking about things like rubber ducks.

We can probably fix this fairly easily.

Ned Lee

OK, how about adding a new para 1-4 c (3)



Would this work? I'm trying to allow what you guys wanted, but at the same time forbid Hooha Squadron 187 from issueing rubber ducks to the troops to carry around during their infantry FTX weekend wearing boonies with their faces painted green.

Thoughts / suggestions?

that new para 1-4 c (3) is right on the money! Thanks Ned!

I like it, though I might change the wording to specify military orientation and survival training programs, that are led or taught by military personnel, have a defined, specific need for such training tools, and are approved at some level above the squadron commander (sorry, but I personally don't trust decisions on things like facsimile machine guns to be pushed down to the squadron level - I've just experienced far more knucklehead sqdn/CCs than ones with what I would consider good judgment).

With that, I would also remove the vague "limited periods of time" stipulation, as activities like CCOC may have the participants carrying their "rubber duck" for a week or more (with their faces painted green). This would also help to prevent the local commando cadets at Hamburger Hill Composite Squadron from humping around with rubber gats for "short periods of time" (just two days, every month...), but still allow the unit to use them if "realmilitary" folks put on some training requiring them, such as the CWST, career shadowing, etc.

Oh, and I think a word on safety markings would also need to be included, such as "facsimile weapons must have prominent blue, red, or orange color markings to distinguish them from actual firearms." Even the military is doing this these days, having lost at least one soldier (that I can think of - an 18A candidate during Special Forces training) to frightened law enforcement officers or armed civilians encountering a group of camouflaged men on a country road wielding what appears to be full auto death-rays.

Just some thoughts.

Trying too hard.
All "hooah" squadron 187 needs to do is get "a military member" and call the FTX weekend "survival" or "defensive tactics" weekend, and cool.

CAP units i've been in have served as 'mass casualty exercise victims' which involved lying around in uniform, moulaged up, carrying rubberducks.

Go back to deciding the doctrinal stance of the CP on cadets wielding fake guns... decide that, THEN craft a reg that accomplishes it.

You get also into using parade rifles as props for a "drill team".
Or just running around playing "good guys and bad guys" with toy M16's (you know, the ones that click three times when you pull the trigger and have an orange cap on the barrel) that they got given a box of at the airshow. (seen the cops called because of this ha!)

IMHO, I don't really care if cadets use or carry fake weapons.
I do care if they start acting like idiots with them. Of course, I care if they start acting like idiots without them too... but probably to a lesser degree

The only problem I have with requiring safety markings, blue, oragne, red colored weapons is that the intent of this change is that if we are going to the military for some special training and using THEIR training aids.....if they are not the right color we would have to modify them.

I also have a little problem about asking permission from the wing commander everytime we want to do something.

The whole point of this regs revision is to allow just this sort of training. The wing cc does not have any problem with dropping cadets into a pool fully clothed with kevlar and a flack vest.....but they can't carry a rubber duck!

So it is not a safety issue....but a "regs" interpetation issue. Spelling it out like Ned put it....gives enough guidance to the wing to allow what ever he wants....but allows him to put the kabosh on anyone trying to run a RAMBO camp.

I agree - rarely is structured training by professional military an issue, but these things are then stretched and expanded until we're back to
cadets in full battle-rattle playing airsoft, paintball, or whatever, as official squadron activities.

I'm all for combat orientation during encampments or activities where that is the point of the activity, but in day-to-day squadron ops, or even weekend FTX's, there's not much need or justification for this kind of thing, and the collateral damage from the Facebook posts is not worth it.

There are other organizations with different missions where this kind of thing is more appropriate.

How do you differentiate between "USMC CWST course with a rubber duck as part and parcel of the training evolution" and "Cadet Bagodonuts and his airsoft rifle?"

Heck, Leo will remember the day we all went out to play "wargames" with the squadron's white parade rifles. They worked great in the snow

But more to the point: how are we able to craft a regulation that allows identifiable training that involves a military firearm (or its simulated analog) and avoids

Well, here, lets think about that.

How about we better discern the commander's intent when it comes to "firearms?"

I think its easy to understand that cadets aren't intended to handle a device which conveys a projectile of any sort outside of a very clearly defined and supervised range environment.

I think its also easy to assume that random cadets standing on street corners wielding even deactivated firearms is just asking for trouble.

But you also don't want to have to go into training evolution that one of our sister services thoughtfully puts on and say "Oh, hey, uh, wait a sec...are your rubber ducks orange tipped? Cuz, you know our regs say they gotta be. Can we just spend 10 minutes with the orange spray paint?" You'd get laughed out of the room. Might as well show up wearing a reflective belt too.. Oh, wait...

Especially if the whole thing is already orange!

Exactly, which many already are. For example, last year's CCOC featured orange rubber ducks; CEFC's were blue. Heck, our rubber duck M9s and GUU-5s at MH-53 Gunner Mission Qual were blue and orange, respectively. If they're not already marked, a roll of colored non-adhering tape such as coban would also do the trick quickly and easily. It's not asking too much to coordinate with the host unit and say "here's one consideration of ours, which we're bound by due to our regulations. We'll bring the marking tape if your weapons aren't already marked. Thanks again, you guys are the best!" I think clearly marking the weapon as non-firing is critical for safety. Just my thoughts on the matter.

...?

..me getting distracted while posting .

Umm...if you'll pardon a cadet giving his views on a matter that concerns most senior members, I can tell you that the majority of cadets I've worked with enjoy so-called "morale-building exercises" that are essentially tactical problems (those of you who know the legendary Major Soldano know what I'm referring to). Unfortunately, since we are not permitted to use rubber ducks, we have to either carry 2-by-4s or pretend to hold guns, which detracts somewhat from the realism of the situation at hand. A reg that permits cadets to use rubber ducks in certain situations would help matters a good deal.

actually, no pardoning needed. Great input.

I absolutely agree with the point being made about the realism of what you're doing. This may be a bit unrelated, but in Army ROTC, we did battle drills during our labs; during this time, everybody picked up a rifle and we did our drills. One day, we didn't have any rifles; unit morale was TOAST, as was any sense of being "serious" about what we were doing. Even for adults being PAID to do this, it devolved into snickering about "miming having a rifle", loss of attention, and overall nothing being learned.

I'm not saying that rubber duckies are a good idea every week for CAP cadets; far from it. However, if you're in SOMEBODY ELSE'S encampment/training doing what THEY are doing, why on earth would you NOT "do as the Romans do"? There obviously must be exceptions when considering safety and whatnot, but these things are certainly not dangerous; I got smacked upside the head with a rubber ducky one day (for not having my kevlar on ) and it hurt, but it certainly didn't lay me out, and I'd say I got checked pretty hard; I doubt CAP cadets are gonna be beating each other upside the head with them, though; they have a PURPOSE with them!

This has been my issue with the Air Force mindset and the Air Force in general so far in my limited years of experience with them; they seem to have forgotten (if they ever knew) what the purpose of the U.S. Air Force, and the military is! Am I expecting boot camp and hand-to-hand on a daily basis? No! But when things like buying new drill rifles becomes impossible because of "politically correct safety procedures", I get pretty fed up (Had to struggle in JROTC for YEARS to get new Daisy DRILL rifles because HQ said that they were dangerous somehow, despite the dozen demilitarized M-1s we had in our armory already with their full blessing). Maybe it's just because I was raised Army *Sighs*

This isn't about ROTC, JROTC, the USAF, or the Army.

This is about CAP, which is a non-combatant service.

Any use of weapons is a dotted line to start with.

Well the last time I checked, JROTC or USACC aren't combatant services either, they're military career exploration and leadership development activities, the same sort of activites Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program conducts, so I see the problem being easily solved with a simple paragraph inserted into the new 52-16. Speaking of, Ned, is there an ETA for that new revision?

Speaking of Facsimile/Deactivated firearms....

A friend is in Normandy at the moment, for the D-Day commemorations, and he put a photo he took up on his FB of the 82nd ABN's color guard standing at a ceremony in Amfreville with "rubber duck" M-16s....



I mean, geez, you'd think the 82nd's honor guard could at least saw the magazines off so they're more correct to drill with. But whats wrong with using the real deal steel? No place to secure it overnight?

Might be the camera angle, but that gent looks a bit on the "portly" side. Are we sure he's not an reenactor?
The use of the "rubber duck" is kinda suspect too.

Its the angle, but they're not reenactors. (come on, Phil, I'd expect you'd know the diff between ACUs and WWII jump gear )

I bet that dragging a duck across the pond, and being able to stash it in your hotel room when its time to check out the local gasthaus is 99% of the reason.

But geez, ducks stink for D&C.

Using the duck probably has to do with US weapons in France plus the inability to properly secure them in the Normandy area, I bet the nearest "approved" arms vault is in Brussels. As you know the Army gets very anal about weapons storage. But I agree they look really bad.