I've got the blues about my "blues"

[RiverAux]

CAP Non-commissioned OFFICERS

[SJFedor]

Now, since you're supposed to salute OFFICERS and it is clearly stated that a Flight Officer is NOT considered an OFFICER in CAP - they do not generally rate a salute.

Where does it clearly say that a Flight OFficer is not an officer? All I've seen in your presentation is the omission of the term "Flight Officer" in the text, not that it clearly says anything.

But then again, most regs don't clearly say anything.

SECTION G - FLIGHT OFFICER GRADES
30. General. Only senior members under 21 years of age will be appointed to or promoted to the flight officer grades

I see the magical word of appointment. Being appointed as a flight officer, would, therefore, confer officership.

[Walkman]

Folks, anyone who wants to look at 39-1 has to be blind not to see all the various policy letters ammending it online.  Back in the old days policy letters would be easy to miss, but not anymore. 

I'm trying not to be offended at that remark. I'm not an idiot nor am I blind. I'm just new.

Maybe after you've been in a bit and know about them. When Level One says read the manual, we read the manual. There's nothing in there about updates and changes. You have to know to look for them,

Well then the person who gave them the manual without the accompanying policy letters is the one who screwed them, not CAP NHQ. 

Then there is also the binder, which came from NHQ. I get the official binder in the mail and there are the printed pages with photos, that are OUT OF DATE. Then the CD has a big folder of PDFs, but they're all listed with cryptic codes that a new member doesn't know. Yes, we have a mentoring system, but it should also be reasonable to expect that a new person with no experience can get the basic CORRECT information in an easy to find place. Now that I've been informed about change letters, I know to check them.

[jimmydeanno]

Now, since you're supposed to salute OFFICERS and it is clearly stated that a Flight Officer is NOT considered an OFFICER in CAP - they do not generally rate a salute.

Where does it clearly say that a Flight Officer is not an officer? All I've seen in your presentation is the omission of the term "Flight Officer" in the text, not that it clearly says anything.

But then again, most regs don't clearly say anything.

SECTION G - FLIGHT OFFICER GRADES
30. General. Only senior members under 21 years of age will be appointed to or promoted to the flight officer grades

I see the magical word of appointment. Being appointed as a flight officer, would, therefore, confer officership.

Exactly, they are omitted out of every list that has anything to do with officers...that's the point.  It says, "CAP Officer grades are..." and doesn't include the FO grades.  It then says, "For initial appointment to a CAP officer grade, you must be 21..." and "Flight Officer grades are reserved for those who do not meet the age criteria to be an officer."

So instead, we look at 39-1 which is the uniform manual for clarification on what consititutes an officer?  I don't think so - how about we look at the reg that defines each category...CAPR 35-5.

Of course this is JMO/interpretation.

[SJFedor]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I have yet to encounter a "n00b" FO. Every FO I've met has years in the organization as a cadet, and are usually former cadet officers turned to the dark side for various reasons (I was sick of getting passed on flights where I could build some time because the other pilot wasn't a Cadet O-pilot and couldn't be PIC with me on board on C-missions)

I dunno, I personally recieved salutes from cadets while I was an FO/TFO/SFO, and no one seemed to care otherwise.

And, although the jobs our FO's perform is nothing close to Warrants, I would think the general grade structure and meaning is kind of the same. FO's back in WWII with CAP were just like present day warrants, not elligible for commissioned grade for various reasons, but a technical specialist, with more standing (not saying better, just higher on the totem pole) then a non com.

[Major Carrales]

Well then the person who gave them the manual without the accompanying policy letters is the one who screwed them, not CAP NHQ. 

Again the point is that we should not have frickin' policy letters coming out every month or two changing uniform items.   Why do you insist on defending that practice by omission?

Units should not be wasting resources printing policy leaders ad infinitum, but rather we need one uniform without the constant changes from one manual.

MEIN GOTT!!! Look at the sheer number of these letters and retraction (change to changes) letters.   Pretty ridiculous for a CAP Manual that is the "sole source" of authority on CAP Uniforms. There is no need at all for that sort of nonsense.

[pixelwonk]

Oh.the.drama.

[MIKE]

Why are we talking about Flight Officers again? 

[pixelwonk]

Flight officers are the new berets.

[Walkman]

Why are we talking about Flight Officers again? 

<whiney kid voice>
He started it!
</whiney kid voice>

[SJFedor]

Cuz being an FO is the bomb.

Senior Flight Officer sounds a boat load cooler then SMWOG.

[MIKE]

Nobody gives a [mess] about Flight Officers.  Nobody gives a [mess] about SMs without grade either... as evidenced by CAPM 39-1.

[SJFedor]

Nobody gives a [mess] about Flight Officers.

I just got an idea to prove you wrong...

[Major Carrales]

Nobody gives a [mess] about Flight Officers.

I just got an idea to prove you wrong...

Oh...so this is MIKE's doing?!?  I hope it was sarcastic.

[SJFedor]

I have no doubt that it was. I'm just in rare form tonight. 

[Major Carrales]

I have no doubt that it was. I'm just in rare form tonight. 

OK...for a while there I was questioning my respect for youse guys.

[AlphaSigOU]

Oy gevalt! Just way too much worrying about the proper place in the food chain for FOs and SMWOGs. 

[Major Carrales]

Oy gevalt! Just way too much worrying about the proper place in the food chain for FOs and SMWOGs. 

So long as they are not being treated as someone's "man servant."  I have seen this done with cadets and some flight officers.  It is quite distasteful.

[mikeylikey]

^  What's wrong with having myself a "Man Servant"? 

[AlphaSigOU]

^  What's wrong with having myself a "Man Servant"? 

The operative term - at least in the British armed forces - is 'batman'. I don't know if they even use 'em anymore. A batman is usually a low-ranked enlisted who acts as an officer's manservant.