I'm starting this off based on a minor "mini-discussion" from the latest Commission thread. I have to agree with a previous post about how easy it is to simply be handed those shiny golden bars in six months. It's a hard thought that I just typed up about 3 pages of support for (then thought it was a bit pointless and decided against posting it all). In short, the insignia of an officer in this country is something special, and it should take more than some random 21-year old with a diploma or GED to obtain through a couple simple online courses and six months membership in an organization.
What I propose is a universal, not age-based, application of the flight officer program. Whether you join at 18, 21, or 65, you would be expected to progress through this program in order to achieve the rank of CAP 2Lt. I would propose adding additional steps to the Professional Development Program, or at least shifting requirements, so that 2Lt/1Lt/Capt and FO/TFO/SFO no longer share the same Professional Development requirements. What these steps would be exactly, I'm not sure, but the structure would then read SMWOG/FO/TFO/SFO/2Lt/1Lt/Capt/Maj/etc.
-Appointments and prior commissioned officer service would be exempt from this transition (Chaplains, former RM 2Lts, etc.).
-Those who are ranked CAP Major and above would also be exempt from this transition, except for the expectation to "catch up" on any new steps in the PD program before progressing to the next rank.
-Those who are ranked CAP Captain would have one year to meet the new requirements of their rank and "catch up" with any new steps in the PD program, or else have their ranks adjusted to SFO.
-Those who are ranked CAP 2Lt or 1Lt would have their ranks adjusted to FO and TFO, respectively.
I feel that not only would this change add a bit more "weight" to the officer ranks, it would also allow the Professional Development program to expand. Ideally, what I would like is that when a member hits 2Lt, they are fully prepared to choose a specialty track (if they haven't already) and take up an actual "duty" of their own within the unit. Yes, some units assign jobs to 2Lts, but to be frank, the PD program doesn't really encourage it until you become a 1Lt and Captain. The flight officer program would be great orientation, and at the same time, allow a member to be rotated many times between many jobs and capacities to really understand CAP and begin functioning within it, without having to hold any particular "capacity". Maybe after completing more "basic" requirements (orientation, CPPT, etc.), the flight officer program can also have more to it than "fishing for a specialty track"; it could be a good opportunity to look into ES, Aerospace Education, etc. to broaden the horizons of any new member, sintead of a sheer focus on one of these three missions.
Thoughts, comments, etc.?
I do agree that some members should put on Bars because the training is not there or they abuse it. Then is it our job to train that person up to standards, I say yes. He or she can be trained or even held in that grade till the commander sees fit to promote him or her. But I do agree that I think starting with the flight officer program is a good way to train new members. You have a good idea there I think.
Quote from: RLM10_2_06 on March 22, 2010, 07:17:27 PM
Ideally, what I would like is that when a member hits 2Lt, they are fully prepared to choose a specialty track (if they haven't already) and take up an actual "duty" of their own within the unit. Yes, some units assign jobs to 2Lts, but to be frank, the PD program doesn't really encourage it until you become a 1Lt and Captain.
That is the way it is now. No one should be promoted to 2d Lt simply because he or she has completed Level I and has been in 6 months. For duty performance promotions, he or she must also be performing a duty position (or assistant) and have been enrolled in a specialty track.
There is no need to create FO grades just to give people more time to do something they can do just as easily as a SMWOG.
Quote from: Seabee219 on March 22, 2010, 07:23:56 PM
Then is it our job to train that person up to standards, I say yes.
What standard? The standard listed in 50-17? That one states level I completion and six months as a SM. Level I standards are completed when the on-line tests are completed and the Fm 11 documenting the Summary Conversation is sent to National.
FYI - every unit I have been in encouraged the new members to be assigned a job and specialty track as soon as they completed Level I. That should be part of the Summary Conversation. The only reason for the wait was that they didn't need to be doing anything else except concentrating on finishing level I.
Quote from: RLM10_2_06 on March 22, 2010, 07:17:27 PMIn short, the insignia of an officer in this country is something special, and it should take more than some random 21-year old with a diploma or GED to obtain through a couple simple online courses and six months membership in an organization.
Before we go any further. Let's make it 100% clear and above the board.
CAP officers are NOT "an officer in this country" if you mean a commissioned officer in the armed forces of the United States.
That is your primary failing. I have not read any more of what you posted....because right there you are finished. Nothing else that follows is of any signiifcants unless it is "But we are not officers so it does not really matter".
A CAP is 2d Lt is just that....a CAP officer. Just as a police Lt is just a police Lt and a fire Capt is a fire Capt. They are not compared to USAF Lts and Capts.....so CAP Lts, Capts, Majs, Cols, and Generals should not compared to those in the USAF who hold ranks with similar titles.
Any program that is trying to make CAP ranks "more like USAF ranks" is in my honest opinion just a waste of time.
We will never be treated with respect by "real" officers even if we made all of our officers have 4 year degrees, go to a 90 day OCS and follow the same exact PME and promotion steps as the real air force.
It won't happen....sorry that is just the way it is.
So why waste the our time trying to "earn respect" for people who it does not even really matter?
Let's focus more on pratical applications....if Level I is too easy......come up with a better program.
Edit: One little word changes the whole meaning of my rant :(
Quote from: lordmonar on March 22, 2010, 07:49:36 PM
A CAP is 2d Lt is just that....a CAP officer. Just as a police Lt is just a police Lt and a fire Capt is a fire Capt. They are not compared to USAF Lts and Capts.....so CAP Lts, Capts, Majs, Cols, and Generals should not compared to those in the USAF who hold ranks with similar titles.
Any program that is trying to make CAP ranks "more like USAF ranks" is in my honest opinion just a waste of time.
+1
Quote from: lordmonar on March 22, 2010, 07:49:36 PM
We will never be treated with respect by "real" officers even if we made all of our officers have 4 year degrees, go to a 90 day OCS and follow the same exact PME and promotion steps as the real air force.
Here I have an issue - if you meant "equals", OK, that makes sense, we aren't combatants and that's a closed club, but I have never been treated with anything but respect by officers and NCO's of other services, and the respect usually becomes admiration when they hear we are doing what we do as volunteers, however that is also predicated on demonstrated performance and capability, not simply walking into a room.
There's also one group of people who you're forgetting when it comes to your "your rank will reduce to..." postulation, those of us who were cadet officers who earned our rank thanks to advancement in the program previously.
I for one would not like my previous contributions overlooked just because my Mitchell only gave me butterbars when you strip me of my (now earned 1st Lt) rank.
Also, you mention that you should be a staff member only as 1st Lts or Capts. I disagree. Not every unit has enough SMs to fill all the slots required to run the unit. I hold three staff positions specifically, not including other stuff I do. And I had to take those positions almost as soon as my name appeared on the MML, if not just before.
Could there be some extra steps in the PD program before receiving butterbars? Maybe. Could we give SMs with no previous experience the rank of SFO after Lvl 1 and 2d Lt after Lvl 1.5? Possibly, but there'd have to be those extra steps thought up and inserted into the PD program. Or perhaps making the TIG for 2d Lt nine months or a year.
Or, leave it the way it is, and let the unit commanders make the choice as to whether or not someone is "officer" material after that first six months. Promotions aren't just handed (granted sometimes it's just pencil whipped) just because you're a member. Or at least that's the way it supposed to be.
No offense to the OP, but you're not even a member yet (according to your signature)
Quote from: Marshalus on March 22, 2010, 09:03:20 PM
No offense to the OP, but you're not even a member yet (according to your signature)
Good point.
However, the OP also makes a few valid points.
I, for one, would be very pleased to get rid of the "Senior Member," "Senior Member Without Grade," "SMWOG" and all assorted appellations. I have always found them very unprofessional sounding. A recent newly-minted 2nd Lieutenant in my unit told me that she was
so glad to be promoted, not so much as for the title of "Lieutenant" but for no longer having to be "Senior Member."
The Navy Sea Cadets use "Instructor" for much the same purpose.
Maybe opening up the Flight Officer ranks is an answer. Maybe re-adopting the Warrant Officer grades (please, don't kill me, I'm just hypothesising) is another.
Hypothetically:
Until fingerprint check clears and CPPT done: no title, no uniform
After fingerprint check and CPPT: Flight Officer, can wear the uniform
After six months: Membership Ribbon
After one year, Level 1 and assignment to speciality track: 2nd Lieutenant
However, I would differ from the OP in that I would grandfather all current grades in as is...with the exception of the odious "SMWOG."
Yes, true, I'm not a member, only making speculation based off my experience with CAP and members with the squadron I'm interested in joining.
I DO wholeheartedly agree that comparing us to military officers is not accurate; we are not commissioned, we are volunteers, and thus do not earn the rank like they do; I mean "officer in this country" to mean "somebody wearing officer rank while existing within the physical agreed confines of the borders of the United States". Officer rank IS special; it's a symbol given a very special meaning in our CULTURE. I have not seen Lt rank handed to ANYBODY in any other organization (firefighters, police, etc.) with six months of "orientation" experience. Officer rank is just that; OFFICER rank. Everybody else who uses these insignia have something in common; LEADERSHIP. The military, police, firefighters, etc. all have a form of "enlisted" or "training" ranks in which they EARN their way up; for OCS and ROTC, they have alternate ranks for those who are LEARNING the basics of their organization. Looking simply at the Professional Development system, you're still "learning" until you're a Lt Col, yes, but you're also not ENCOURAGED to even HAVE a job until you're a 1Lt. Can you tell me that a 2Lt who has JUST finished the necessary training to be around cadets and people in general in CAP is a pillar of leadership? That's like saying a RM Lt who hasn't been through AIT or any officer training is suitable to lead the platoon they would probably be assigned (sorry, thinking Army).
Incidentally, I DID forget the cadet thing, didn't I? Okay, you're ALLOWED to have a bump up too :P use the same system that exists now, I suppose? You would just have to catch up on PD before moving on, like cadets having to do CPPT when they turn 18.
I guess that my problem here is that I believe that CAP is handing out something with a legitimate meaning in our CULTURE in such a wanton manner that it seems to have the "easiest" requirements to wear the rank that I know of. If it were up to me, I'd say that CAP needs to use different ranks and insignia, but I'd like to EVER see that happen.
Heck they hand it out to USAF officers!
A college degree and the 90 day wonder school and TADA! you are a 2d Lt.
Even the ROTC and Academy routes....are not better.
Let's not put anything on a pedestal!
Butter Bars, stripes and stars only have meaning with the context of the organisation issuing them. Trying to hold them up to outside meaning is again....just a waste of time.
Here's my proposal, very simple: Level 1 plus 12 months CAP service before ANY appointment to ANY officer grade, no exceptions, no special circumstances.
Compared to the ideas presented so far, IMHO we would be even`better off as an organization if we just required a $2,000 donation to the unit fund for each promotion. ;D
That certainly would cut down on the paperwork.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 22, 2010, 09:38:22 PM
Quote from: Marshalus on March 22, 2010, 09:03:20 PM
No offense to the OP, but you're not even a member yet (according to your signature)
Good point.
However, the OP also makes a few valid points.
I, for one, would be very pleased to get rid of the "Senior Member," "Senior Member Without Grade," "SMWOG" and all assorted appellations. I have always found them very unprofessional sounding. A recent newly-minted 2nd Lieutenant in my unit told me that she was so glad to be promoted, not so much as for the title of "Lieutenant" but for no longer having to be "Senior Member."
I'll be honest, I will be really excited to get my butter bars. Probably even more excited than I will be to get rid of them.
However, I'm into my second or third month as an "SMWOG" and truth be told, it's going fairly quickly. If you sit around for 6 months and wait for promotion before you feel like you're worthy of being there, or of taking on tasks, or doing professional development... sure, it would probably suck. I take the view that I'm going to do as much as possible and work as hard as I can to prove to my commander and my unit that I deserve to be there.
In someways it can separate a lot of people out of the program really quickly without giving them the "look" of being a
real officer without doing a little work. If you're going to let some lack of gold stitching make you feel like any less of an individual (or let it make you like you're more than those without it) that's really too bad.
Assuming you're active and do the Level 1 in any reasonable period of time... it's just six months. Senior Member is a more than fitting title for that period. If someone wants to make me a Flight Officer tomorrow night, feel free, but it's not going to magically increase my dedication to the program.
That all said, I already have a pair of 2nd LT grey epulettes ready to go when my time comes :) When I'm ready.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 22, 2010, 10:08:22 PM
Heck they hand it out to USAF officers!
A college degree and the 90 day wonder school and TADA! you are a 2d Lt.
Even the ROTC and Academy routes....are not better.
Let's not put anything on a pedestal!
Butter Bars, stripes and stars only have meaning with the context of the organisation issuing them. Trying to hold them up to outside meaning is again....just a waste of time.
Ya think?! Excellent comment.
This is "our" culture. Senior members in CAP get promoted based on CAP guidlines with approval of the U.S. Air Force. I can live with it. :-*
Quote from: CyBorg on March 22, 2010, 09:38:22 PM
Maybe opening up the Flight Officer ranks is an answer. Maybe re-adopting the Warrant Officer grades (please, don't kill me, I'm just hypothesising) is another.
What if there was a way that members who are not eligible for Mission-Related Skills initial advanced promotions, who would rather focus on a specialty track or tracks instead of wanting to be eligible for leadership positions such as squadron/group commander etc., to opt into a Warrant Officer program? The member would be eligible to apply for promotion to the next officer grade at their next promotion if they would like to get involved more with direct leadership items. There really wouldn't be a precedent to go from an officer grade to a warrant officer grade unless good reason was given, I suppose. There are 5 warrant officer grades that would easily co-exist with the 5 officer grades members can promote to (2nd Lt. to Lt. Col.).
The Flight Officer insignia could still be used for transitional members until their 21st birthday, at which time they could accept a position as a warrant officer or officer in respect to the last FO grade the member promoted to.
Again, if someone is eligible for a MRS promotion, they wouldn't be held to a WO grade or what-have-you. I feel all members should be given the option depending on whether they want to work more directly in day-to-day chain of command or day-to-day specialty tracks. I don't think you'd have to be a Major to be a mission or special activity commander. Especially if it is something like an ES mission, there would be nothing wrong with a CWO in command.
I don't know, just random thoughts.
Morning All.
As a former RAF enlisted and O3 RAF volunteer reserve training branch (RAFVR(T)) I would like to give you all an idea as to how officer grade is achieved withe the Air Training Corps (CAP equivalent in the UK). All officers are commissioned in the RAFVR(T).
The number of uniformed positions for senior members on an ATC squadron depends on the number of cadets. If there is a vacant position a senior member can apply for that position. The application has to be approved by the Squadron Commander. The application is then reviewed by the Wing Commander and if accepted the candidate then goes for a wing board consisting of the Wing Commander, Wing Staff Officer and a Squadron Commander.
If the applicant is going for enlisted rank approval is done at this level. Commissioned Officers then go for a Regional board, consisting of the Regional Commander, Regional Staff Officer and a Wing Commander. The application then is forwarded to the Ministry of Defence for final approval but usually go with Regional Commanders recommendations. Once the commission is granted the newly appointed officer must attend Initial Officer Training course held at Headquarters Air Cadets (RAF Cranwell school of officer training). It is a one week course unlike the regular commissioned officers of 16 weeks.
Your RAFVR(T) officers are actually paid for their time, and hold a Queen's Commission.
There is an almost identical situation with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Australian Air Force Cadets and New Zealand Air Cadet Corps.
The officers are special/limited duty, but commissioned officers nonetheless, subject to Queen's Regulations for their respective Services (like UCMJ here).
I don't think the RAF Cranwell training course is a bad idea at all, but I don't see it happening here...would USAFA Colorado Springs, OTS Maxwell, or ANG Academy of Military Science (which I think is now closed, anyway) be willing and/or able to incorporate a week-long CAP officer training curriculum?
True RAFVR(T) Officers are paid but only for certain activities and up to 28 days pay a year. For normal parade nights there is no pay. Annual camp, taking cadets to RAF stations for flying or shooting and all courses are when you receive pay.
Although I can not see the same thing happening within the CAP and SLS/CLC course go a long way towards preparing senior members for their CAP career I do think we have a lot to learn from the ATC. That said the CAP does have a lot of resources available which the ATC does not.
None uniformed adult members are called Civilian Instructors, because they assist with instruction of cadets. Not a term we could use for all Senior Members with in CAP.
I do think it would be nice to use a rank or some different term for senior members until they become 2nd Lt. Maybe we could use Flight Officer rank for everyone entering as senior member.
Quote from: RLM10_2_06 on March 22, 2010, 09:42:20 PM
Yes, true, I'm not a member, only making speculation based off my experience with CAP and members with the squadron I'm interested in joining.
I DO wholeheartedly agree that comparing us to military officers is not accurate; we are not commissioned, we are volunteers, and thus do not earn the rank like they do; I mean "officer in this country" to mean "somebody wearing officer rank while existing within the physical agreed confines of the borders of the United States". Officer rank IS special; it's a symbol given a very special meaning in our CULTURE. I have not seen Lt rank handed to ANYBODY in any other organization (firefighters, police, etc.) with six months of "orientation" experience. Officer rank is just that; OFFICER rank. Everybody else who uses these insignia have something in common; LEADERSHIP. The military, police, firefighters, etc. all have a form of "enlisted" or "training" ranks in which they EARN their way up; for OCS and ROTC, they have alternate ranks for those who are LEARNING the basics of their organization. Looking simply at the Professional Development system, you're still "learning" until you're a Lt Col, yes, but you're also not ENCOURAGED to even HAVE a job until you're a 1Lt. Can you tell me that a 2Lt who has JUST finished the necessary training to be around cadets and people in general in CAP is a pillar of leadership? That's like saying a RM Lt who hasn't been through AIT or any officer training is suitable to lead the platoon they would probably be assigned (sorry, thinking Army).
Incidentally, I DID forget the cadet thing, didn't I? Okay, you're ALLOWED to have a bump up too :P use the same system that exists now, I suppose? You would just have to catch up on PD before moving on, like cadets having to do CPPT when they turn 18.
I guess that my problem here is that I believe that CAP is handing out something with a legitimate meaning in our CULTURE in such a wanton manner that it seems to have the "easiest" requirements to wear the rank that I know of. If it were up to me, I'd say that CAP needs to use different ranks and insignia, but I'd like to EVER see that happen.
+1 on all accounts.
In the U.S. Culture, military officer ranks are viewed as leadership positions - A Chief of Police wears general's stars on his collar why?...it's not because he's the most trained up person on the force - it's because he is the top dog. someone who looks at the chief in uniform doesn't have to ask if he's in charge - the general officer rank on his collar says he is.
And don't listen to lordmonar, he's just the resident brow-beater here. :P (that was a joke for all of you humor-challenged types) ;D
As opposed to a newbie on the loose?
That's pretty snarky for a 31 poster! ;D
I like a good argument, as much as the other guy, you just have to remember that some of us have had this conversation before.....and it saves a lot of heart burn if we keep things in perspective from the get go. ::)
Quote from: Short Field on March 23, 2010, 09:52:31 PM
As opposed to a newbie on the loose?
Cheesy name, I know, but hey - at least it's memorable. 8)
This is all really good stuff; always good to get another perspective on things, especially from those who have been doing this for a long time; to be honest, I didn't know of the EXISTENCE of CAP until two years ago, and I didn't even look into it until about six months ago, so forgive my close-minded and stupid mannerisms and such; I'm just a kid :P
My $0.02:
If Military, active duty=Apple, Red Delicious,
and Military, reserve=Apple, Winesap,
and Military, national guard=Pear,
then Civil Air Patrol=Cucumber
The significance of 2d Lt in CAP is that it is 2d Lt in CAP, signifying that the member has, at a minimum, completed Level I and six months service, and to compare it to any military flavor makes very little sense.
Now, if the proposition is to remake the entire Professional Development program, and a new rank structure is a byproduct, that may make some sense. However, remaking the the entire Professional Development program in order to give a certain rank some enhanced meaning seems to me to be a cart/horse sequencing error.
v/r
Especially from someone who has not actually completed any of it.
Does anyone know the percentage of Air Force officers that are in a leadership position?? Most Air Force Officers I know are not in leadership positions, they are in technical positions.. Engineer, Logistics, Medical, Personnel, JAG, Admin, , even Peter Pilots. There is only one Commander and an XO in each squadron.. Leadership doesn't seem to play such a big deal in the Air Force?? It would appear that we are more in line than out of line..
Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2010, 02:07:57 PM
Does anyone know the percentage of Air Force officers that are in a leadership position?? Most Air Force Officers I know are not in leadership positions, they are in technical positions.. Engineer, Logistics, Medical, Personnel, JAG, Admin, , even Peter Pilots. There is only one Commander and an XO in each squadron.. Leadership doesn't seem to play such a big deal in the Air Force?? It would appear that we are more in line than out of line..
You don't think that the Officer in CE or in Personnel doesn't in have airmen working for them? That's a leadership position if I ever saw one. Medical and JAG are restricted line officers so they don't count. And pilots end up in leadership positions one way or another. There are B billets they have to contend with...
I agree with your conclusion and what most people are saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
We seem to be straying down the path of "if it ain't broke, fix it till it is" mentality as a whole.
Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2010, 02:07:57 PM
Does anyone know the percentage of Air Force officers that are in a leadership position?? Most Air Force Officers I know are not in leadership positions, they are in technical positions.. Engineer, Logistics, Medical, Personnel, JAG, Admin, , even Peter Pilots. There is only one Commander and an XO in each squadron.. Leadership doesn't seem to play such a big deal in the Air Force?? It would appear that we are more in line than out of line..
Just about everyone beyond a certain rank has some sort of "leadership" position.
SrA are usually assigned as trainers. A1C are assigned as additional duty monitors.
On the non operational side of the officers even 2d Lts are in some sort of leadership position.
On the operational side there are flight commanders, additional duty monitors and other supervisor positions.....so everyone above a 2d Lt has a "job" to give them some sort of leadership experince.
Command is NOT the only leadership role there is.
Wait a minute, I thought we all agreed that the NCO corps ran the military, so aren't the Sgt's in leadership positions?? I haven't seen very many line officers in the AF doing much in the line of leadership other than leading to the O club.. Seriously, the AF has a different leadership structure than the Army and for good reason. That is why our rank is more in line with the AF than the Army.. We do our jobs in a professional responsible manner, much like an officer in the AF. We don't have anyone under us reporting to us. Most AF officers don't either. Very few AF officers have ever inspected a platoon/squadron.. Or marched troops.. etc., etc..
Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2010, 03:41:35 PM
Wait a minute, I thought we all agreed that the NCO corps ran the military, so aren't the Sgt's in leadership positions?? I haven't seen very many line officers in the AF doing much in the line of leadership other than leading to the O club.. Seriously, the AF has a different leadership structure than the Army and for good reason. That is why our rank is more in line with the AF than the Army.. We do our jobs in a professional responsible manner, much like an officer in the AF. We don't have anyone under us reporting to us. Most AF officers don't either. Very few AF officers have ever inspected a platoon/squadron.. Or marched troops.. etc., etc..
NCO's may do the work that get's the job done, but at the end of the day it is an Officer who not only has the authority but also the accountability for the job to be done.
At the end of the day Leadership is about accountability, REGARDLESS of branch or organization.
Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2010, 03:41:35 PMVery few AF officers have ever inspected a platoon/squadron.. Or marched troops.. etc., etc..
Change that to very few AF personnel and you would be spot on.
In my 22 years as an USAF NCO (well 19...3 were spent as an Airman) I can count the times I had to march/drill/inspect any unit after tech school on just my hands.
Even at tech school on the student leaders got do do any drilling/inspecting.
Formal drill is just not something we do all that often......and it shows.
Pat is pretty much correct: I have been on a good number of AF bases and I don't ever remember seeing AF folks in formation or drilling. The AF pretty much leaves all of that drill stuff to the Marines and the Army.
That's bacuse the job is different and so is the "leadership". I learned "Follow me" in OCS, but I never heard of that being taught at USAFA or OTS..
Maybe that's my error in perception too - thinking like an Army Dog rather than an AF Eagle. However, there is still credence to the whole "Who's in charge" perception when it comes to military-style ranks. In my mind, the one with the most stripes or the largest brass is the one in charge (and accountable) - unless the situation or orders dictate otherwise.
I was taught that the reason for having visible ranks and uniforms in the first place was due to the historical chaotic nature of combat and the fact that someone who may be your boss one minute, may not be there suddenly, and everyone needs to know very quickly who the next in line is to take up the charge. In CAP, we don't have the urgency or randomness of combat operations so I can see how this is not so critical for us.
I think that is probably why I think the Warrant Officer-style ranks for non-command (or in CAP terms - Non-Corporate Officers) fits the organizational and operations structure better - and in my mind would provide our Corporate Officers (read command ranks) with more appreciation from the RM.
But one CAP member's perception on rank is (I'm sure) different from other CAP members perceptions based upon where they come from and their previous exposure to "military officers". Just for the record, I'm fine with wearing my brass the way it is - even if I think there is a better way available. ::)
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 24, 2010, 06:07:23 PM
I'm fine with wearing my brass the way it is
You mean cloth stitching? ;)
Quote from: Marshalus on March 24, 2010, 06:15:58 PM
You mean cloth stitching? ;)
Nah. Per General Courter's directive, if he has a CSU service coat, he can wear brass on that until September 2010. 8)
Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2010, 03:41:35 PM
I haven't seen very many line officers in the AF doing much in the line of leadership other than leading to the O club.
Are you just working hard to be rude or is it natural? Are you some kind of leadership guru who knows what is taught at the AFA and OTS?
Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2010, 02:07:57 PM
Does anyone know the percentage of Air Force officers that are in a leadership position?? Most Air Force Officers I know are not in leadership positions, they are in technical positions..
My wife is a brand new AF 2d Lt. She is a Communications Officer and with less than three months as an officer is in a leadership position. She is the OIC of an office. She has 3 SNCOs 4 Amn and 3 Civilians that she is responsible for leading. All of her peers that just got to the base are in the same type of position. She is lead by a Capt, who like his peers lead the other Lts in her Squadron. Her Squadron commander is a Major who is responsible for leading those below him. But, I think you get the point.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 24, 2010, 06:07:23 PM
Maybe that's my error in perception too - thinking like an Army Dog rather than an AF Eagle. However, there is still credence to the whole "Who's in charge" perception when it comes to military-style ranks. In my mind, the one with the most stripes or the largest brass is the one in charge (and accountable) - unless the situation or orders dictate otherwise.
But that is true in CAP too. It just happens more often in CAP than it does in the USAF.
But in the USAF there are many many many times where a lower ranking individual is in charge.
1) Air Craft commanders are the boss.....even if a 4 star is riding in the back seat.
2) Supervision chains....the regs allow for lower ranking individuals to supervise and rate people who normally would out rank them (this happend to me....I was a TSgt with 1 year TIG supervising another TSgt with 2 years TIG).
3) Technical expertise....a fully trained and qualified SrA would be put in charge of a work detail with higher ranking trainees. The SrA is in charge and responsible. (again this happened to me....my NBC recon team...I was the team leader as a Sgt and I had a MSgt Trainee on my team.....I was the boss).
In CAP the same thing happens. A 2d Lt is appointed as the commander....he's the boss even if there is a General in his squadron. A GTL is in charge of the ground team even if there is another higher ranking person on the team.
Now...the differences between CAP and USAF is that a) the USAF hold down the number of people who can hold a particular rank based on force strength needs. b) the USAF will move people to jobs that match their rank...or shuffle them off to some do nothing job on the Air Staff if they are incompetent for the rank they wear.
CAP does neither of these. In theory you could have a squadron full of Lt Cols.....the USAF would not allow this. Also if you had a Squadron Commander job opening....instead of filling it with who ever was available...the USAF would find a person of the right rank and transfer him to that job.
QuoteI was taught that the reason for having visible ranks and uniforms in the first place was due to the historical chaotic nature of combat and the fact that someone who may be your boss one minute, may not be there suddenly, and everyone needs to know very quickly who the next in line is to take up the charge. In CAP, we don't have the urgency or randomness of combat operations so I can see how this is not so critical for us.
And drill was originally to get combat forces into the line of battle so they could repell the next bayonet charge. Just because it was historically done that way means we have to keep to the original purpose of the tradition.
QuoteI think that is probably why I think the Warrant Officer-style ranks for non-command (or in CAP terms - Non-Corporate Officers) fits the organizational and operations structure better - and in my mind would provide our Corporate Officers (read command ranks) with more appreciation from the RM.
But one CAP member's perception on rank is (I'm sure) different from other CAP members perceptions based upon where they come from and their previous exposure to "military officers". Just for the record, I'm fine with wearing my brass the way it is - even if I think there is a better way available. ::)
You have to also take into account the psychology of the issue. CAP member like their rank. Just because you or I see the logic in something does not mean anyone else will see the same logic. A major change from normal ranks to a Flight Officer/Warrent Officer/Axillary Officer ranks structure will be resisted by many people for many different reason.
Bottom line is that the system is not really broken....we are getting the mission done. It is nice to just throw poop on the wall and see what sort of splotch it makes....but let's not get into ourselves over these on-line discussions. 8)
Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2010, 08:02:22 PM
CAP does neither of these. In theory you could have a squadron full of Lt Cols.....the USAF would not allow this. Also if you had a Squadron Commander job opening....instead of filling it with who ever was available...the USAF would find a person of the right rank and transfer him to that job.
Obvious reason being, the USAF forces you out after so many years or once you reach a high age... where as if CAP started doing that there wouldn't be anyone left who knew what they were doing. ;)
First time to read in a couple of weeks - I have to say that I have often mulled over the possibility of a re-alignment like that which was proposed. Not to mirror RM, but to give the officer ranks "teeth" and meaning.
In my thoughts, I considered that what is a SMWOG (when posted on E-services) would become an Airman (but not w/ cloth chevrons, metal ones worn like the cadets do would be fine). Then, once screening is done, CPPT, and all of the now Level 1 stuff is complete, be promoted to SrA. 6 months TIG - SSgt. Nine months later (or about a little over a year in the program), then come the butter bars. It won't elongate the process that much, but it would give the new senior member a sense to follow before they can lead (the same thing we teach cadets). Obviously, there would be exceptions (RM go in at rank, former cadets officers go to 2LT, 1LT, Capt, etc, however - pilots, mechanics, etc, would get advanced rank, but only up to SSgt.). Level 2 and up would remain the same.
Asbestos suit on - check. Shield down - check. ..................
Agree. Promotion to second lieutenant should mean more than six months TIG and completion of Level I. Right now it almost seems like it's just a given. What if completion of the CAP Officer course would be a requirement to this promotion?
Harkening back to the old ECI-13 Course, AFR and ANG enlisted who sought commissioning had to complete the equivilent to that course as part of their commissioning package. Then they did a two-week officer orientation.
I wish we did the same, along with some sort of appointment certificate. Make it something meaningful, as challenging as what a cadet has to do to get to that level of achievement.
To what point?
What is gained for CAP if we make 2d Lt "harder" to get?
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 03:51:53 AM
To what point?
What is gained for CAP if we make 2d Lt "harder" to get?
The only thing I can think is that maybe we get higher quality performance sooner from our newer members with more training. I know I was ready to jump in with both feet and do all sorts of training, and was honestly a little disappointed in what was offered as a new SM. I would have loved something more on leadership, military topics, D&C, anything like that.
At that point in my CAP life, if you told me that I needed to go to a 2 week Officer Training Course, I'd have done it in a heartbeat. (Yeah, I know not everyone can take that kind of time off, and all the caveats to the previous statement, blah, blah, blah...)
There is the common response on these threads of "if it's not broke..." which can be true, however, things can always be improved. Regardless of if we're called WO's, flight officers, Jedi Masters or whatever, if there's a way we can improve our training of new members, and increase their effectiveness sooner than later, then that's worth considering.
I think that may be what's at the back of people's minds that are presenting these ideas. How can we improve our effectiveness? How can we be better leaders? Sometimes that's manifested in rank/grade topics, because many people associate (correctly or incorrectly) rank with some sort of level of achievement.
Yes....but there is no suggestion of giving more or better training.....only that you can't put on 2d Lt until after you get ECI-13 done/level 2 what ever.
We are not adding any of those skills that you are talking about. Just replacing the current Capt with 2d Lt.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 03:51:53 AM
To what point?
What is gained for CAP if we make 2d Lt "harder" to get?
My route to 2nd Lt. in 1974 involved having a 3rd Class Radio Telephone License. Under that promotion criteria, people who have pilot licenses, radio telephone licenses, ground instructor ratings, A&P licenses have to "work harder" for the promotion because of the time, money, and experience related to obtaining that license. Also, certainly under that criteria, those senior members generally launch off into specialities that are more emergency services related. I didn't, however, within a year, I was the squadron deputy commander and I think I had already received my next promotion.
Too many times I've seen senior members come into this program, get appointed to second lieutenant and either hang around like junior airmen, kind of lost in the ivory tower of trying to figure out what they have to do next, or try to manage cadets with less management experience than the cadets themselves.
If the Officer basic course or an ECI-13 like course is too much, why can't CAP do something like a weekend leadership school or series of weekends as part of the promotion criteria. A lot of National Guard units have officer training academies done on weekends.
I understand that it may be cost prohibitive, but in the NYW, one of the groups does that every year. It has a senior member track that trains separately of cadets during a Cadet Leadership School. You should see it, the senior members even fall out in their own flight with the cadets in morning formation. The experience is purely academic but the weekend is so beneficial that in years past its attracted senior member officers from across the wing, and outside the state from Pennsylvania and Vermont.
This is really interesting discussion...and one that frequently occurs on CAPtalk. What I am reading is that "rank" should mean something and should correlate to position in the command structure. CAP has made the decision that professional development is what is necessary to advancement. Now, professional development really doesn't apply to the squadron level, however, in order to move to group or wing level, officers should have completed Level III in professional development. Level IV is appropriate for serving at region or national level...and Level V is "preferred" for serving at national.
I guess what may bother some is that there are members who have completed Level III or higher (and have been rewarded with promotions in rank) but have not served, or have finished serving at wing, region or national. That doesn't bother me, however. The squadron where I serve is very fortunate to have a Lt. Col, Level V, who has served on wing staff, as our "safety officer." Most fortunate, though is her wisdom and experience she brings to our squadron. She has inspired me to advance in professional development and has encouraged me in my part-time work on the wing level.
Maybe not by design, but CAP is fortunate to have experienced persons willing to go into squadrons after serving in other areas. Unlike the RM we don't retire them after they have gone as far as they can in professional development. We recycle them (for lack of a better description)!
So, in my opinion, don't worry about the insignia you wear on your uniform. Instead concentrate on professional development. The training structure in CAP is fairly arduous for a volunteer organization and improving incrementally.
Actually, flyboy1 had a good idea. Now that OBC (old ECI-13) is online, there is no reason that it should not be mandatory for the promotion to 2Lt. That would give the new senior member a lot more information to prepare them for 2Lt.
Why should 2Lt. be harder to get? Because, as was pointed out, it should mean that the person wearing it has some experience in CAP - both time and education. Second, it would afford the new member something to work towards. As it is now, it is handed out like a door prize (stick around to the end of the party, and you will get a prize). Third, (under my plan), a new member off the street isn't going to rate a salute in six months, they have to earn the customs & courtesies paid to them. A previous poster said that the RM hands 2nd Lt out like candy - not true. No matter the route taken, (even a 90 day OCS), you have to be dedicated and work hard to get the rank - there are a lot of wash-outs that don't make it. We are not the RM, obviously, but we should but a little more meaning in that bar than 6 months part of the organization.
If CAP did the “enlisted” status, it would also automatically teach customs & courtesies to the new senior member. I have seen too many senior members not give salutes to higher-ranking senior members, but chew out a cadet that doesn’t give them one. Also seen new butter-bars get thrown a salute and they don’t have a clue what to do.
Is it too much to ask that a person completes OBC and spends a little more time in CAP before they get the bar?
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on March 25, 2010, 01:21:57 PM
... Now that OBC (old ECI-13) is online, there is no reason that it should not be mandatory for the promotion to 2Lt. That would give the new senior member a lot more information to prepare them for 2Lt...
Is it too much to ask that a person completes OBC and spends a little more time in CAP before they get the bar?
Assuming, merely for the sake of argument, that this COA is accepted and implemented, it would take about 5 minutes before we started reading threads here regarding "The Significance of Capt in CAP" that would state that Capt is a meaningless promotion since it requires merely completion of SLS (a weekend course) and 18 months TIG (after all, AFIADL 13/OBC would have been completed as a SMWOG).
After we work through the logical progression and shift all PD training to the left, what will be left to differentiate Level IV from Level V? Are we going to create more courses in order to make Level V, an achievement already attained by very few senior members, "more meaningful"?
In my mind, an easier solution would be to revert to calling adult CAP members "senior members" and not "officers," with the desired result being to eliminate the unfair comparison of these dedicated volunteers in a great organization with the equally dedicated professionals of the greatest military our planet has ever seen. Of course, YMMV.
v/r
The UK Air Training Corps now have both enlisted and officer ranks. There used to be only one enlisted rank which was Warrant Officer they now start at Sergeant then after four years promoted to Flight Sergeant and then after another four years they are eligible for Warrant Officer.
One of the reasons they went this route is because the Sergeant rank is the lowest senior NCO rank and is therefore a learning rank with in the sergeants mess. Similarly in the officer ranks the rank of Pilot Officer is a learning rank.
So with in the Civil Air Patrol 2Lt is a learning rank.
To me what ever rank you wear is well deserved and should be worn with pride. I have heard some people say it's only a CAP rank, doesn't matter it shows a level of achievement and shows service to your country.
All ranks whether senior member or cadet should be worn with pride and be respected.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on March 25, 2010, 01:21:57 PM
Actually, flyboy1 had a good idea. Now that OBC (old ECI-13) is online, there is no reason that it should not be mandatory for the promotion to 2Lt. That would give the new senior member a lot more information to prepare them for 2Lt.
Why should 2Lt. be harder to get? Because, as was pointed out, it should mean that the person wearing it has some experience in CAP - both time and education. Second, it would afford the new member something to work towards. As it is now, it is handed out like a door prize (stick around to the end of the party, and you will get a prize). Third, (under my plan), a new member off the street isn't going to rate a salute in six months, they have to earn the customs & courtesies paid to them. A previous poster said that the RM hands 2nd Lt out like candy - not true. No matter the route taken, (even a 90 day OCS), you have to be dedicated and work hard to get the rank - there are a lot of wash-outs that don't make it. We are not the RM, obviously, but we should but a little more meaning in that bar than 6 months part of the organization.
If CAP did the "enlisted" status, it would also automatically teach customs & courtesies to the new senior member. I have seen too many senior members not give salutes to higher-ranking senior members, but chew out a cadet that doesn't give them one. Also seen new butter-bars get thrown a salute and they don't have a clue what to do.
Is it too much to ask that a person completes OBC and spends a little more time in CAP before they get the bar?
Okay....but again why?
What benefit does CAP get by adding new requirements to make 2d Lt?
You talk about making them "earn" the right to a salute.....but most senior members don't really do that stuff anyway. You talk about making the 2d Lt bars mean that they have more expedience with CAP....but I read 2d Lt as the new kid on the block.....2d Lts DON'T have experience...that's why they are LTs!
You suggest that we should make 2d Lt "a little more meaning in that bar than 6 months part of the organization"...again to what benefit? What is the cost? 2d Lts are not worth anything (hence all the LT jokes you see running around the military community).
You tell me how all this will make the rank of 2d Lt have more meaning....okay I'll buy that.....now you need to tell me how making 2d Lts have more meaning will improve CAP?
Perhaps a course name change would be more appropriate. I think it's amazing that the CAP waits until someone is fulfilling the requirements for promotion to captain to require them to take an "Officer Basic Course."
Yet, I see it from another sad perspective that I know is a cost-saving and quality control factor. We have turned initial senior member training into a computer process instead of direct in-your face personal one-on-one training, and I believe a lot is lost in the process.
I used to enjoy assisting our wing assistant PDO go into the field and do an excellent job at conducting Level I seminar programs that would take most of a Saturday. It encouraged participation as a group and got those new officers networking with other new members. That's why I'm in such favor of conducting something like a weekend officer training school.
I'm of that era when the CAP had an active enlisted program. That was something that brought more meaning to officer ranks. I know the program is in process again, however, limiting it to just former military NCOs is a mistake. There's so much to be gained, especially for cadets, to have NCOs mentoring them. There's so much to be gained among senior members to have an NCO program for those who chose not to be officers.
Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.
Quote from: Walkman on March 25, 2010, 05:52:39 AM
There is the common response on these threads of "if it's not broke..." which can be true, however, things can always be improved. Regardless of if we're called WO's, flight officers, Jedi Masters or whatever, if there's a way we can improve our training of new members, and increase their effectiveness sooner than later, then that's worth considering.
I think that may be what's at the back of people's minds that are presenting these ideas. How can we improve our effectiveness? How can we be better leaders? Sometimes that's manifested in rank/grade topics, because many people associate (correctly or incorrectly) rank with some sort of level of achievement.
This is the whole point of discussing our ideas together - there is credence to the idea of brainstorming between members with the intent of trying to improve the organization. I don't think anyone here is really floating ideas out purely for the sake of personal glory or misguided attempts at personally turning our present system upside down "just to do it". There are always ways we can improve ourselves and our organization.
It seems to me the easiest way to address all of the "rank vs. actual achievement", "rank vs. PD", "rank vs. command position". discussions, without upending what's in place now, would be to just re-align the currently authorized, but not effectively utilized, ranks of Flight Officers and NCOs.
Let's start from here and see how we can improve on what we already have. Sooo... to recap, CAP currently has the following grade / rank structure (from lowest to highest grade – not counting special appointment criteria) available for Senior Members per the latest CAPR 35-5 (16 MAR 10):
SMWOG (untrained boot / Level I)
All of the AF Airman / NCO Ranks (only if you hold / have held these ranks in RM and Level I PD) otherwise not available to anyone.
Flight Officer (Only for 18-20 yrs old + Level I)
Tech Flight Officer (Only for 18-20 yrs old + Level I + Tech Rating)
Senior Flight Officer (Only for 18-20 yrs old + Level II )
2nd Lt (Level I + 6mos TIG)
1st Lt (Level I + Basic Tech Rating + 12 mos TIG)
Capt (Level II + 18 mos TIG)
Maj (Level III + 36 mos TIG)
Lt Col (temp grade – this is a new change, Level IV + 48 mos TIG)
Col (temp grade for current NB members, region VCs, and selected National staff officers)
Brig Gen (temp grade for National Vice-Commander)
Maj Gen (temp grade for National Commander)
Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Level V for promotion to any grade. Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Senior or Master Tech ratings for promotion above 1
st Lt.
in CAPR 35-5 (edit made for clarification per below posts).
Now – without changing the current grade ranks – how do we improve things and please state how adoption of your change improves CAP either organizationally or operationally.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 25, 2010, 05:19:04 PM
Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Senior or Master Tech ratings for promotion above 1st Lt.
Senior rating is required for Level III.
Master rating is required for Level IV.
So to say they are not required for promotions above 1
st Lt is inaccurate.
Quote from: bte on March 25, 2010, 05:45:23 PM
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 25, 2010, 05:19:04 PM
Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Senior or Master Tech ratings for promotion above 1st Lt.
Senior rating is required for Level III.
Master rating is required for Level IV.
So to say they are not required for promotions above 1st Lt is inaccurate.
Understood, I was just quoting from CAPR 35-5 here. Thanks.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 25, 2010, 04:33:59 PM
Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.
Okay...that's great....now we are getting somewhere.
So the PROBLEM is our Level I training is not preparing new members for leadership roles in CAP.
That I can work with.
Now come up with a program that beefs up our level I training....remembering some basic concerns. It must be timely...we should not have to wait six months for the next time the training comes around (the major problem with the old Level I course IMHO). It must focus on core compantacies that we expect our new leaders in training to have. It must not be too taxing on a new individual....asking some new guy to give up a week for some CAP OCS would not be a good idea when the member is just learning about CAP. Finally it should not cost too much. We just hit these guys up for about $100 in annual dues, $50-$300 for uniforms, $200-$300 for ES related expense (assuming a pilot type..he has to pay for his CAPF 5 and any fam/training rides in the CAP aircraft...ground team gear...etc).
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 05:57:31 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 25, 2010, 04:33:59 PM
Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.
So the PROBLEM is our Level I training is not preparing new members for leadership roles in CAP.
Actually, I'm not sure that Level I training is purposely designed to prepare new members for leadership roles in CAP. I believe Level II is where this starts with the inclusion of the Squadron Leadership School requirement by design. Not sure if this is really a "problem".
That I will agree with. The Level 1 training is C R A P -- I'd rather see something like what is currently Level 1 brought down to "Level 0" and required to be an SM at all, with a more serious training program put in Level 1s place. You should be required to complete this "Level 0" before your application is even processed.
Completing the Level 1 qualifications took me about 30 minutes.
Since when is Lt. Col a temporary grade? And why the change?
Quote from: kd8gua on March 25, 2010, 06:24:18 PM
Since when is Lt. Col a temporary grade? And why the change?
Re: CAPR35-5 Para 1-5D. This started this past October. Not sure why; it could be a start in the process to ensure that senior officers have truly earned this grade.
Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.
Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy.
Quote from: bte on March 25, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.
Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can MUST directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy.
Strike through and bold added.
If the Region CC does not re-approve the promotion at the one year mark...they AUTOMATICALY revert to Maj. The Oct 09 change clarified that point....in the past the promotion became permanent automatically at the one year mark.
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 25, 2010, 03:45:02 PM
There's so much to be gained, especially for cadets, to have NCOs mentoring them. There's so much to be gained among senior members to have an NCO program for those who chose not to be officers.
Please explain what special experience or knowledge the cadets and senior members are gaining by having some senior members wear a different set of insignia? What "special" training did the senior member get that only manifests itself if they are wearing stripes? Do you really believe CAP can train and develop a SNCO corps from scratch and in a few years?
C/CMSgts are NOT at the top of their promotion path but just half way on the path to C/Colonel. IMHO trying to equate them to RM E-9s is a mistake and ends up creating C/CMSgts for Life. If C/CMSgts feel a "demotion" when they promote to C/2nd Lt, then the cadet program has a problem.
Quote from: Short Field on March 25, 2010, 06:49:29 PM
C/CMSgts are NOT at the top of their promotion path but just half way on the path to C/Colonel. IMHO trying to equate them to RM E-9s is a mistake and ends up creating C/CMSgts for Life. If C/CMSgts feel a "demotion" when they promote to C/2nd Lt, then the cadet program has a problem.
You might be surprised how many cadets use the excuse of the "Chief Experience" to avoid or delay becoming an officer.
You might also be surprised at how many cadets and even seniors feel:
C/2d Lt. is really the "end" of the program because it's the last time a cadet receives a tangible reward outside CAP connected to grade.
C/Lt. Col. is really the "completion" of the program because it represents the completion of Phase IV (making Spaatz an irrelevant "nice to have" in the grand scheme).
Mental gymnastics are fun for everyone.
What about this proposed setup for starters:
CUrrently we have these authorized:
SMWOG
All of the AF Airman / NCO Ranks
Flight Officer
Technical Flight Officer
Senior Flight Officer
Thinking in CAP terms, the above grades are all specifically Non-Command / Non-Leadership position grades. Thinking in these terms, forget about what a RM Airman / NCO / Warrant Officer (for lack of a better term) is and focus strictly on the CAP structure and these as being the basic core of our membership. These are our technically trained and adept workhorse members. For manageability's sake, let's cut these down and apply new use and revised promotion criteria as follows:
CAP Airman = SMWOG (untrained new member)(They both have no visible rank anyway)
Flight Officer (Completed Level I, begin Tech / Squadron Operations mentoring – Non-Pilots)
Technical Flight Officer (Technician Rating + 12 mos. TIG as FO)
Senior Flight Officer (24 Mos. TIG as TFO – no further PD completed)
Think of "Flight" in "Flight Officer" as in the organizational Flight Unit under a Squadron – not as a description of Pilots. Rated Pilots by their nature as "Aircraft Commanders" do not fit this category.
Now, the AO grades (Appointed Officers) grades should be used for those members who decide to hold command positions, or who desire to move up to Corporate Officers and who want to further their professional development. So, let's try to align our current PD and positions with our expectations for CAP Corporate leadership.
----non-corporate officers----
2nd Lt (Complete Level II + 6mos TIG as TFO, or be a rated "Pilot in Command")
1st Lt (12mos TIG as 2nd Lt)
Capt (24mos TIG as 1st Lt + Senior Tech Rating)
---corporate officers----
Maj (Complete Level III + 24mos TIG as Capt)
Lt Col (Complete Level IV + 36mos TIG as Maj)
Col (12mos TIG as Lt Col and is temp grade for current NB members, region VCs, and selected National staff officers. Becomes perm grade after successful assignment and completion of Level V)
Brig Gen (Complete Level V + 12mos TIG as Col. Temp grade for National Vice-Commander)
Maj Gen (Complete Level V + 12mos TIG as Col. Temp grade for National Commander)
Only completion of Level V makes grade of Col or Brig Gen eligible for permanency. Maj Gen is never permanent, but may be granted to ex-National Commanders upon CAP retirement.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: bte on March 25, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.
Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can MUST directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy.
Strike through and bold added.
If the Region CC does not re-approve the promotion at the one year mark...they AUTOMATICALY revert to Maj. The Oct 09 change clarified that point....in the past the promotion became permanent automatically at the one year mark.
That is not how I understood it.
QuoteCommanders may confirm the individual's permanent promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, extend the temporary grade of lieutenant colonel for an additional year, or have the individual revert to the previous grade held prior to promotion to lieutenant colonel.
I just don't see where it says that reversion to the previous grade is automatic. I could be wrong. I am not a region commander, so I do not know exactly how it is implemented.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 25, 2010, 04:33:59 PM
Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.
Well, for the most part we aren't expecting our 2nd Lts to take a real leadership role in CAP. For the most part they're going to be serving as a staff officer or assistant or not holding any position at all while working towards ES quals or something else.
Quote from: bte on March 25, 2010, 08:11:21 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: bte on March 25, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.
Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can MUST directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy.
Strike through and bold added.
If the Region CC does not re-approve the promotion at the one year mark...they AUTOMATICALY revert to Maj. The Oct 09 change clarified that point....in the past the promotion became permanent automatically at the one year mark.
That is not how I understood it.
QuoteCommanders may confirm the individual's permanent promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, extend the temporary grade of lieutenant colonel for an additional year, or have the individual revert to the previous grade held prior to promotion to lieutenant colonel.
I just don't see where it says that reversion to the previous grade is automatic. I could be wrong. I am not a region commander, so I do not know exactly how it is implemented.
From CAPR 35-5, dated 16 MAR 2010, Page 5
d. Lieutenant Colonel. The region commander is the promoting authority for promotions to the grade of lieutenant colonel for all senior members assigned to the region headquarters and subordinate units within the region. This authority will not be delegated. All lieutenant colonel promotions are temporary for 1 year. Individuals promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel after 1 October 2009 will require specific action by the approving authority to authorize the permanent grade of lieutenant colonel. One year after the initial promotion to lieutenant colonel, the individual member's name will appear in the approving authority's Commander's Corner application. Commanders may confirm the individual's permanent promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, extend the temporary grade of lieutenant colonel for an additional year, or have the individual revert to the previous grade held prior to promotion to lieutenant colonel.Recent addition in bold, relative verbiage underlined - the process is now automatic.
Yes but that is my point.
It shows up on the commander's dash board and he MUST do one of three things....make permanent, hold for 1 year or revert to previous rank...nothing is automatic expect for the individual showing up on the dash board.
Before......it AUTOMATICALLY became permanent with out anyone doing anything. The Regional CC had to specifically and purposely intervein to hold or revert the promotion....and he did not have any easy tools to improve his visibility on who was approaching their 1 year mark.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 25, 2010, 07:37:41 PM
Think of "Flight" in "Flight Officer" as in the organizational Flight Unit under a Squadron – not as a description of Pilots. Rated Pilots by their nature as "Aircraft Commanders" do not fit this category.
So now you just lost me.
Just because you have a skill...you have leadership ability? I think not.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 25, 2010, 07:37:41 PM
Think of "Flight" in "Flight Officer" as in the organizational Flight Unit under a Squadron – not as a description of Pilots. Rated Pilots by their nature as "Aircraft Commanders" do not fit this category.
So now you just lost me.
Just because you have a skill...you have leadership ability? I think not.
Agreed. What I was trying to say was that in the proposed grade scenario the term "Flight Officer" does not necessarily mean that the person is a pilot. With the proposed new grade criteria, those with specialized training and skills outside of the normal professional development / specialty tracts (like Pilots, Incident Commanders, and Ground Team Leaders, etc.) who do have mission-related command authority inherent with those positions should have TIG for these positions applied to the 2nd Lt. eligibility from their mission skillset rather than TIG as TFO.
Basically, a members grade should be reflective of the following:
1. Training / Professional Development milestones
2. Any critical mission-related skills outside of the Speciality Tracts
3. Command authority
Probably muddied it more - but I'm trying to fit everything into the currently authorized grades in a logical way. :o
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 25, 2010, 10:51:12 PMBasically, a members grade should be reflective of the following:
1. Training / Professional Development milestones
2. Any critical mission-related skills outside of the Speciality Tracts
3. Command authority
Isn't that what we got?
No training, minimal PD milestones, + no critical mssion sills or specialty tracks, minimal command authority+6 months in the program= 2d Lt
Your premis if faulty because you WANT 2d Lt to mean something more than it really is.
Your aims to improve the meaning of the title "2d Lt" have no real impact on the program as a whole.
Instead of having a bunch of 2d Lts running around with out clue we will have a bunch of CAP Flight Officers running around with out a clue. You have not really solved any problems....just changed their name.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 10:59:22 PM
Isn't that what we got?
No training, minimal PD milestones, + no critical mssion sills or specialty tracks, minimal command authority+6 months in the program= 2d Lt
Your premis if faulty because you WANT 2d Lt to mean something more than it really is.
Your aims to improve the meaning of the title "2d Lt" have no real impact on the program as a whole.
Instead of having a bunch of 2d Lts running around with out clue we will have a bunch of CAP Flight Officers running around with out a clue. You have not really solved any problems....just changed their name.
The point is, I would rather CAP have "a bunch of CAP Flight Officers without a clue" running around than "a bunch of 2nd Lts without a clue running around. 2nd Lts should have
some clue. The goal is to equate the 3 eligibility areas above to the appropriate grade. While having a bunch of 2nd Lts running around without a clue does not equal the system being broken - it certainly can be improved upon. It should be that those members who
do have a clue should be the only ones wearing regular officer-style rank. It just makes sense. ;)
lordmonar - do you think that we can improve ourselves in this area? If so, what would your suggestion be?
The only way you are ever going to add any more weight to our grade is if you also confer the same level of responsibility, and tie it in some way to authority.
I don't personally see any way to do that beyond what we already have, in a volunteer organization, because the ROI on being somehow even more legally responsible than we already are, with no additional reward for that risk is too low.
As it is today we have members who shrink from basic ORM and personal responsibility for their own actions, let alone being responsible for others.
Those of us what gits-it, are already doin' it, those what don't never will, and the grade won't make any difference.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 25, 2010, 11:25:49 PMThe point is, I would rather CAP have "a bunch of CAP Flight Officers without a clue" running around than "a bunch of 2nd Lts without a clue running around.
Why?
Quote2nd Lts should have some clue.
Again why?
QuoteThe goal is to equate the 3 eligibility areas above to the appropriate grade. While having a bunch of 2nd Lts running around without a clue does not equal the system being broken - it certainly can be improved upon. It should be that those members who do have a clue should be the only ones wearing regular officer-style rank. It just makes sense. ;)
I fail to see the logic. I think you are again confusing Active Duty Military Rank "regular officer-style" with CAP ranks. You are trying to make the same old argument "our ranks don't mean anything"...but again.....unless we institute a six week OTS course with USAF PD and require everyone to have a degree......our ranks will NEVER----EVER----be on par with AD military rank.....and even if we did go that fare we will still be the bastard step children lower then National Guard Non-Flyer type 2d Lts. (sorry that is not a hit on any ANG guys....only an generalised assessment of the state of the union. :D)
Quotelordmonar - do you think that we can improve ourselves in this area? If so, what would your suggestion be?
Do I think we
CAN improve ourselves? Sure do....just do a search on some of my posts about this subject......but the question really should be.....Do I think there is a
NEED to improve on it? No....I don't really see the system as broken.
Would I make changes to level I training? Sure thing. Would I like to see some better training? Sure thing. But the bottom line is that as it is right now....it works. Not well. Not always but it works.
Your suggestions while laudable don't really solve anything. It is not changing the training provided....just the rewards that one receives based on their position in the process. Your aim IMHO is not to improve the process as a whole....but to just improve the prestige of the lowest rank.
It could have that affect but then it screws up the rest of the system. What are flight officers? The AD USAF barely knows what CAP is.....let alone what a FO is. Ramping up the numbers of those FOs will only make the problem worse.
Additonally you do not address any of the other areas that make our ranks meaningless.
A SMWOG is able to command a unit! There are no rules preventing him from being appointed a commander and instantly putting on 1st Lt bars and then a year later putting on Capt! WITH OUT EVER COMPLETING ANY OTHER PD LEVELS!
A member could in theory go straight from SMWOG to wing commander or region commander....heck in theory IIRC he could go directly to National CC an wear 2 stars!
Don't get tied up too much about the ranks.
They are a tool to show PD level and in some ways levels of responsbilty.
Would I do it differently? Sure would. But I don't really see a need to alter the system just to fit my personal preferences.
:D Look at me.....defending the status quo! Who would have thought! My appologies to you Ned about all the heart burn I gave you witht he over 18 cadets, the bright line, and Flight officers. ;D
Quote from: Eclipse on March 25, 2010, 11:44:32 PM
The only way you are ever going to add any more weight to our grade is if you also confer the same level of responsibility, and tie it in some way to authority.
True. The reason rank has meaning in the military is because it is tied to responsibility. That responsibility carries a commensurate authority necessary to properly execute missions and vice versa. As a field-grade officer, I have quite a few tools and considerable leverage to ensure that what I need to have done gets done.
In CAP, a squadron- or flight-level commander has the authority to accept members into his/her unit and terminate substandard performer's membership. About the only other authority he/she has is to accept more responsibility. However, the only remaining authority in his/her tool kit is moral authority. People follow and do what (s)he asks because it is the right thing to do.
Without more regulatory authority, no CAP rank will have any more meaning. Realistically, in a volunteer environment, the level of regulatory authority is minimal at best, even at the highest echelons of "command," which in itself is a dubious term at best.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2010, 11:54:56 PM
:D Look at me.....defending the status quo! Who would have thought!
Here you go, have another glass of the Kool Aid!!
I wish you guys would drop the flight officer rank stuff. It wouldn't work because somone with a big ego at some point is going to want to be a super grand puba flight officer with all the devices to accompany it...or you're going to hear that everyone can't be a certain flight officer rank.
With all of the responses, I know I forgot that ultimately any promotion or appointment rests with the unit commander recommending the individual. Let the commander decide if someone is worthy of a certain rank.
Ultimately, we have individual responsibility to do our duties with enthusiasm and excellence and complete the existing training requirements -- all of them -- to prove that we are worthy of promotion. In the end, we are a volunteer auxiliary and that rank, whether you want to achieve it or not, may be the only measurable recognition worthy to achieve.
You know, as soon as these flight officer ideas take off and get implemented, there will be a capTalk thread on how meaningless FO is..
Lets face it people, there is a bottom to our rank structure, and it is 2Lt.
Yeah, so I noticed.
How much does the responsibility of making senior members know the meaning of their ranks belongs to all of us as mentors?....Everything.
If there is to be a meaning to a certain rank, I think the responsibility for communicating it belongs to each of us. That's where we need to start this debate.
If someone doesn't know how to salute, doesn't present a professional (military) image, doesn't the responsibility fall on each of us to mentor that individual into being a better example?
Quote from: tsrup on March 26, 2010, 06:22:54 AM
Lets face it people, there is a bottom to our rank structure, and it is 2Lt.
Incorrect - the bottom of our rank structure is Cadet Airman, but for just Seniors it is SMWOG. Then there are the 8 Enlisted ranks (Airman through CCMSgt), 3 FO grades,
THEN comes 2LT. Technically 2LT is a middle/upper-grade (Being 12th in the line of 19 total - #19 being Maj Gen).
And that's the "problem", our perception of 2LT does not match its correct placement within the total current grade structure - and therefore all of the grades above it are similarly lessened in perceived value, and people scratch their heads when they see an enlisted or FO rank pass by.
This misperception is perpetuated because the "enlisted" and FO grades are very rarely seen, and SMWOG only lasts 6 months. If we want 2LT to actually be the bottom rank - then let's get rid of the "enlisted", FO, and SMWOG rank and actually make it the bottom.
((*sigh*))
This discussion is about Senior Member grades. Bringing cadets into this will only muddy the waters, since all cadets, regardless of grade, are lower in both the command chain and the courtesy chain than even an "in the door" Senior, and their grades are much more an expected / required part of service, tied more to time-in than place in the universe.
I will grant the lowest SM grade is Flight Officer, though one could argue that its not really a "grade", but a "grade equivalent" since those three funny-looking epaulet sleeves are only available to those members who are under 21, and they are not permanent - upon reaching the age of 21, you revert to SMWOG (which is not a grade, by definition) unless someone chooses to promote you (and eServices never recognizes the FO's, anyway).
But even that analogy is not really appropriate, since FO's are still lower in the courtesy chain than a butter bar (though I would posit above SMWOG)
As to stripes...
There are currently no CAP NCO grades for Senior Members - the 100 or so members wearing stripes on CAP uniforms are doing so
in a ceremonious fashion which recognizes their NCO grade with a different service, not within CAP. There is no way within CAP
to enter as an Airman and move up, nor is there any separation of duties or status which would justify their existence separate from another service.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
Quote from: tsrup on March 26, 2010, 06:22:54 AM
Lets face it people, there is a bottom to our rank structure, and it is 2Lt.
Incorrect - the bottom of our rank structure is Cadet Airman, but for just Seniors it is SMWOG. Then there are the 8 Enlisted ranks (Airman through CCMSgt), 3 FO grades, THEN comes 2LT. Technically 2LT is a middle/upper-grade (Being 12th in the line of 19 total - #19 being Maj Gen).
And that's the "problem", our perception of 2LT does not match its correct placement within the total current grade structure - and therefore all of the grades above it are similarly lessened in perceived value, and people scratch their heads when they see an enlisted or FO rank pass by.
This misperception is perpetuated because the "enlisted" and FO grades are very rarely seen, and SMWOG only lasts 6 months. If we want 2LT to actually be the bottom rank - then let's get rid of the "enlisted", FO, and SMWOG rank and actually make it the bottom.
My perception of a 2nd LT. is of someone who is fairly new in their CAP career, and thus someone who should be mentored by more experienced officers. This is someone that needs encouragement to gain experience, chose a specialty track, and to engage in Level II Professional Development.
Someone who chooses to remain a 2nd Lt. in order to provide a singular function in a squadron...that's fine. However, it is clear that advancement in grade comes with advancement in Professional Development.
I guess one of the major things that needs to be cleared up is that for the USAF and CAP, the abbreviation for second lieutenant is: 2d Lt
The Army uses 2LT and Marines 2ndLt
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 05:54:34 PM
As to stripes...
There are currently no CAP NCO grades for Senior Members - the 100 or so members wearing stripes on CAP uniforms are doing so in a ceremonious fashion which recognizes their NCO grade with a different service, not within CAP. There is no way within CAP to enter as an Airman and move up, nor is there any separation of duties or status which would justify their existence separate from another service.
Again, incorrect. Those enlisted ranks are grades within CAP and are not "ceremonious only". See CAPR 35-5, sections 1-2, 1-3 c., and SECTION F. Now, there are restrictions on who can be granted those grades, just like the FO grades, but once granted, they are official grades and should be respected accordingly. Enlisted grades below NCO grades are available as well per CAPM 39-1 Figure 6-4, and as noted in Table 6-1, Note 3., however, there is no awarding criteria in CAPR 35-5 that I can find, and there is no interim letter or other regulation I can see that supercedes these entries from CAPM 39-1. Of course I may be wrong as well and there may be some regulation guidance that I'm not aware of yet. ;)
So, whether or not the bottom 4 grades for Seniors are still able to be awarded, if you are authorized one of those grades, they may be worn on the uniform and again should be afforded respect accordingly.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 06:50:22 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 05:54:34 PM
As to stripes...
There are currently no CAP NCO grades for Senior Members - the 100 or so members wearing stripes on CAP uniforms are doing so in a ceremonious fashion which recognizes their NCO grade with a different service, not within CAP. There is no way within CAP to enter as an Airman and move up, nor is there any separation of duties or status which would justify their existence separate from another service.
Again, incorrect. Those enlisted ranks are grades within CAP and are not "ceremonious only". See CAPR 35-5, sections 1-2, 1-3 c., and SECTION F. Now, there are restrictions on who can be granted those grades, just like the FO grades, but once granted, they are official grades and should be respected accordingly. Enlisted grades below NCO grades are available as well per CAPM 39-1 Figure 6-4, and as noted in Table 6-1, Note 3., however, there is no awarding criteria in CAPR 35-5 that I can find, and there is no interim letter or other regulation I can see that supercedes these entries from CAPM 39-1. Of course I may be wrong as well and there may be some regulation guidance that I'm not aware of yet. ;)
So, whether or not the bottom 4 grades for Seniors are still able to be awarded, if you are authorized one of those grades, they may be worn on the uniform and again should be afforded respect accordingly.
No one said anything about not respecting them, they are simply not part of CAP's Professional Development program or internal grade structure.
You cannot earn them organically as a member of CAP.
You cannot be promoted as an NCO within CAP.
The progression clock starts from zero should you choose down the road to accept a CAP officer appointment.
Their wear is completely dependent upon service and substantiation from another organization.
CAP NHQ has chosen to allow these members to wear stripes equivalent to another service, which is fine, but to believe they are a part
of the normal CAP grade structure, or even fit the CAP model is misinformed at best.
Eclipse is right and there just isn't a better way of saying it..
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 06:57:45 PM
No one said anything about not respecting them, they are simply not part of CAP's Professional Development program or internal grade structure.
You cannot earn them organically as a member of CAP.
You cannot be promoted as an NCO within CAP.
The progression clock starts from zero should you choose down the road to accept a CAP officer appointment.
Their wear is completely dependent upon service and substantiation from another organization.
CAP NHQ has chosen to allow these members to wear stripes equivalent to another service, which is fine, but to believe they are a part of the normal CAP grade structure, or even fit the CAP model is misinformed at best.
Wrong on all accounts -
1. You must be a CAP member first to be to awarded CAP NCO ranks - these ranks are CAP Ranks awarded based upon external qualifying critera the same as Physicians, Lawyers, Chaplains, etc. Hence, they are organic to the CAP organization.
2. You must be a SMWOG prior to being promoted to these NCO ranks. And, if your external qualifying criteria changes - i.e. you are still active duty, guard, or reserve and they promote you up the NCO ranks - then you could move up the CAP NCO tree as well.
3. Which progresssion clock are you talking about here? Your "time in CAP service" clock is always moving forward and you will still earn Red Service Ribbon qualifying time while a CAP NCO. If you choose at some point to convert to the CAP Officer system, then your CAP officer progression starts at "0" in terms of qualifying for the higher officer ranks, just like it does from the moment you pin on 2d Lt from SMWOG.
4. While these grades are externally qualified grades, it is dependent on CAP Commander approval just the like rest of our grades. None of our grades are automatic.
Please guys, read the regs / manuals - this is what they currently say, and our personal perceptions or ideas one way or the other do not count here. Show me the regs that differ from what I've said and I'll gratiously accept the correction and apologize.
Yeah, ok.
Clutching at very thin straws and quibbling over semantics....
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 06:50:22 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 05:54:34 PM
As to stripes...
There are currently no CAP NCO grades for Senior Members - the 100 or so members wearing stripes on CAP uniforms are doing so in a ceremonious fashion which recognizes their NCO grade with a different service, not within CAP. There is no way within CAP to enter as an Airman and move up, nor is there any separation of duties or status which would justify their existence separate from another service.
Again, incorrect. Those enlisted ranks are grades within CAP and are not "ceremonious only". See CAPR 35-5, sections 1-2, 1-3 c., and SECTION F. Now, there are restrictions on who can be granted those grades, just like the FO grades, but once granted, they are official grades and should be respected accordingly. Enlisted grades below NCO grades are available as well per CAPM 39-1 Figure 6-4, and as noted in Table 6-1, Note 3., however, there is no awarding criteria in CAPR 35-5 that I can find, and there is no interim letter or other regulation I can see that supercedes these entries from CAPM 39-1. Of course I may be wrong as well and there may be some regulation guidance that I'm not aware of yet. ;)
So, whether or not the bottom 4 grades for Seniors are still able to be awarded, if you are authorized one of those grades, they may be worn on the uniform and again should be afforded respect accordingly.
Sorry, but you're the one whose wrong. The only way that these NCOs wear their rank is if they earned it previously in the military. There are no promotions. They're essentially frozen in rank unless they step up to the plate and pursue officer status.
Quote from: Short Field on March 26, 2010, 09:00:00 PM
Clutching at very thin straws and quibbling over semantics....
If CAP's manuals and regs are "thin straws", then our organization is built on "thin straws". ::)
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 26, 2010, 09:00:40 PM
Sorry, but you're the one whose wrong. The only way that these NCOs wear their rank is if they earned it previously in the military. There are no promotions. They're essentially frozen in rank unless they step up to the plate and pursue officer status.
Come on man, read the previous posts and the regs / manuals for yourself. >:D
If someone can quote me the reg / manual (not opinion, heresay, inference, implication, demagoguery, vodoo saying, poetic quip, linguistic imaginings, drug induced vision, etc. etc.) that disagrees with what I've said, then I'll humbly eat my shirt and go away ashamed and rightly put in my place.
Until then - consider me right on all accounts. 8)
Newb, I think you're trying to teach a pig to sing here. I don't know how long you've been in CAP (apparently not very long), or what other military experience you have (again apparently not very much), but arguing with people on here whose CAP experience greatly exceeds yours is not going to "win friends and influence people."
The regs, sadly, do not exactly match common practice. In the case of uniforms, there are deeply ingrained practices that go against the strict interpretation of the written word, but are taking years to die out. Until the change comes from within to upgrade practice, there are always going to be differences. We know the differences. Trying to shove them down our throats isn't going to accomplish anything.
Trying to teach a pig to sing wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
Oh, yeah, the SMWOG thing.
Once more:
SMWOG is nothing more than a status, describing those members who are neither cadets, nor officers, nor NCOs.
On any documentation assigning grade to a Senior Member, the proper designation is SM. It's on the membership and ID cards, and all forms having a block for grade. When you get demoted from 2d Lt, it's to SM, per CAPF 2.
Regarding CAP NCO grades, From CAPR 35-5:
c. CAP NCO grades are:
(1) Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt)
(2) Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt)
(3) Master Sergeant (MSgt)
(4) Technical Sergeant (TSgt)
(5) Staff Sergeant (SSgt)
If an AD member receives an AD promotion, he is eligible for the equivalent CAP promotion. This is also covered in the 35-5.
As for the graphics in CAPM 39-1, they are 40 years olde, and no one has bothered to update them.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 09:25:20 PM
Until then - consider me right on all accounts.
You are confusing the mechanics of the allowance for wearing stripes from another service with the intention and purpose within CAP.
Nice divierstion from the question at hand though.
FOs and NCOs aside.....2d Lt is first grade the majority of senior members hold in CAP.
It is the bottom of the pile as far as PD goes, it is the lowlies of the "normal" SM totem pole.
So....back to the question.....why do we need to improve the meaning of 2d Lt?
What do we get out of it? How will it affect the other grades?
On a side note....if you read through some of the other treads you will see a lot of discussion on if we really need FO and NCO grades in CAP.
This is what the new reg (35-5) states on the issue of NCO grades in CAP:
SECTION F- NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER GRADES
6-1. General. This section prescribes the requirements and procedures for appointment to CAP noncommissioned officer (NCO) grades.
6-2. Eligibility requirements.
a. Only those CAP members who are military or ex-military NCOs and do not wish to be considered for CAP officer grades may be appointed to a CAP NCO grade under provisions of this section. The CAP grade granted will be equivalent to the grade held in the active duty military, Reserve, or National Guard.
b. The member must also have completed Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
6-3. Procedures. Members who meet the eligibility requirement outlined above may assume a CAP NCO grade equivalent to their military grade upon presentation of documentation to the unit commander (a copy of DD Form 214, military identification card, or promotion order showing the grade requested is considered sufficient). The CAPF 2 will be annotated to reflect the NCO grade authorized and forward this form to National Headquarters for recording. Forms may be submitted by e-mail, fax or U.S. Postal Service as outlined in paragraph 1-8c(1) above. The member is authorized to wear the grade on the CAP uniform as soon as verification of the military NCO grade is received.
Receiving the NCO grade in CAP is analogous to an officer in the military receiving his same grade in CAP (max of Lt Col). However, until the National Board figures out a NCO program, they are stuck in the grade. They can't be promoted unless they "slide" into an officer grade. The "appointment" to this grade is only available to military members who earned it. Since there is no NCO track, CAP NCO's do not move up and, until this year, were not eligible to go to NSC.
IMHO, NCO grades are a courtesy to those who wish to wear the grade in CAP, nothing more. The first "real" grade in CAP is 2nd LT for SMs.
Quote from: FW on March 26, 2010, 09:52:49 PM
Receiving the NCO grade in CAP is analogous to an officer in the military receiving his same grade in CAP (max of Lt Col).
Sort of. An Army Captain could join CAP, receive an appointment as a
CAP Captain, and then progress to Major and above from there (PD, tig, etc., not withstanding). Not so for those wearing equivalent stripes from other services.
Gentlemen - I'm not arguing, I'm trying to educate my peers as tactfully as possible. I'm just pointing out that whether we like it or not, our manuals and the way they are written are what we need to stick to - not our own opinions and "Now let me tell you how it really works" good 'ole boy stuff.
SarDragon - again, can we please leave out the "Your not experienced enough - so don't bother me kid" routine. You have no idea who I am, or my experience level with CAP. It's getting old. Let's just stick to the facts, ok.
Whether the regs are old and outdated doesn't mean they are not authoritative. Until actually changed, they are the CAP law. Now, I do agree that in law there is the letter of the law - which is what I've been quoting, and then there is the practical application based upon the intent of the law. In terms of the practical application of our CAP laws, there is virtually no use for the current NCO or FO grades "as is" and they are used basically as alternatives to the main CAP officer grades.
The overall point is that if we don't want to use them as designed in the regs, or we don't have an actual need for them in our overall grade structure practically speaking, then let's change the regs accordingly and get rid of them. As others have rightly pointed out, CAP grades are CAP grades, nothing more, nothing less.
If we want to have 2d Lt as our lowest possible rank and this rank is to be designated the newbie rank, then let's make it so on paper so "we're all on the same page". If we want to keep the NCO and FO grades on the books, then let's use them more effectively and not as mere tokens - and make 2d Lt mean what it really is intended to mean, that being the lowest regular officer grade above newbie SMWOG.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 10:07:14 PM
SarDragon - again, can we please leave out the "Your not experienced enough - so don't bother me kid" routine. You have no idea who I am, or my experience level with CAP. It's getting old. Let's just stick to the facts, ok.
Actually, I'd say its just about the right timber in this case. You are showing your experience level in the way you are trying to make assertions that have no basis in fact or practical application. The reg allows for the wear of stripes, that's it - they aren't "CAP NCO's" if for no other reason than the entire concept of the NCO is irrelevant in CAP. Say what you want about CAP officer grade, but at least there is a training program in place to build them, flawed that it may be.
You're also making two separate arguments to support the same flawed understanding.
As of today, there is no NCO
program in CAP, if you thing there should be, that's a different discussion and SEARCH is your friend.
Tick, tick, tick...
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 10:07:14 PM
If we want to have 2d Lt as our lowest possible rank and this rank is to be designated the newbie rank, then let's make it so on paper so "we're all on the same page". If we want to keep the NCO and FO grades on the books, then let's use them more effectively and not as mere tokens - and make 2d Lt mean what it really is intended to mean, that being the lowest regular officer grade above newbie SMWOG.
At this point in time, we have NCO grades as, IMO, a courtesy. FO grades are for those senior members under 21. FO grades are "parallel" grades to 2nd LT, 1st LT and CAPT as the Air Force prohibits those under 21 from having officer grades. Personally, I have no idea why I'm even having this conversation. Oh, yeah... I'm waiting for dinner and have nothing better to do. >:D
You seem to be missing the context of the regulations. Yes, NCO grades and FO grades are authorized and used. But they are used for very specific groups, and not the membership in general. The vast majority of new senior members are ineligible for either of these.
Most new senior members are 21 or over. Therefore they are ineligible for FO grades.
Most new senior members were/are not NCOs in the military. Therefore, they are ineligible for CAP NCO grades.
That leaves 2d Lt as the lowest grade that the vast majority are eligible for.
As you put it, the "letter of the law" is that a 21 year old new member without prior military NCO experience cannot be a CAP NCO nor a FO. So the lowest starting grade would have to be 2d Lt . That is not just "practical application based on the intent of the law." It is exactly what the regulations specify.
The only way to change this is to change the eligibility rules for FO grades and/or NCO grades.
Both the FO grades and NCO grades currently are fulfilling their purposes. Senior members who are ineligible for 2d Lt or higher due to the fact that they are not yet 21 are promoted to FO, TFO, or SFO as needed. Former and current military NCOs are promoted to appropriate CAP NCO grades as appropriate, if they so choose. There is no need to eliminate these options.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 10:16:19 PM
Actually, I'd say its just about the right timber in this case. You are showing your experience level in the way you are trying to make assertions that have no basis in fact or practical application.
::) Ok, once more for "the old extremely experienced guys" - CAP's manuals and regs are indeed fact and not my opinion. My "assertions" are based on the regs and therefore they are based in fact.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 10:16:19 PM
The reg allows for the wear of stripes, that's it - they aren't "CAP NCO's" if for no other reason than the entire concept of the NCO is irrelevant in CAP.
I'd say your assertion here isn't based in fact. CAP NCO grades are official CAP grades according to the regs - not just window dressing.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 10:16:19 PM
Say what you want about CAP officer grade, but at least there is a training program in place to build them, flawed that it may be.
That I can agree with you on. :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2010, 10:16:19 PM
You're also making two separate arguments to support the same flawed understanding.
As of today, there is no NCO program in CAP, if you thing there should be, that's a different discussion and SEARCH is your friend.
Again, I agree with you here except I never said there was a "CAP NCO program" - all I said was the regs say that there are authorized CAP NCO grades. That's it.
There really is no conflict here - The whole conversation started with what is the significance of the CAP 2d Lt rank. It then degenerated like all the rest of the conversations on here into a he said / she said banter.
Nothing we say on here will really affect CAP in anyway so what's really the use except to give us some extra typing practice and to practice our grammar and spelling. :P
Quote from: bte on March 26, 2010, 10:59:11 PM
Yes, NCO grades and FO grades are authorized and used.
Thank you.
Quote from: bte on March 26, 2010, 10:59:11 PM
But they are used for very specific groups, and not the membership in general. The vast majority of new senior members are ineligible for either of these
Most new senior members are 21 or over. Therefore they are ineligible for FO grades.
Most new senior members were/are not NCOs in the military. Therefore, they are ineligible for CAP NCO grades.
That leaves 2d Lt as the lowest grade that the vast majority are eligible for.
Agreed
Quote from: bte on March 26, 2010, 10:59:11 PM
As you put it, the "letter of the law" is that a 21 year old new member without prior military NCO experience cannot be a CAP NCO nor a FO. So the lowest starting grade would have to be 2d Lt . That is not just "practical application based on the intent of the law." It is exactly what the regulations specify.
As I put it? I never said this.
Quote from: bte on March 26, 2010, 10:59:11 PM
The only way to change this is to change the eligibility rules for FO grades and/or NCO grades.
That's what we have been talking about.
Quote from: bte on March 26, 2010, 10:59:11 PM
Both the FO grades and NCO grades currently are fulfilling their purposes. Senior members who are ineligible for 2d Lt or higher due to the fact that they are not yet 21 are promoted to FO, TFO, or SFO as needed. Former and current military NCOs are promoted to appropriate CAP NCO grades as appropriate, if they so choose.
Agreed
Quote from: bte on March 26, 2010, 10:59:11 PM
There is no need to eliminate these options.
That's debateable.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 10:07:14 PMSarDragon - again, can we please leave out the "Your not experienced enough - so don't bother me kid" routine. You have no idea who I am, or my experience level with CAP. It's getting old. Let's just stick to the facts, ok.
Then how about giving us a little info about yourself?
My sig has enough basic info about me to deduce the following:
Joined CAP some time before 1980
Have been in CAP at least 8 years
I'm at least 37 years old
I'm sure further details about me would bore you. Try entertaining us with some of yours.
Your anonymity is working against you.
This is America, why can't we all just be inclusive here?
Would my ideas really be taken more seriously here if I came out as someone "in the know"? My guess is that all it would get me is some hard looks at the next Region meeting.....oops, freudian slip. :-X No thanks, if my ideas can't stand on their own merit, then so be it...I'll remain the kid on the block.
Nope...sorry this is CAP Talk.
The point being...in an debate, one of the first things you must do is establish your bonefides. What are your qualifications to talk on the subject? Where is your area of expertise.
Now you got a perfect right to just be a nobody troll who spouts off anything they please. You also have the right to have an opinion even if you are new and it may be on a subject that is not withing your scope of expertise.
So let me give you mine.
I am a retired (22 year) USAF MSgt who now works as a defense contractor.
I have been in CAP for 7 years now.
I have commanded two squadrons.
I am mainly a cadet programs guy...but I am also very active in the AE and ES missions.
I have been a contributer here on CT for four years now.
I have debated on this subject, the subject of the CAP NCO corps, the subject of flight officers and many other varied topics.
This is not the first time some one has said "we need to make our ranks more important"....and it won't be the last.
I agree 2d Lt should be the entry level rank and we need to axe the NCO and FO ranks.......ain't gonna happen.
I agree that we could make Level I training a little more meaningful.....it used to be that way....but there were problems with that as well. (such as having to wait 6+ months for the stupid course to be held, resulting in people remaining SMWOG for over a year!)
The current system is a compromise between a lot of competeing requirments.
Basically put....SMWOG is just a holder.....not a rank. 2d Lt is the newguyontheblock.
Now...on the topic of CAP regs.....well they suck! The handful that are well written usually never get debated...it is the stupid ones that make no sense or contradict themselves that get air time.
You have to understand that there are the regs and there is the way we actually do things....this is no different then any large company including the military.
CAP for the most part simply pretends that FOs and NCO's don't exist. The few times they are mentioned in regulations it is often very vague and confusing.
Your ideas have some merit....but you got to sell them. You broke off your argument to fight about somantics and stuff that has no meaning to the argument at hand.
Step 1...identify the problem.
Step 2...identify possible causes of that problem.
Step 3...suggest possible course of action to solve the problem (or more specifically the cause of said problem).
So where are we now?
You have still failed to really identify the problem. Which means we don't know the cause. Your suggested solution won't even solve the basic partial problem that you have outlined.
So let's go back....
You assert that we hand out 2d Lt too easily? Let's define that more specifially....that would be step 1.
Focus on just that one part before we look into root causes or suggested fixes.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 26, 2010, 11:56:07 PM
Would my ideas really be taken more seriously here if I came out as someone "in the know"?
Yes.
Still ticking ...
(((SIGH!!!!!)))
You know there were two chief master sergeants at this year's NSC. Their presence there was a test program; just like the NCO Program is now. For all the quibbling there has been about the NCO program, if the intention isn't for former NCOs to progress through the officer corps, then why does the regulation give a correlation between the top three NCO ranks and the appropriate CAP officer rank?
The entire NCO Program could go away; that's why only former NCOs are entitled to wear their ranks now. They're the ones designing it. The average CAP senior member coming off the street can't join in those ranks, they can't get promoted; and for all the talk about the regs, you won't find anything in a Table of Organization that addresses senior member NCOs. Our entire program is based on an officer corps.
Do you know why it's a test? Do you know why it's been nearly 40 years since the program ended...well I'm going to tell you. It relates to this entire string. Promotions were local, people without any military service were brought in and made instant master sergeants. Our program came under the fire of the AFSA (Air Force Sergeants Association, the NCOA, and even the entire Air Force Senior NCO Corps....it was gone, finished.
So yeah, sure, the ECI-13 course equal that I took, as allowed by the reg, was the NCO Academy...but outside those equivalent courses, everything in our PD program relates to levels that coorelate to officer ranks. A CAP Master Sergeant will never be a squadron commander or higher.
I have been around this program long enough (joined in 1966 as a cadet and got my Wilson in December (some of you know may know who I am). I'm a wing officer and a senior observer. I've even had AF assignments as base liaison and a Reserve Assistance Program NCO. Sure I wish there were NCOs. I enjoyed being a master sergeant: I'd rather be where I am now. I've worked too hard to get here...and one more thing, it really bugs me when some one gets arrogant with people that have more experience.
I'm starting this off based on a minor "mini-discussion" from the latest Commission thread. I have to agree with a previous post about how easy it is to simply be handed those shiny golden bars in six months. It's a hard thought that I just typed up about 3 pages of support for (then thought it was a bit pointless and decided against posting it all). In short, the insignia of an officer in this country is something special, and it should take more than some random 21-year old with a diploma or GED to obtain through a couple simple online courses and six months membership in an organization.
I would agree that 2nd Lt's should explore there rank at that level for a little bit longer for Cadets. See what they are missing before moving on to C/Cap,C/Major,C/LTC,C/Col before they head to the dark side and in my opinion with the senior members I know very well have real hated how they wish they would have explored the Cadet Side more although they realized that so they stay with Cadets on the Cadet Side since the dark side is very boring.={no Offense)
One more thing, now I've been in six wings; been a group commander; an assistant communications officer; a historian; a deputy commander for cadets an assistant wing PAO in two wings; a deputy group commander; an AEO at squadron and group level and an assistant wing DAE. I'm at the highest rank I'll ever achieve short of being elected to something and have one search and rescue find to my credit. However, I really don't think that makes me Mr. Know-It-All. Things change and I'm always learning something new.
I for one have grown to appreciate all of my learned colleages on this site, I do value your insight and experience, and I thank you for all you do.
Thanks
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 27, 2010, 12:26:53 AM
(((SIGH!!!!!)))
You know there were two chief master sergeants at this year's NSC. Their presence there was a test program; just like the NCO Program is now. For all the quibbling there has been about the NCO program, if the intention isn't for former NCOs to progress through the officer corps, then why does the regulation give a correlation between the top three NCO ranks and the appropriate CAP officer rank?
I agree with your whole thought, this just extends it...Frankly? Because whomever is writing this program doesn't understand the fundamental reasoning behind the NCO/Enlisted, doer/manager mentality. They are trying to be inclusive to NCO's they feel might be more enticed to play CAP if they can wear their stripes, when the truth is that as soon as a real NCO gets the idea as to how CAP works, he's going to know the NCO/enlisted/officer caste system will never work in a volunteer organization beyond just as a time delimiter like in the cadet corps.
Lord knows any military e4-9 has more leadership experience than the average damp CAP 2d Lt., so I have no issue with granting them equivalence for their NCO grade as we do today, but the actual NCO will never be more than an anomaly in CAP.
^The person trying to write the NCO program is a retired AF NCO. However, I'm still not sure how the whole NCO issue ever started in the first place. As Flyboy1 stated so well, the reasons why our previous NCO program failed still exist. We discuss the "significance" of our grade structure however, we have something which works for us. My bottom line: our missions do not suffer as a result of our grade structure.
" more leadership experience than the average damp CAP 2d Lt., "
Cap Col. I'd say...
I've always thought it more than a little bit funny that the old CAP NCO program was thought sacrilegious by "real" NCOs so it went away, but we retained the officer corps. Logically you would have thought that it would have been the other way around.
But, to try to stay on point......
While I support higher standards for promotions in general, I don't think it really worth the time to worry about the low end of the officer scale very much. For the most part, those in the 2nd Lt. rank are either just about ready to drop out of the program because after joining they found it didn't meet their needs or expectations OR they're only going to stay there for a short time before moving up.
I think we're better off starting with relatively low barriers at the low end of the officer scale and then making it much harder to move up to each higher rank. So, the fact that it isn't too hard to become a 2nd Lt doesn't bother me a lot.
And of course many here know my advocacy for doing away with special appointments and mission-related skills appointments entirely (yes, including no recognition of previous military rank). I believe that even though they only impact about a quarter of our members (my estimate based on percentage of members holding a rank for which they don't have the corresponding PD achievement), they radically lower the perceived value of all our ranks.
Quote from: FW on March 27, 2010, 01:51:22 AM
^The person trying to write the NCO program is a retired AF NCO. However, I'm still not sure how the whole NCO issue ever started in the first place. As Flyboy1 stated so well, the reasons why our previous NCO program failed still exist. We discuss the "significance" of our grade structure however, we have something which works for us. My bottom line: our missions do not suffer as a result of our grade structure.
I believe this is more legacy from HWSRN and his friend in IAWG.
Some of you more seasoned members here may recall the "spirited" conversations which occurred right after he was appointed...
Actually, one of those two chiefs at NSC is on that team. She came from the Pentagon and from HQ ACC. I don't think she had anything to do with HWSRN, but what is really interesting is that she (a chief master sergeant) is assigned to the Congressional Squadron.
And you're right about one thing. I got into a discussion with her one morning about why a CAP NCO Program couldn't be more like the AFR or ANG (you know all the skill levels and NCO PD stuff) and she noted it was because it would be too time consuming....and by the way, the idea was to channel them through the existing PD Program....humm.
Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?
I remember a time in this organization when being a first lieutenant was a big thing and anything above a captain was pretty rare. It really hit home when one of you guys dug up that World War II list that showed that Gill Robb Wilson was only a captain. I also remember when the idea was to get scratches on your second lieutenant bars because it showed you had been around a while.
I like the way things are now, but then you do hear a lot of "not everyone can be lieutenant colonels or something like that." Well, true, but with only an officer corps for progression, it seems like we keep getting resolutions before the National Board to create higher general ranks for what is actually more upward mobility. I really believe we need less emphasis on higher general ranks and to be more careful who we promote and when. Six months TIG doesn't mean that a person is automatically eligible for promotion to second lieutenant.
In retrospect, being a little more careful and adding a little more ceremony or even encouraging the art of appointment certificates may give more meaning to each rank. That's what I believe adds more significance or meaning to second lieutenants.
Quote from: FW on March 27, 2010, 01:51:22 AM
^The person trying to write the NCO program is a retired AF NCO. However, I'm still not sure how the whole NCO issue ever started in the first place. As Flyboy1 stated so well, the reasons why our previous NCO program failed still exist. We discuss the "significance" of our grade structure however, we have something which works for us. My bottom line: our missions do not suffer as a result of our grade structure.
+1
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2010, 03:29:47 AM
Quote from: FW on March 27, 2010, 01:51:22 AM
^The person trying to write the NCO program is a retired AF NCO. However, I'm still not sure how the whole NCO issue ever started in the first place. As Flyboy1 stated so well, the reasons why our previous NCO program failed still exist. We discuss the "significance" of our grade structure however, we have something which works for us. My bottom line: our missions do not suffer as a result of our grade structure.
I believe this is more legacy from HWSRN and his friend in IAWG.
Some of you more seasoned members here may recall the "spirited" conversations which occurred right after he was appointed...
I have no idea what you are talking about? >:D
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 27, 2010, 06:41:20 AM
In retrospect, being a little more careful and adding a little more ceremony or even encouraging the art of appointment certificates may give more meaning to each rank. That's what I believe adds more significance or meaning to second lieutenants.
That is what we have started to do at our squadron - Each grade (senior as well as cadet) gets a little ceremony. When a SMWOG gets their 2nd Lt bars, they are handed a certificate and a CAP Officer appointment certificate reading similar to the AF officer appointment. (My Leadership Officer, a LTC, told me where he found it, but I forget.) It has really helped the "specialness" for when a person gets the bar.
NHQ has been recommending all members re-affirm the pledge as part of promotion as well, which I personally think is a great idea.
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 27, 2010, 06:41:20 AM
Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?
Where are they authorized?
Quote from: JThemann on March 27, 2010, 11:30:44 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 27, 2010, 06:41:20 AM
Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?
Where are they authorized?
Apparently, nowhere now. The closest reference I can find is page 97, but that just talks about the chevrons embroidered on the sleeves.
The blank grey sleeves are for cadet officers to wear mini rank on their shirts.
It's vague, but it's in 39-1.
Table 6-1 makes reference to senior member rank being worn on shoulder sleves, so senior members with rank wear gray sholder sleves. There is, however, an error in the table that shows the senior member shoulder sleve rank insignia because it only shows those for officers. Remember that NCOs, by AF Regulation, only wear their ranks on their sleves. There aren't NCO shoulder sleve rank in the Air Force anymore.
Vanguard does sell a gray senior member enlisted rank sleve. Only the CAP is embroidered on it.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 28, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
Quote from: JThemann on March 27, 2010, 11:30:44 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 27, 2010, 06:41:20 AM
Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?
Where are they authorized?
Apparently, nowhere now. The closest reference I can find is page 97, but that just talks about the chevrons embroidered on the sleeves.
The blank grey sleeves are for cadet officers to wear mini rank on their shirts.
Remember, cadet officers wear blue shoulder sleves, not gray. I think the blue ones even have an embroidered dot to line up the cadet rank insignia. The gray enlisted only have CAP on them.
Cadet officers wear blue epaulet sleeves.
The blank grey epaulet sleeves, as far as I can tell, were for senior member NCOs to use with pin on insignia.
They were never authorized for cadets nor SMWOG.
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 28, 2010, 03:46:25 AM
It's vague, but it's in 39-1.
Table 6-1 makes reference to senior member rank being worn on shoulder sleves, so senior members with rank wear gray sholder sleves. There is, however, an error in the table that shows the senior member shoulder sleve rank insignia because it only shows those for officers. Remember that NCOs, by AF Regulation, only were their ranks on their sleves. There aren't NCO shoulder sleve rank in the Air Force anymore.
Vanguard does sell a gray senior member elisted rank sleve. Only the CAP is embroidered on it.
That's senior member
officer rank, in column 3 of the table.
Quote from: CAPM 39-1, pg 976-1. Wear of Grade Insignia. Cadet and senior member officer grade insignia will be worn on those uniform items listed in Table 6-1. Cadet NCOs and airman chevrons will be worn on the right lapel/collar. CAP senior members who hold NCO and airmen grades may wear cloth chevrons sewn on the sleeve or gray epaulet sleeves with embroidered chevrons.
Since the embroidered sleeves have never been available, and pinning the rank on is no longer done by the AF, and it isn't mentioned in the copy of the 39-1 I have in front of me, my answer to the Q - "Where are they authorized?" - remains - "Apparently, nowhere now."
My bust on the blue vs. greyt for cadets. It's been a long time since I've seen cadets wear that particualr item.
Gee, does that mean that someone has to tell NHQ they need to change the reg?
Have we spotted another error or did Vanguard do it again?
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 28, 2010, 10:36:57 AM
Gee, does that mean that someone has to tell NHQ they need to change the reg?
Have we spotted another error or did Vanguard do it again?
SMWOG = Officer without rank?
And aren't you supposed to be a SMWOG for a time (6 months?) until you do what you need to do to be 2nd Lt?
On a more practical note, if the SMWOG is working hard and doing a good job, frankly, what difference does it make? We have a retired ANG general in our squadron who is a SMWOG who is extremely helpful to our squadron. He's probably forgotten more about leadership and aviation than the rest of us will probably ever know.
PD is up to the individual. Some people get into the whole advance up the ranks thing. Others don't. I just want SMs who I can depend upon and who have the training they need to do the positions and tasks they take on, regardless of rank. Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance). What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
SMWOG = Officer without rank?
GradeQuote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
And aren't you supposed to be a SMWOG for a time (6 months?) until you do what you need to do to be 2nd Lt?
For better or worse there is no 6-month requirement for promotion. Upon completing Level 1 (which can be on your first day
as an approved member), you can be promoted as high as appropriate to the situation.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
PD is up to the individual. Some people get into the whole advance up the ranks thing. Others don't. I just want SMs who I can depend upon and who have the training they need to do the positions and tasks they take on, regardless of rank. Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
It may be up to the individual, but it should not be. Yes, we need pilots, but they are only a small percentage of our members, and their skills are needed for only about 1/2 of 1/3rd of our missions (16.5%?).
My personal experience has been that members who choose to forgo PD tend to be ill-informed about CAP and how it really works, which means that the first time there is a bump in their "thing", they quit. Further, these members tend to hold "the other guy" responsible for everything else that needs to be done in CAP, which is inappropriate in a volunteer organization.
The most effective members I work with view PD as either personal growth or a necessary evil, but not as "optional". While we would suffer some attrition if we pushed harder on PD, those who stayed would cause a lot less problems.
The "You're lucky I showed up at all..." mentality is the root cause of many of our operational challenges.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 28, 2010, 05:27:45 PM
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
SMWOG = Officer without rank?
Grade
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
And aren't you supposed to be a SMWOG for a time (6 months?) until you do what you need to do to be 2nd Lt?
For better or worse there is no 6-month requirement for promotion. Upon completing Level 1 (which can be on your first day
as an approved member), you can be promoted as high as appropriate to the situation.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
PD is up to the individual. Some people get into the whole advance up the ranks thing. Others don't. I just want SMs who I can depend upon and who have the training they need to do the positions and tasks they take on, regardless of rank. Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
It may be up to the individual, but it should not be. Yes, we need pilots, but they are only a small percentage of our members, and their skills are needed for only about 1/2 of 1/3rd of our missions (16.5%?).
My personal experience has been that members who choose to forgo PD tend to be ill-informed about CAP and how it really works, which means that the first time there is a bump in their "thing", they quit. Further, these members tend to hold "the other guy" responsible for everything else that needs to be done in CAP, which is inappropriate in a volunteer organization.
The most effective members I work with view PD as either personal growth or a necessary evil, but not as "optional". While we would suffer some attrition if we pushed harder on PD, those who stayed would cause a lot less problems.
The "You're lucky I showed up at all..." mentality is the root cause of many of our operational challenges.
Eclipse:
Yours is an opinion here on CT I value and consider because of your good sense and experience in CAP. I guess I have not seen the issues you mention. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, I'm just saying in my admittedly limited experience, that has not been a problem. Obviously, you've seen that SMWOG who are not actively pursing PD sometimes are not as reliable as those pursuing PD and ranks. I have found that if people are motivated, they will participate in PD.
Anyway, good points and another POV I need to consider.
As a side note, there are too many that have joined, but i never see them at a meeting or sarex or any es trainig. They are still SM but have not even done a single thing but fly for themselves. Why should I want to promote them if they don't do anything but be a number on my roster?
I think the NCO progression idea is dead. If only because it would have experienced NCO's having to answer to Lieutenants and Captain with little or no military or CAP experience. I would advocate for a requirement that commissioning wait until completion of Level II and revamp the PD program and promotion requirements from there.
Well, they basically already do answer to CAP officers with varying levels of experience, both military and otherwise, so whats the difference? By the way, an CAP NCO with no CAP experience could certainly be just as big a problem as any former military officer who has no CAP experience but gets a CAP rank based on their previous experience.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I. I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance). What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.
And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
I would respectfully disagree that pilots are our
most important human resource. They are important, but without cockpit duties being divided between the pilot/observer/scanner(s)...imagine
just a pilot on an ELT search. Of course, there are pilots who will say I'm just saying that because I'm an Observer... ???
I've met quite a few pilots (not all) who could care less about PD (second looies for life), and that if it doesn't directly relate to Air Ops, then it's just a headache for them (some extend that to cadet O-rides).
Who would you rather have flying left seat:
A hotshot pilot too self-absorbed with his/her own skills and building up their hours to care about the CAP program as a whole, or a good, qualified pilot who also has a grasp of the CAP program as a whole, including the Cadet and AE missions which are just as much a part of this organisation as flying the plane?
I've flown with both, and I know which I prefer.
Its nice to fly with aircrew who don't think their CAP day begins and ends with wheels-up/wheels down, as well, or that the entire mission
should be scrubbed because of bad weather.
Quote from: Short Field on March 29, 2010, 12:20:20 AM
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I. I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance). What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.
And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.
I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES).
And pilots? Many are different. Confident, smart, independent, mission and results oriented, low tolerance for institutional b.s. I find those to be admirable qualities. That they think long discussions about uniforms and the latest machinations of NHQ are boring. Did they want to fly? Sure. It's what they do. And we have many requirements before they are qualified to fly missions.
If there is evidence that pilots who are at Level II or above in their PD are safer than those who are at Level I, that would be good to know and to consider before someone is a MP, perhaps.
And again. We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol. We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons. They are our most important assets. It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well. Everything else is secondary in my book. And though I think we Legal Officers are the most important human asset in the organization :D, the pilots are the tip of our spear. No planes, no pilots, no CAP.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES).
I would not - there is a three-level track for ES and Flight Operations and any Mission Pilot worth his wings should be progressing in one of those, at least. There's a lot more to CAP aviation than just the stick and rudder. When they aren't flying, pilots and aircrew should be serving or training in mission base roles to help launch other planes, etc, - a much better use of their time than absorbing gravity in the FBO complaining that spins-ups aren't moving fast enough.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
If there is evidence that pilots who are at Level II or above in their PD are safer than those who are at Level I, that would be good to know and to consider before someone is a MP, perhaps.
This is not about safety, per ser. This is about making them better overall members, and even higher-value assets than simple specialists. This is also about everyone accepting the responsibility for keeping things running equally, with no one being "special".
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
And again. We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol. We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons. They are our most important assets. It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well. Everything else is secondary in my book. And though I think we Legal Officers are the most important human asset in the organization :D, the pilots are the tip of our spear.
The airplanes are our most
expensive assets, but the people are our most important assets.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
No planes, no pilots, no CAP.
Seriously? Not even by a long shot. There are any number of similar organizations which don't even have airplanes and are quite successful in their missions. Aviation is certainly at the heart of CAP, and a huge part of its history, lore, and sadly, background noise, but it's far from the only thing CAP is about.
You only have to look around at all the CAP members who never see a CAP plane in person, the successful cadets who never had an O-Ride, and the units all over the country that have no aviation component to their programs to see that is true.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
And pilots? Many are different. Confident, smart, independent, mission and results oriented, low tolerance for institutional b.s. I find those to be admirable qualities. That they think long discussions about uniforms and the latest machinations of NHQ are boring.
Like it or not, that "institutional b.s." goes with being in CAP. Believe me, I've seen a hell of a lot of it during 17 years of being in CAP. There are those with a lot more time in this organisation than I have who have seen a lot more of that "institutional b.s." If you're in CAP, you learn to live with it. That doesn't mean you have to
like it, but pilots are
not exempt from it, no more so than anyone else in any duty position.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AMDid they want to fly? Sure. It's what they do.
And if they want to do it in CAP, they do it as a member of CAP, with all its foibles and imperfections. The fleet of Cessnas we maintain do not belong to the pilots (member-owned a/c exempted) and are not theirs to do with as they wish.
The whole "cult of the pilot" is changing, even in the Air Force, with the advent of UAV's. It's been a bitter pill for some of those who turned and burned in F-16's to sit behind a console at Creech AFB or Syracuse ANGB and control a UAV half a world away.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AMAnd again. We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol. We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons. They are our most important assets. It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well. Everything else is secondary in my book.
Perhaps in your book, but not in CAP's book, nor in the Air Force's.
We have three designated missions, all equally essential, and if/until the powers that be at CAP and/or the Air Force change that, they are and remain (once more, with feeling):
EMERGENCY SERVICES (and that isn't restricted to just Air Ops)
CADET PROGRAMS
AEROSPACE EDUCATION
WRT PD:
Unlike our founding CAP fathers, many of whom flew their own airplanes and performed life-threatening missions without any formal training, our 57,000 members are now provided with top-notch, year-round professional development training opportunities and with aircraft equipped with the most advanced technologies available for search and rescue.Major General Amy Courter
CAP National Commander
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2010, 04:04:36 AM
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES).
I would not - there is a three-level track for ES and Flight Operations and any Mission Pilot worth his wings should be progressing in one of those, at least. There's a lot more to CAP aviation than just the stick and rudder. When they aren't flying, pilots and aircrew should be serving or training in mission base roles to help launch other planes, etc, - a much better use of their time than absorbing gravity in the FBO complaining that spins-ups aren't moving fast enough.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
If there is evidence that pilots who are at Level II or above in their PD are safer than those who are at Level I, that would be good to know and to consider before someone is a MP, perhaps.
This is not about safety, per ser. This is about making them better overall members, and even higher-value assets than simple specialists. This is also about everyone accepting the responsibility for keeping things running equally, with no one being "special".
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
And again. We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol. We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons. They are our most important assets. It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well. Everything else is secondary in my book. And though I think we Legal Officers are the most important human asset in the organization :D, the pilots are the tip of our spear.
The airplanes are our most expensive assets, but the people are our most important assets.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
No planes, no pilots, no CAP.
Seriously? Not even by a long shot. There are any number of similar organizations which don't even have airplanes and are quite successful in their missions. Aviation is certainly at the heart of CAP, and a huge part of its history, lore, and sadly, background noise, but it's far from the only thing CAP is about.
You only have to look around at all the CAP members who never see a CAP plane in person, the successful cadets who never had an O-Ride, and the units all over the country that have no aviation component to their programs to see that is true.
So, Eclipse, let's just get rid of those pesky pilots and expensive planes and hold cadet drillk competition and conduct meetings where we discuss corporate v. USAF uniforms and yellow v. orange safety vests then. I keed, I keed.
I joined an organization that FLIES to help the USAF and our fellow citizens. And I'm not a pilot and will never be one. Sure, we have three missions. But I would say ES is by far our most important mission and within that mission, the ability to fly is most critical. Everything else is secondary, except of course, we Legal Officers. Lord knows the lawyer is always the most important part of any organization. :P So, I think we should be the Civil Lawyer Patrol. ::)
We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization. But every organization has to prioritize. Either implicitly or explicitly, the Civil Air Patrol is not the Civil Air Patrol unless flying is its primary reason for being. If it is not, we're some other sort of organization--a very good and commendable organization--but not the CAP. And, I would argue, an organization that is no longer distinct from other fine organizations that provide ES assistance, JROTC programming, or advocate and education about aviation/aerospace.
As comedian Dennis Miller used to say, "Of course that's my just my opinion, I could be wrong."
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PM
We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization.
Actually, I have an issue with that statement - I joined to be a part of a larger solution, not to have my part be the most important.
The inability to make that distinction is an issue across the board in CAP, not limited to any one faction - a lot of people have difficulty
understanding that they are a small part of the whole, which is less without them, but not solely dependent on them, either.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2010, 05:52:08 PM
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PM
We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization.
Actually, I have an issue with that statement - I joined to be a part of a larger solution, not to have my part be the most important.
The inability to make that distinction is an issue across the board in CAP, not limited to any one faction - a lot of people have difficulty
understanding that they are a small part of the whole, which is less without them, but not solely dependent on them, either.
If I may piggy back on your statement, Eclipse? It seems to me that the members that can accept their role in the larger picture, usually receive the most recognition and reward as oppossed to the person who has to do it "alone," or who sees themselves as THE most important cog. At least that's been my observation.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PM
So, Eclipse, let's just get rid of those pesky pilots and expensive planes and hold cadet drillk competition and conduct meetings where we discuss corporate v. USAF uniforms and yellow v. orange safety vests then. I keed, I keed.
I have
not seen Eclipse, or anyone else, say to "get rid of those pesky pilots and expensive planes," etc.
However, what you seem to say is that the "three-legged stool" of our Congressionally-mandated missions, should be reconfigured, in practice if not on paper:
FLYINGOther ES
Cadet ProgramsAerospace EducationI am not an attorney; however, I have had some training in logical arguments and fallacies, and what you are saying, Captain (incidentally: would
you give up
your appointed grade to start at the bottom and work your way up the food chain?) seems to be very close to affirming the consequent:
A: The organisation's name is the Civil
Air Patrol
B: The terms "Aerospace Education" and "Cadet Programs" do not appear in the organisation's name
C: Therefore, AE and CP are subordinate, if not irrelevant, to the mission of the Civil
Air Patrol
Incidentally...you do not have to take part in discussions about uniforms, NHQ, PD, etc. If you want to stay where you are in the program and not advance, if you want to ignore directives from NHQ, if you want to wear any authorised uniform combination
correctly, that is your option.
I doubt anyone is going to try to order you to attend an SLS, CLC, Region, Wing or National Conference, or supervise a flight of cadets drilling.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PMI joined an organization that FLIES to help the USAF and our fellow citizens.
I did, too, which is why I earned an Observer rating. But that is
not all there is to it. If I never flew another mission, I would still remain part of CAP. I did other things, both mission- and administrative-related (comms, Safety Officer, Admin, Scanner) long before I ever pinned on Observer wings.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PMSure, we have three missions. But I would say ES is by far our most important mission and within that mission, the ability to fly is most critical. Everything else is secondary...
Or tertiary, or even further down?
Your opinion is your opinion.
However, opinion is not policy.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PMWe all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization.
I have no illusions that what I have done over 17 years in CAP, in the air or on the ground, is "THE most important." But I do like to think that it helped things get done. As well, if anyone were to suggest to me that what I or anyone else in CAP has done is automatically subordinate to pilotage, the most politely I can put that is
Bravo Sierra.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PMBut every organization has to prioritize. Either implicitly or explicitly, the Civil Air Patrol is not the Civil Air Patrol unless flying is its primary reason for being. If it is not, we're some other sort of organization...
We do have our priorities - our
Congressionally-mandated ones.
I am not sure how much you know about CAP history, but from the getgo we have done a lot of other things besides
flying.
ES on
horseback.
Wartime patrol along the Mexican border
Guarding airfields
http://www.vawg.cap.gov/history.html
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PMAs comedian Dennis Miller used to say, "Of course that's my just my opinion, I could be wrong."
Your opinion is what it is, and I don't expect to change that.
As an attorney, you are obviously effective at arguing that.
But again...it is not policy. Policy is determined by Congress, the Air Force, NHQ, BoG, and anyone else higher up the food chain that I may be forgetting. We are the instrumentalities of carrying out that policy.
However, you do have the right as a CAP member to forward your opinions about "reprioritising" up the chain (no, I'm not kidding).
Maybe it needs to be said more often that "flying", in and of itself, is not a mission of CAP (or even the Air Force, right?). Flying is one tool necessary to efficiently carry out a small percentage of our overall mission.
If "flying", as a concept, were a AFAM, we'd get reimbursement for proficiency time (which I don't think would be a bad idea).
Cyborg,
No offense but I think the "bravo sierra" talk is that in and of itself.
you quoted Epp's thread in a mannar to suit your own biased argument and lost sight of the fact that he was presenting both sides unbiasedly and brought up some good points.
Flying is an important part of CAP's identity and it is that capability that sets us apart from other organizations, however as he was trying to point out that it is a tool of our larger and more important ES mission. Which after reading his whole post he said rather eloquently. Of course if you do just read what you quoted you could just pick him apart as much as you like.
But speaking of context you talk a lot about experience but I notice the absence of any ES related ribbons on your signature. Don't argue modesty, as displaying bling on line negates that anyways.
Go ahead and ask our intrepid lawyer friend what him or myself has been doing this last week or so.
Believe me, we have no illusions where ES fits into our organization.
Also, no need to lecture him on the history of the organization, instead, ask him what other CAP websites he authors, or better yet, read his signature.
The name Civil Air Patrol has nothing to do with our missions, we are the Civil Air Patrol because we were formed, incidently, as an air arm of Civil Defense. When the organization was transferred to the Army Air Forces by executive order, the name stayed.
Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, which made CAP the auxiliary of the new US Air Force. CAP was charged with three primary missions: Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Emergency Services. Those are three federlly charged equal-in-priority missions and "flying" is an essential part of all three.
Flying is a tool even essential to the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Without the flying, what would make us any different then the federally-authorized State Guards or defense forces.
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 29, 2010, 10:02:46 PM
Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, which made CAP the auxiliary of the new US Air Force. CAP was charged with three primary missions: Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Emergency Services. Those are three federlly charged equal-in-priority missions and "flying" is an essential part of all three.
I usually let the talk of "three missions" slide, but since you explicitly brought federal law into the equation, here are the SIX missions that Congress envisions for CAP:
Quote1. Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.
2. Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
3. To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
4. To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
5. To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
6. To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.
Ok, back after a long weekend. By the way, thanks to all of you participating in the floods and other crud going on right now across the country. :clap:
The discussion tree seems to be more of a winding snake. Before I go on I do need to clarify my relationship in CAP for those of you who have challenged my "credentials" for offering my 2 cents (ok, maybe 3 or 4 at times). I am a fairly new CAP Senior Member. I am also a U.S. Army and Air Guard enlisted veteran with service during the first Gulf War, as well as being a retired Deputy Sheriff. During my time in the military I was an Air Cavalry helicopter crewchief, flight crew member, and C130 Mechanic. I have never been a CAP Cadet.
So, while I may be relatively new to CAP, I am definitely not some inexperienced recruit without any real life military or ES training / longevity.
That being said, I do stand by my ideas, responses, and feedback. I don't think that any of my statements or positions have been anything that is out of the ordinary for Captalk, nor have I been intentionally disrespectful to anyone. I do tend to get passionate at times, but I would never denigrate anyone else for their service, perceived lack of service, or committment to CAP.
Quite honestly, this board is great for allowing us to vent or discuss things that we wouldn't necessarily do at any of our meetings simply because our meetings and missions are really why we joined CAP in the first place and all of "this" is mostly just a distraction.
I'm quite sure that any of us would go out of our way to help any other CAP member (new or old) in any way we could to help make their CAP time as enjoyable and rewarding as possible. If you know anything about the nature of volunteering and volunteer organizations, you know that not everyone is motivated by the same things. Some members join for the uniforms, some for the missions, some to fly, some to just come and shoot the breeze with comrades, some for cadet programs because they have a son or daughter involved and they want them to succeed, and some people join because they want to grow their own personal and professional abilities. Not everyone joins purely for "all of the above", though we all appreciate that in CAP you can do all of the above if you desire to and are motivated in that direction.
I most certainly would not want anyone who reads my postings to feel that their particular motivation for joining and participating in CAP's programs was any less honorable than another member's reasons. As someone wise once said, "Every job is honorable - from the toilet cleaner to the CEO, and without any one of them - we would fail miserably."
All that being said - who wants to banter? >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on March 28, 2010, 05:27:45 PM
The "You're lucky I showed up at all..." mentality is the root cause of many of our operational challenges.
That's because we
aren't lucky if they show up at all. If that's their attitude, cut 'em loose and recruit people who want to
work.
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
Quote from: Short Field on March 29, 2010, 12:20:20 AM
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I. I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance). What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.
And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.
I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES).
You can't
have ES missions if there's no one running the squadron, so the PD "stuff" is critical.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PM
No offense but I think the "bravo sierra" talk is that in and of itself.
You have the right to think so. Nonetheless, I stand by what I said - the gist of which is that Captain Epp's attitude seems to maximise aerial ES at the expense of all else - which is not CAP policy.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMyou quoted Epp's thread in a mannar to suit your own biased argument and lost sight of the fact that he was presenting both sides unbiasedly and brought up some good points.
Unbiasedly? It seemed to me that Captain Epp paid cursory lip service to AE/CP but exalted aerial ES.
I would suggest you have some bias yourself, perhaps based on the postulation that you know Captain Epp personally? That's not a knock. No human being has the ability to be completely unbiased and objective, myself included.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMFlying is an important part of CAP's identity and it is that capability that sets us apart from other organizations, however as he was trying to point out that it is a tool of our larger and more important ES mission.
And the ES mission is one of three, along with AE and CP.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMBut speaking of context you talk a lot about experience but I notice the absence of any ES related ribbons on your signature. Don't argue modesty, as displaying bling on line negates that anyways.
I have been in CAP since 1993, and have been a member of composite, cadet and senior squadrons.
In that time I have been a Safety Officer, Administrative Officer, Personnel Officer, Aerospace Education Officer, Drug Demand Reduction Officer, Deputy Commander, and whatever else has needed to be done.
I have never been in the sort of ES-dedicated environment you seem to be emphasising is necessary to have an opinion on the subject. I have only been in one unit that had an airplane.
My ribbon rack as you see it is exactly as worn.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMGo ahead and ask our intrepid lawyer friend what him or myself has been doing this last week or so. Believe me, we have no illusions where ES fits into our organization...Also, no need to lecture him on the history of the organization, instead, ask him what other CAP websites he authors, or better yet, read his signature.
First off, I don't answer loaded questions nor allow myself to be baited when I can help it.
If your interests/duties, as well as Captain Epp's, are primarily ES-flying-orientated, your opinion, and it is only an opinion, are likely to be similar that ES, especially Air Ops is paramount. You would not be the only one to hold such an opinion.
Nonetheless, opinion, whether mine, yours, Captain Epp's or anyone else's, is not policy.
My opinion may well be Bravo Sierra in your estimation. Nonetheless, it is mine and I do not expect anyone else to agree with me.
This will be my sole reply and rebuttal to you, or to Captain Epp. If you wish further, PM me, please.
Quote from: Rotorhead on March 29, 2010, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
Quote from: Short Field on March 29, 2010, 12:20:20 AM
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I. I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance). What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.
And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.
I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES).
You can't have ES missions if there's no one running the squadron, so the PD "stuff" is critical.
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
Quote from: RiverAux on March 29, 2010, 10:38:20 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 29, 2010, 10:02:46 PM
Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, which made CAP the auxiliary of the new US Air Force. CAP was charged with three primary missions: Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Emergency Services. Those are three federlly charged equal-in-priority missions and "flying" is an essential part of all three.
I usually let the talk of "three missions" slide, but since you explicitly brought federal law into the equation, here are the SIX missions that Congress envisions for CAP:
Quote1. Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.
2. Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
3. To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
4. To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
5. To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
6. To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.
OK, got me. Where is this stuff? I'd like to read more. You've succeeded in opening my eyes.
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 05:30:22 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on March 29, 2010, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
Quote from: Short Field on March 29, 2010, 12:20:20 AM
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I. I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance). What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.
And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.
I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES).
You can't have ES missions if there's no one running the squadron, so the PD "stuff" is critical.
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
Wrong and wrong. They will have no problem conducting the other two missions without GES.
Without the squadrons there is no organization for the ICs to be members of. All qualifications are approved at the local level and then at higher levels. All ICs do is run missions. All of the background stuff is done by staffers.
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 05:30:22 AM
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
IC's run
missions.
They do not provide training or run squadron programs of any kind unless it is under some other hat.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2010, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 05:30:22 AM
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
IC's run missions.
They do not provide training or run squadron programs of any kind unless it is under some other hat.
Like Mission Pilots, ICs are golden, IMHO. It takes a lot of work and experience to get to that point and without ICs, missions don't get run. Again, this goes to what I believe is our mostest important mission of the trio--Emergency Services. You know, helping and saving people.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2010, 05:52:08 PM
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 04:57:37 PM
We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization.
Actually, I have an issue with that statement - I joined to be a part of a larger solution, not to have my part be the most important.
The inability to make that distinction is an issue across the board in CAP, not limited to any one faction - a lot of people have difficulty
understanding that they are a small part of the whole, which is less without them, but not solely dependent on them, either.
No disagreement with you on this point, Chief. :D I joined for the same reason. Not that I have all the solutions or skills but I can help the larger organization with my abilities and skills.
Quote from: tdepp on March 30, 2010, 03:39:28 PM
Again, this goes to what I believe is our mostest important mission of the trio--Emergency Services. You know, helping and saving people.
I am sure the Cadet Program has helped and saved a lot more people than ES will ever save. Giving a kid a goal and a reason to stay on the straight and narrow and achieve something in life is a pretty good mission. CAP doesn't keep track of the number of kids we have saved but I am sure the CAP Talkers involved in Cadet Programs all have stories of a kid they saved.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 30, 2010, 01:32:45 AM
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PM
No offense but I think the "bravo sierra" talk is that in and of itself.
You have the right to think so. Nonetheless, I stand by what I said - the gist of which is that Captain Epp's attitude seems to maximise aerial ES at the expense of all else - which is not CAP policy.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMyou quoted Epp's thread in a mannar to suit your own biased argument and lost sight of the fact that he was presenting both sides unbiasedly and brought up some good points.
Unbiasedly? It seemed to me that Captain Epp paid cursory lip service to AE/CP but exalted aerial ES.
I would suggest you have some bias yourself, perhaps based on the postulation that you know Captain Epp personally? That's not a knock. No human being has the ability to be completely unbiased and objective, myself included.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMFlying is an important part of CAP's identity and it is that capability that sets us apart from other organizations, however as he was trying to point out that it is a tool of our larger and more important ES mission.
And the ES mission is one of three, along with AE and CP.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMBut speaking of context you talk a lot about experience but I notice the absence of any ES related ribbons on your signature. Don't argue modesty, as displaying bling on line negates that anyways.
I have been in CAP since 1993, and have been a member of composite, cadet and senior squadrons.
In that time I have been a Safety Officer, Administrative Officer, Personnel Officer, Aerospace Education Officer, Drug Demand Reduction Officer, Deputy Commander, and whatever else has needed to be done.
I have never been in the sort of ES-dedicated environment you seem to be emphasising is necessary to have an opinion on the subject. I have only been in one unit that had an airplane.
My ribbon rack as you see it is exactly as worn.
Quote from: tsrup on March 29, 2010, 07:48:18 PMGo ahead and ask our intrepid lawyer friend what him or myself has been doing this last week or so. Believe me, we have no illusions where ES fits into our organization...Also, no need to lecture him on the history of the organization, instead, ask him what other CAP websites he authors, or better yet, read his signature.
First off, I don't answer loaded questions nor allow myself to be baited when I can help it.
If your interests/duties, as well as Captain Epp's, are primarily ES-flying-orientated, your opinion, and it is only an opinion, are likely to be similar that ES, especially Air Ops is paramount. You would not be the only one to hold such an opinion.
Nonetheless, opinion, whether mine, yours, Captain Epp's or anyone else's, is not policy.
My opinion may well be Bravo Sierra in your estimation. Nonetheless, it is mine and I do not expect anyone else to agree with me.
This will be my sole reply and rebuttal to you, or to Captain Epp. If you wish further, PM me, please.
CyBorg:
First, we kill the lawyers. :)
I was recruited to CAP, originally, BECAUSE I was a lawyer. Our then Wing LO was the lone lawyer in the wing and thought it important that other lawyers get involved. I was impressed by his enthusiasm to be not just a LO but for the WHOLE program. I then joined and have worked hard to become not just a good and reliable Wing and Squdron LO but as a APAO and MS. I've also conducted photo and imaging training for our squadron and wing. I enjoy ALL the aspects of CAP.
But I also have come to my own conclusions as to what our priority mission is. You might not agree and that's fine.
I also realize that as a professional, I get promoted more quickly than those who aren't doctors, lawyers, educators, chaplins, etc. And was that an inducement to join? Yes, a bit of one. But I also realize that if I hope to be taken seriously by you and other CAP members when I am in other roles, I need both PD and officer training. I have taken Level I and Level III and am awaiting taking Level II when my wing or squadron offers it. I hope to go on to Level IV and maybe even Level V. Being a captain is nice; being of service to my squadron, wing, region, and nation and the citizen is even nicer.
I recently served on aircrews that flew critical photo and recon missions for the state of South Dakota to monitor and assess flooding. We performed a timely and invaluable service to my fellow Dakotans who have their homes, farms, and businesses surrounded by flood waters. Did it solve the flooding? Was it a piece in helping to solve/mitigate/assist in the flooding? Yes.
Even in the military or a quasi-military organization like CAP, some people will depend upon positional power to have their way. The leaders I respect inside and outside of CAP are those who have personal power as well, who know how to motivate, educate, convince, and lead people in a way that gives everyone a stake in the outcome. I'm not simply going to depend on my "railroad tracks" to do that; I want to be the "go to" person who leads by example and by deed.
Thank you for your many years of service to CAP, CyBorg. Your contributions are considerable and appreciated.
Quote from: tdepp on March 30, 2010, 03:39:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2010, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 05:30:22 AM
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
IC's run missions.
They do not provide training or run squadron programs of any kind unless it is under some other hat.
Like Mission Pilots, ICs are golden, IMHO. It takes a lot of work and experience to get to that point and without ICs, missions don't get run. Again, this goes to what I believe is our mostest important mission of the trio--Emergency Services. You know, helping and saving people.
There is no priority mission. It all must get done so those ES people that have no use for the rest of use better realize that they have it backwards. We're the reason they are here not the other way around. With out people like me in the background MPs and ICs won't have any toys to use or even any missions to perform. MPs and ICs are a tool that the organization uses to complete one of our congressional mandates. That's all.
Quote from: tdepp on March 30, 2010, 03:55:08 PM
Thank you for your many years of service to CAP, CyBorg. Your contributions are considerable and appreciated.
And you as well, Barrister and Solicitor.
S/V. :)
Quote from: Short Field on March 30, 2010, 03:47:49 PM
I am sure the Cadet Program has helped and saved a lot more people than ES will ever save. Giving a kid a goal and a reason to stay on the straight and narrow and achieve something in life is a pretty good mission. CAP doesn't keep track of the number of kids we have saved but I am sure the CAP Talkers involved in Cadet Programs all have stories of a kid they saved.
I don't know if I've ever "saved" a cadet.
I do hope that by the mentoring I've done that I can help at least one kid.
Quote from: davidsinn on March 30, 2010, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 05:30:22 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on March 29, 2010, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: tdepp on March 29, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
Quote from: Short Field on March 29, 2010, 12:20:20 AM
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources. No pilots, no flying, no CAP.
IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I. I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.
Quote from: tdepp on March 28, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance). What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.
And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.
I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES).
You can't have ES missions if there's no one running the squadron, so the PD "stuff" is critical.
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
Wrong and wrong. They will have no problem conducting the other two missions without GES.
Without the squadrons there is no organization for the ICs to be members of. All qualifications are approved at the local level and then at higher levels. All ICs do is run missions. All of the background stuff is done by staffers.
I didn't say that a squadron was useless over all, I bolded the part you missed.
And do we have a choice on which missions a squadron does? Congressionally Mandated = Do whatever you feel like? (not a rhetorical question, a real one).
In my previous post(s) I didn't really make my position clear. I do NOT believe ES is the most important mission we have. I do agree with Epp that ES is what separates us from similar but capable organizations (BSA, JROTC, Young Eagles, etc...), a statement that I believe many misinterpreted.
I also think that scrubbing a SAREX just because the weather isn't flyable is a tragedy.
Also, the issue of Support Staff.. You can have all the MSA's, lawyers, PAO's etc.. you want, but without a ground team or an aircrew or both, you are going to find the mission impossible to complete.
Support staff is important and essential to a smooth running Incident Command, and we need to realize that, but the statements of "Without us you wouldn't exist" is childish whining for attention. Working together and not arguing over who is the most important is what is going to help us become a better organization.
With that all said, CyBorg. I believe I owe you a public apology as I berated you in public. It was not my place to call you out on your credentials as I have done.
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 07:22:31 PM
With that all said, CyBorg. I believe I owe you a public apology as I berated you in public. It was not my place to call you out on your credentials as I have done.
None required, but accepted. I don't hold grudges. :)
Ok, guys and gals, we're all pretty. :) Now let's just go do our "jobs," whatever they may be.
Capt. Epp, thank you for your service to your wing and to the organization!
I would like to point out, however, that ChapLAINS are now a part of the regular senior member professional development program. Chaplains who have a M.Div. degree can come in as a Captain, but must "backfill" level II and complete level III, including TIG before being promoted.
Quote from: tdepp on March 30, 2010, 03:39:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2010, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 05:30:22 AM
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
IC's run missions.
They do not provide training or run squadron programs of any kind unless it is under some other hat.
Like Mission Pilots, ICs are golden, IMHO. It takes a lot of work and experience to get to that point and without ICs, missions don't get run. Again, this goes to what I believe is our mostest important mission of the trio--Emergency Services. You know, helping and saving people.
There's the key: YOU believe ES is most important.
That does not make it so. And your belief certainly shouldn't be foisted upon others who disagree.
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 02, 2010, 12:14:28 PM
Quote from: tdepp on March 30, 2010, 03:39:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2010, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: tsrup on March 30, 2010, 05:30:22 AM
And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..
And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...
IC's run missions.
They do not provide training or run squadron programs of any kind unless it is under some other hat.
Like Mission Pilots, ICs are golden, IMHO. It takes a lot of work and experience to get to that point and without ICs, missions don't get run. Again, this goes to what I believe is our mostest important mission of the trio--Emergency Services. You know, helping and saving people.
There's the key: YOU believe ES is most important.
That does not make it so. And your belief certainly shouldn't be foisted upon others who disagree.
Rotor:
I thought we were having a discussion on a discussion board, where opinions are passionate. Since I'm in no position to "foist" my opinion on anyone other than whatever small amount of influence I might have in my wing or squadron, you're still free to believe or not believe in whatever you want. If you think the cadet program is the most important thing we do, good for you. I like passionate people who believe in what they do. I just might not agree with whether what they are passionate about is the most important priority in our organization.
I don't like being told to "stifle myself" when I think I have been respectful to others and have simply stated my opinions without personal attack. No one says you or anyone else have to agree with me. The folks who haven't agreed with me have respectfully told me why they think other things are more important and why. It's called dialogue or give and take. And I appreciate their arguments and it gives me other perspectives to consider.
But Rotor, if I were the national commander, yes, my priority would be ES and within ES, the aviation aspect. Alas, I doubt I'll be wearing two stars on my sliders any time soon. :)
Quote from: tdepp on April 02, 2010, 03:44:09 PM
But Rotor, if I were the national commander, yes, my priority would be ES and within ES, the aviation aspect. Alas, I doubt I'll be wearing two stars on my sliders any time soon. :)
Except you would have to get Congressional and Air Force approval to change those priorities.
I think we all have areas in CAP's designated missions that we focus on, it's only human to be interested in things that interest us, but I believe it important to keep the "big picture" (cliched as that is) in mind.
That's why I think it's a good thing that I've served in all three of CAP's unit types (composite, senior and cadet).
Without reading through nine pages of thread...
I am not sure what issue we're trying to solve. We're making the argument that 2d Lt's in the program should be better trained before getting the rank?
Uh... is this a problem with the 2d Lt's? I have seen more than my fair share of Capt, Maj, and Lt Col types walking around with rank on sideways, no real command ability, inability to salute when necessary, etc. It's clear that simply giving a member more hoops to jump through isn't going to fix the issue, and I'm assuming that if we're talking about members with 6 months in the program, these are the issues we're trying to fix.
Don't worry so much about the rank, and focus your rage at the training systems in place. I have seen some phenomenal butterbarred members, and most of them came from squadrons that really invested quite a bit in ensuring that these members had a job, knew what the job was, and knew how to do their job well. You get that down, and I think you'll find all of your 2d Lt problems go away.
JMHO
Nathan, you make some good points.
I think the comments you make about our training systems and the 2Lt grade are hand-in-hand.
Sometimes our training systems are anything but systematic, coupled with the lingering GOBN tendency in some quarters to just (wink wink), "yup, I'll pass you through for promotion."
Quote from: RLM10_2_06 on March 22, 2010, 07:17:27 PM
What I propose is a universal, not age-based, application of the flight officer program. Whether you join at 18, 21, or 65, you would be expected to progress through this program in order to achieve the rank of CAP 2Lt. I would propose adding additional steps to the Professional Development Program, or at least shifting requirements, so that 2Lt/1Lt/Capt and FO/TFO/SFO no longer share the same Professional Development requirements. What these steps would be exactly, I'm not sure, but the structure would then read SMWOG/FO/TFO/SFO/2Lt/1Lt/Capt/Maj/etc.
Thoughts, comments, etc.?
I always thought the Flight Officer ranks were underutilized. Rather than limit this to just 18-21 year olds who joined too old to be cadets, they should be a normal part of the rank & grade structure. If I had the whole thing to do over, I would add the three ranks of flight officer to the beginning of the series and have the last rank gained by education & experience be Captain. Basically shift everything two grades down, but leave the system and progression otherwise unchanged.
Field grade ranks would be tied to positions held. Presently this is already done, but only for the rank of full Colonel. I would suggest expanding that to include all field grade ranks. Permanent ranks would end with Captain. A squadron full of Captains is just fine - most USAF flying squadrons actually look like that.
Now can this actually work? Sadly no - you can't demote the existing field grade officers who will take decades to eventually get out of the system, it would discourage new members who couldn't achieve permanent Lt. col status, and then you have people like me who would actually be a Lt. Col the day I (re)joined even though all I ever did with airplanes is jump out of them. When I was active in CAP I never got an actual CAP promotion because my US Army rank always stayed ahead of my CAP qualifications.
That having been said, what COULD be done is add in the three flight officer ranks at the beginning of the progression and spread the entire education & promotion system over 8 steps instead of just 5, and just make the last two promotions about seven years apart, like they are in the actual USAF (and as it happens, Army).
^How about we just do a better job with the training and professional development we already have in place rather than have more ranks, classes, hoops, bureaucracy, and whatnot? How about mentoring a new member so they learn the "right" way of doing things? I'm just sayin'. 8)
Quote from: tdepp on April 19, 2010, 05:16:07 AM
^How about we just do a better job with the training and professional development we already have in place rather than have more ranks, classes, hoops, bureaucracy, and whatnot? How about mentoring a new member so they learn the "right" way of doing things? I'm just sayin'. 8)
^Oh my gosh...theres an idea. You mean something along the lines of enforcing the laws already on the books? CAP actually has a pretty in depth program if a person really took it seriously and dove into it. CAP needs to stop trying to equate the gold bar with a miltary gold bar. We have our OWN promotion process we just happen to use the military symbols. Heck, where I work, a gold bar means you have about 25 years on and your a bureau commander and the Sheriff wears 4 stars!
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 19, 2010, 05:06:53 PM
Heck, where I work, a gold bar means you have about 25 years on and your a bureau commander and the Sheriff wears 4 stars!
My gold bar means I'm a shift commander and our chief wears two stars.
My gold bar means "Aw, look at the little newbie. Isn't it cute? Oh, look, it's trying to figure out how to do a travel voucher!"