CAP Talk

I've listed all the various options I recall coming across.  If I've missed one, let me know and I'll add it in.  For all of these assume that ranks for Colonels and above will stay as is.

 

You forgot "Flight Officers for all members except give commissioned grades for those currently holding command or higher echelon staff positions."

I'll modify the existing flight officer option.

None of the above. NCO's should be allowed to promote.

You're saying that you want the current system in which only prior service NCOs become CAP NCOs, but that there should be some system under which they can advance in enlisted rank?

You may have created a monster here, Dr. Frankenstein.   ;D

Jack

Current system-- deflated slightly.

Mission related skills and professional appointments-when member quailifies to serve and serves in the mission skill or profession.  Pilot w/o passed form 5 and passed form 91 isn't a CAP pilot yet.

Scale back Major/LtColonel appointments-we have substantial #'s of each who aren't, weren't and shouldn't be in charge of anything. Vital question for those appointments-is candidate an IC, wing director, major project officer (like, say, encampment ?) or unit commander ? If no, never, over my dead body is response, keep 'em at Captain. 

Expand FO. Allow its use not just for 'graduating' cadets but also as place people who have little-to-no interest in CAP politics to opt out of politics.

I have no problem with the current system.  Of course, anything can be improved.  My thoughts would be to tweak the current system instead of a complete overhaul.

None of the above.

QuoteKeep mostly same system Flight Officers for all members except give commissioned grades for those currently holding command or higher echelon staff positions

Sort of, except that I'd feel better about letting commanders keep their grade, not unlike turning a wing commander's temporary appointment permanent.  This would be on the assumption that CAP has enhanced the Professional Development program to properly train individuals for leadership.  Otherwise, there's no benefit to having either grade system.

Quote from: tedda on July 30, 2007, 03:03:14 PM

QuoteKeep mostly same system Flight Officers for all members except give commissioned grades for those currently holding command or higher echelon staff positions

Sort of, except that I'd feel better about letting commanders keep their grade, not unlike turning a wing commander's temporary appointment permanent.  This would be on the assumption that CAP has enhanced the Professional Development program to properly train individuals for leadership.  Otherwise, there's no benefit to having either grade system.

The problem with that is we'll be hip deep in officers again.  My old sqdn had as least 6 former commanders of one sort or another.

any thoughs of having a unit manning document for all levels of CAP?  How many of each rank do we really need?

Quote from: RiverAux on July 30, 2007, 01:26:26 PM
You're saying that you want the current system in which only prior service NCOs become CAP NCOs, but that there should be some system under which they can advance in enlisted rank?

Not so much as I'm saying that there are too many chiefs and no indians to speak of. An "enlisted" corp provides a subordinate level that will never be in command. Why make everyone FOs or temporary grade... just thin out the officer pool and everything becomes easier.

Quote from: isuhawkeye on July 30, 2007, 05:47:59 PM
any thoughs of having a unit manning document for all levels of CAP?  How many of each rank do we really need?

I would like something like this, but I also favor up and out.

Quote from: MIKE on July 30, 2007, 06:22:28 PM
I would like something like this, but I also favor up and out.

Out?  Out of CAP if you can't get promoted?  National's never going to buy into that ... they need your dues money too badly.

Jack

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 30, 2007, 06:21:42 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 30, 2007, 01:26:26 PM
You're saying that you want the current system in which only prior service NCOs become CAP NCOs, but that there should be some system under which they can advance in enlisted rank?

Not so much as I'm saying that there are too many chiefs and no indians to speak of. An "enlisted" corp provides a subordinate level that will never be in command. Why make everyone FOs or temporary grade... just thin out the officer pool and everything becomes easier.

Yeah but.

1.  Having an NCO corps in theater creates a class system.  This works fine in the military, but not so well in CAP.  Every member is valuable, or at least they think they are.  Having to call a certain class of people "sir" forever just doesn't sit well with folks that haven't grown up in the military.  The NB discussed this issue a few years back, and came to the same conclusion.  It's a civilian thing.

2.  Today's CAP "officer" is tomorrow's NCO.  I may be the squadron commander for a year, but then decide to kick back and just be the squadron testing officer for a few years while I'm busy coaching my kid's little league.  Our roles are too flud in CAP to be stuck in caste or another.

3.  The flight officer thing is a nice compromise - it makes every one an officer, so no one feels slighted.  But, just like real Warrant Officers, FOs won't be expected to be particularly military (which many of our members don't want to be, like it or not.  And, since FOs would be a CAP only grade, it would eliminate any confusion with active duty guys.

Then if they want to lead or staff they get temporary commissioned grade which they give back when the job is done, created an incentive to apply for the tough jobs if you really want to be an officer and get the prestige and courtesies that come with it.  More people applying for the tough jobs = better quality folks IN the tough jobs, which helps us all.

Quote from: MIKE on July 30, 2007, 06:22:28 PM

Quote from: isuhawkeye on July 30, 2007, 05:47:59 PM
any thoughs of having a unit manning document for all levels of CAP?  How many of each rank do we really need?

I would like something like this, but I also favor up and out.

You say this now, but when you want to take a break from doing a tough job, you won't want to get fired from CAP.

Many of our members step back because of personal stuff (you know, like family, jobs, etc) and take an easy job, but later they step back into tough jobs.

Up or out just doesn't fit the volunteer model.

However, a system of temporary grade DOES fit.  Give up the job, you stay in but give up the grade.

Kind of like up or out, but without the boot in your butt.  And you can always take the tough job later and get the grade back.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on July 30, 2007, 03:22:05 PM

Quote from: tedda on July 30, 2007, 03:03:14 PM

Quote from: the pollKeep mostly same system Flight Officers for all members except give commissioned grades for those currently holding command or higher echelon staff positions

Sort of, except that I'd feel better about letting commanders keep their grade, not unlike turning a wing commander's temporary appointment permanent.  This would be on the assumption that CAP has enhanced the Professional Development program to properly train individuals for leadership.  Otherwise, there's no benefit to having either grade system.

The problem with that is we'll be hip deep in officers again.  My old sqdn had as least 6 former commanders of one sort or another.

Like you, I'd switch to Flight Officer grade happily; however, I'd respectfully remind you that a flight officer is by definition, still an officer sir.  FWIW, I don't see a few former commanders keeping their old grade as a huge problem. I see that as a cadre of advisers and instructors.

I like the flight officer deal because it eliminates all of the confusion parallels people draw when they see a recognizable symbol on our collars/shoulders/hats.  Somebody sees Captain bars and any one of a number of assumptions may get drawn.  A Civil Air Patrol Lieutenant Colonel is not a commissioned officer, but the symbol easily induces members of the Armed Forces who aren't familiar with CAP to salute us and mistake us for real officers.  A Civil Air Patrol Lt Col does not necessary report to an officer with a higher rank/grade, nor does the job they are filling necessarily equate to the duties an average person would equate with a Lieutenant Colonel.   

We're CAP.  We have distinctive insignia for a reason -- so people don't confuse us for things we aren't.  But our grade insignia belies that distinction.  We know what it means to be a CAP Lieutenant Colonel or a CAP Captain within the organization.  However, to those who aren't familiar with CAP, using easily recognizable symbols that widely denote things that we are actually not doesn't make sense.  We may know the difference, but most others won't.

In addition, we have the issue of expecting a certain military rank to perform a certain level of responsibility within the organization.  One would naturally expect a Lt Col to be performing a command position or a high level director position at a headquarters, for example.  So people get thrown off when the Lt Col is the recently finished squadron commander who just wants to be the squadron testing officer or has no position at all.  With a proprietary CAP rank system, there are no outside stereotypes.  It wouldn't seem weird for a FO to be reporting to another FO - we're all members of the same lot, and our higher designations within FO just denote our long-term professional development and achievement.

We also remove the issue of whether or not to start former service members and others with special qualifications at particular advanced ranks.  The discussion has always been that a Major in the Air Force should be a Major in CAP, because the grade insignia we use reflects their former office.  Even though they may not have the level of knowledge I'd expect a Major in CAP to have of Civil Air Patrol and our unique culture, we give them advanced promotions.  Partly because of their advanced leadership ability, but also partly because... well, our rank/grade structures seem similar, so we should honor what they've earned elsewhere.   A CAP-proprietary system allows us to consider everybody for starting at the beginning, because CAP is unique and leaders of all ability and skill levels could effectively lead in a staff billet as a FO1.

A CAP-proprietary rank system solves all the issues we have with other systems that don't quite fit us the way that CAP uniquely works.  We keep pointing out different ways that officer ranks don't quite work the same way we do and it generates confusion, stigmas, stereotypes, expectations, and unnecessary drama.  We point out it's difficult for us to figure out why we don't have a true NCO corps to compliment our "officers" and how that NCO corps would work if we had one, or why it wouldn't work well in our current set-up.  We allow current and former service NCOs to retain their rank as CAP NCOs because they may not want to serve a "CAP officers" -- again, another stigma based soley on the insignia and title of the advancement structure we're using.  An articificially generated problem that wouldn't exist with a CAP proprietary grade system.

So each CAP member comes in as a FOC - Flight Officer Candidate and wears the CAP cutouts.  Upon Level I completion, they earn FO1.  They move through their professional development, which could be similar to what we have now, or even change some, and work their way up to various levels of Flight Officer.  Or call it something different.  Heck, call it CAP Member 1 - CAP Member 6, I don't care - I know others will and will find a decent term for it.  The point is that the title doesn't matter once we come up with our own system.

People think it would create a lot of confusion, but I don't think it would.  I think it would eliminate a lot of the confusion that we have right now.  It's pretty simple actually:      Members serve in a variety of staff positions, from squadron level staffers up to commanders at the highest echelon.  Their authority derives from their position.  The grade they earn is numbered 1 through 6 and is based upon their education and progression in the program as well as their time and experience in CAP.

I could go with flight officers.  I'd probably add the "Master Flight Officer" that the NB was talking about a while back and maybe "Super Awesome Flight Officer" (that would be mine).  I also like the Coast Guard Auxiliary system.

I have no special interest in being called any kind of military-style rank.  It just doesn't impact how I feel about myself.  I like shiny things (hold on, brb...I see something shiny on the other side of the room...YAY! A SHINY!), but I can start carrying change again...or my debit card is kind of shiny...

The Aux has the same problem we do... In my flotilla I have a past Division Captain (Lt Col) doing the job of a Flotilla Staff Officer (2d Lt).  He gets to keep his oak leaves/stripes.

Being a butter bar amuses me.  :)  I get to wear metal "rank" on my jacket and hat too.  ;D :P

I asked this once before and nobody bothered about expounding on their "get rid of 2Lt through LTC".  What happens when you have a member that has completed level 5 INCLUDING Air War College? Assume he has been a Squadron and Group CC, the on-again, off-again appointment as LCol to FO6 or whatever you're calling them would shoot morale to small bits. And where are you going to find the insignia for six grades of FO? Follow the AFROTC metod of adding stripes to the shoulder sleeves? Or does a FO4 with four stripes on the shoulder sleeve look to much like a Navy Captain?
The system of officer grade was approved by the War Department during WW II, why all of a sudden after 65 years does the system need to change? 

Quote from: BillB on July 31, 2007, 03:03:26 AM
I asked this once before and nobody bothered about expounding on their "get rid of 2Lt through LTC".  What happens when you have a member that has completed level 5 INCLUDING Air War College? Assume he has been a Squadron and Group CC, the on-again, off-again appointment as LCol to FO6 or whatever you're calling them would shoot morale to small bits. And where are you going to find the insignia for six grades of FO? Follow the AFROTC metod of adding stripes to the shoulder sleeves? Or does a FO4 with four stripes on the shoulder sleeve look to much like a Navy Captain?
The system of officer grade was approved by the War Department during WW II, why all of a sudden after 65 years does the system need to change? 

Maybe there are a number of people that can't handle the expectations of them while wearing officer rank insignia. After all, people wearing those ranks are expected to act as Ladies or Gentleman. For some, that's a lot to ask.

Quote from: BillB on July 31, 2007, 03:03:26 AM
I asked this once before and nobody bothered about expounding on their "get rid of 2Lt through LTC".  What happens when you have a member that has completed level 5 INCLUDING Air War College? Assume he has been a Squadron and Group CC, the on-again, off-again appointment as LCol to FO6 or whatever you're calling them would shoot morale to small bits. And where are you going to find the insignia for six grades of FO? Follow the AFROTC metod of adding stripes to the shoulder sleeves? Or does a FO4 with four stripes on the shoulder sleeve look to much like a Navy Captain?

Vanguard is really good at making insignia.  They've been doing it for quite a few years.  If we do it right, we could have one set of insignia for all of our uniforms.  One line of soft shouldermarks/epaulet sleeves, one set of embroidered, and one line of metal pin on insignia.  Covers just about every uniform.  Actually eliminates all the myriad of crazy insignia we've got out there now. 

I kinda like some of the other proposals for a FO insignia, like Tedda's, which resemble a quasi-warrant officer appearance but clearly distinctive from any other existing insignia.  Gold or silver bars with enamel blue lines or squares on them, is just one option.

The point is not to just use somebody else's grade system and once again create undue parallels.  The point is to create our own distinctive insignia, just like we do for awards and decorations.

QuoteThe system of officer grade was approved by the War Department during WW II, why all of a sudden after 65 years does the system need to change? 

That's no reason to say that the system could not use improvement, as it does generate a great deal of controversey, questions, and issues.  It may have worked in WWII, but just about everything else about CAP has changed since then.   "Years of tradition umhampered by progress!" should not be our banner cry.

Quote from: isuhawkeye on July 30, 2007, 05:47:59 PM
any thoughs of having a unit manning document for all levels of CAP?  How many of each rank do we really need?

Until about 1985-1990 that was the regulation, at least on paper.....it was largely ignored by that time, for several reasons:

1) commanders did not want to hold back contributing staff members because there was no open 'slot' in their specialty or area of assignment

2) commanders did not want to demote people relinquishing a job that 'rated' a specific rank

In other words, BTDT, and it did not work well the first time!

Quote from: Dragoon on July 30, 2007, 08:56:15 PM

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 30, 2007, 06:21:42 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 30, 2007, 01:26:26 PM
You're saying that you want the current system in which only prior service NCOs become CAP NCOs, but that there should be some system under which they can advance in enlisted rank?

Not so much as I'm saying that there are too many chiefs and no indians to speak of. An "enlisted" corp provides a subordinate level that will never be in command. Why make everyone FOs or temporary grade... just thin out the officer pool and everything becomes easier.

Yeah but.

1.  Having an NCO corps in theater creates a class system.  This works fine in the military, but not so well in CAP.  Every member is valuable, or at least they think they are.  Having to call a certain class of people "sir" forever just doesn't sit well with folks that haven't grown up in the military.  The NB discussed this issue a few years back, and came to the same conclusion.  It's a civilian thing.

2.  Today's CAP "officer" is tomorrow's NCO.  I may be the squadron commander for a year, but then decide to kick back and just be the squadron testing officer for a few years while I'm busy coaching my kid's little league.  Our roles are too flud in CAP to be stuck in caste or another.

3.  The flight officer thing is a nice compromise - it makes every one an officer, so no one feels slighted.  But, just like real Warrant Officers, FOs won't be expected to be particularly military (which many of our members don't want to be, like it or not.  And, since FOs would be a CAP only grade, it would eliminate any confusion with active duty guys.

Then if they want to lead or staff they get temporary commissioned grade which they give back when the job is done, created an incentive to apply for the tough jobs if you really want to be an officer and get the prestige and courtesies that come with it.  More people applying for the tough jobs = better quality folks IN the tough jobs, which helps us all.

Your point is well taken, but lacks foundation.

I am an NCO. I was a 2Lt. I call the same people Sir now as I did then. I think that if there are limited numbers of officer positions and the bar was set high enough, new members wouldn't even know the difference. How can you be PO'd for not being an officer if you don't meet the requirements? It could be handled much like Army promotions; each achievement has points. The needs of the unit dictate the cutoff points for promotion. This encourages members to strive to achieve if they want to promote.

As far as fluid position... It only matters if your looking to be CC, otherwise you can staff the same position, just like I do, as ESNCO instead of ESO.

The FO thing is just another way of doing it. You have a different thing to sew to your collar but, your still not a REAL officer. Understanding that the USAF doesn't use Warrants anymore, every other branch still does. This allows the parallel to exist that reinforces that you are not an officer. Don't fool yourself regarding real warrant officers... they're held to the same military standard as every other service member. I flew with a number of WO's as a door gunner and they are consumate professionals made up of prior enlisted with an associates degree.

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 12:09:41 PM
Your point is well taken, but lacks foundation.

I'm not sure if "foundation" is the right word.  My points are "founded" in over 25 years of CAP service including leadership positions all the way to the Wing level, as well over 20 years of active duty Army commissioned service. 

In other words, my points may lack validity or truth, but they do have a foundation.  :-)

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 12:09:41 PM
I am an NCO. I was a 2Lt. I call the same people Sir now as I did then.

Not completely true.  Now you call 2d Lt's sir.  And no matter far you progress you always will.

As a real NCO, you understand and accept that.  But civilians don't always share that understanding.  They'll wonder why, after 10 or 15 years of CAP service, they have to salute and defer to a new guy just because he's a pilot.

I really don't think we have the the training time it would take to breed the correct culture.

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 12:09:41 PM
I think that if there are limited numbers of officer positions and the bar was set high enough, new members wouldn't even know the difference. How can you be PO'd for not being an officer if you don't meet the requirements?

As long as the requirements were all things like taking tests, no one would argue.  But that would only ensure our officers were good test takers, not good leaders or staffers.

The minute the requirements included serving in certain positions, people would complain that the "good old boys" club was discriminating against them and keeping them from joining the elite ranks of the salute recievers.  :-)

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 12:09:41 PM
It could be handled much like Army promotions; each achievement has points. The needs of the unit dictate the cutoff points for promotion. This encourages members to strive to achieve if they want to promote.

The problem is based in that "needs of the unit" stuff.  That means if you've already got your quota of captains, you aren't allowed any more!  No one could promote.  Same thing happens in the Army for NCOs - no matter how good you are or how many schools you've got, you don't get promoted until the Army needs more NCOs and drops the cutoff score.

And the problem remains that today's captain may choose not to do a captain's job tomorrow.  Heck, he may choose to do durn near nothing, and yet he would keep the rank.

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 12:09:41 PM
As far as fluid position... It only matters if your looking to be CC, otherwise you can staff the same position, just like I do, as ESNCO instead of ESO.

But if you had a staff assistant, correct use of rank would mean he shouldn't be an officer.  He should be a more junior NCO or EM.  So....if a new 2d Lt wants to be the asst ES officer, you've only got three choices

1.  Demote him
2.  Promote you
3.  Just accept the fact that rank means nothing.

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 12:09:41 PM
The FO thing is just another way of doing it. You have a different thing to sew to your collar but, your still not a REAL officer. Understanding that the USAF doesn't use Warrants anymore, every other branch still does. This allows the parallel to exist that reinforces that you are not an officer. Don't fool yourself regarding real warrant officers... they're held to the same military standard as every other service member. I flew with a number of WO's as a door gunner and they are consumate professionals made up of prior enlisted with an associates degree.

I've got a fair amount of experience with warrants - even led and rated a few.  The aviation guys are extremely professional, but about 75% less "military" than commissioned officers.  More use of first names, less customs and courtesies.  Less concern over rank among the various grades of warrant.  Their basic "vibe" would be a lot easier for CAP civilians to handle.  Plus, most warrants aren't supervisors - just like most CAP "officers."  It's a good fit, culture wise.  And by using Flight Officer rather than the DoD grade of warrant officer, along with our own unique grade insignia, we make it perfectly clear that these are not USAF officers, but rather something unique to the auxiliary.

There are, by the way, a fair number of "high school to flight school" aviations warrants out there.  They go through basic, then straight to WOCS, then to flight school.  No NCO time.
[/quote]

Point well take. By founded I meant to imply that there was a great deal of supposition that is best described anecdotally, rather than based on studied fact.

That aside, the product is the same. We will be adding another rank structure to that which exists and creating another class of CAP member instead of fostering the systems we have and making them more efficient. Under that plan, we wind up with 3 different rank systems, two that can promote and one that can not, regardless of achievement.

I honestly don't see that there is a huge problem confusing CAP officers or NCOs with their AD counterparts. We wear the big blue badges of bastard-om to distinguish us from them.

In regards to promotion points I think that all things should be tangibles. Awards, decorations, achievement levels, ES ratings... everything that has a standard. The formula would need to be worked out but, it prevents favoritism and promotes self motivated achievement.

All things considered, I see the CAP and its lack of well defined rank and authority as lacking efficiency. I can only really speak to my own unit but what typically happens is someone say "Hey, let's do this!" the other officers agree. It doesn't get done or takes forever due to the fact that there is no tactical arm to compliment the strategic arm that the officers represent.

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 03:33:57 PM
All things considered, I see the CAP and its lack of well defined rank and authority as lacking efficiency. I can only really speak to my own unit but what typically happens is someone say "Hey, let's do this!" the other officers agree. It doesn't get done or takes forever due to the fact that there is no tactical arm to compliment the strategic arm that the officers represent.

And changing the grade structure would effect that how?

I have had a similar experience and usually the commander tells the origniator to take charge and make it happen. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't depending on the originator's workload. Assigning a task to someone who doesn't have the time to carry it out, not uncommon in CAP, means the task won't get done, or will be poorly done.

You know, one of the reasons I've taken to adding a poll to most discussions I've started lately is the obvious vast difference in opinions between those adding comments and those who choose not to comment.  Almost every time you would get a very different view of what the consensus view is among the CAP-Talk community.  

Take this discussion where over 50% of poll voters either said keep the system the way it is or keep the basic system, but make it tougher to promote.  However, if you had only read the comments you would get the idea that everybody wants whole-scale radical change to the system, which obviously isn't the case.  Only a few have stuck up for the status quo more or less. 

Quote from: RiverAux on July 31, 2007, 03:50:10 PM
Take this discussion where over 50% of poll voters either said keep the system the way it is or keep the basic system, but make it tougher to promote.  

I voted for tougher to promote. I'm learning to take on more challenges, move out of my comfort zone. I think it would improve me as a person.

Taking a system, and just changing the grade names and insignia is change for its own sake. That's garbage.

Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2007, 03:49:56 PM

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 03:33:57 PM
All things considered, I see the CAP and its lack of well defined rank and authority as lacking efficiency. I can only really speak to my own unit but what typically happens is someone say "Hey, let's do this!" the other officers agree. It doesn't get done or takes forever due to the fact that there is no tactical arm to compliment the strategic arm that the officers represent.

And changing the grade structure would effect that how?

I have had a similar experience and usually the commander tells the originator to take charge and make it happen. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't depending on the originator's workload. Assigning a task to someone who doesn't have the time to carry it out, not uncommon in CAP, means the task won't get done, or will be poorly done.

I believe that by supporting a corp of "do-ers" you eliminate that issue of who is going to do it. It doesn't always become a matter of having time, sometimes it's a matter of just plain not wanting to. Not to mention that I'm not advocating a change in grade structure as much as I am promoting an alternative path for those who don't want to be officers and would rather handle the operational aspects of the unit.

I can speak only from my personal experience but, the Commander says we need to do BLANK. The first sergeant makes that happen. He delegates the tasks to NCO's that use their people to accomplish the mission.

In the current world, the Commander says BLANK. Who makes sure it happens? Where does that person get help from? If subordinate individuals are assigned to that persons section, he/she will have resources to utilize; an ability to disperse the work load so that no one person has to do it all.

Frankly, I had a year as a 2Lt and hated it. I belong in the trenches with my hands in the mix. I don't want to deal with MOU's and planning... I want to train, focus on cadets, and respond when needed. If everyone really wanted to be an officer, we wouldn't have ANY NCOs in CAP.

Quote from: Pylon on July 31, 2007, 04:45:58 AM
That's no reason to say that the system could not use improvement, as it does generate a great deal of controversey, questions, and issues. 

Does it really, or is it just the members of CAP Talk that raise the issues?  I'm not doubting you, but are there real world examples where some other service, civilian or military, was terribly confused about our grade system?  I can see it causing an issue at first glance for military folks, but wouldn't they soon adopt the attitude of "That's just the way CAP does it?"

Now, as far as raising the standards, perhaps we should just tinker with the professional development program, or increase the requirements to achieve the different ratings in the specialty tracks, which would directly relate to making the Level achievements tougher.

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 07:21:50 PM

Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2007, 03:49:56 PM

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 31, 2007, 03:33:57 PM
All things considered, I see the CAP and its lack of well defined rank and authority as lacking efficiency. I can only really speak to my own unit but what typically happens is someone say "Hey, let's do this!" the other officers agree. It doesn't get done or takes forever due to the fact that there is no tactical arm to compliment the strategic arm that the officers represent.

And changing the grade structure would effect that how?

I have had a similar experience and usually the commander tells the originator to take charge and make it happen. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't depending on the originator's workload. Assigning a task to someone who doesn't have the time to carry it out, not uncommon in CAP, means the task won't get done, or will be poorly done.

I believe that by supporting a corp of "do-ers" you eliminate that issue of who is going to do it. It doesn't always become a matter of having time, sometimes it's a matter of just plain not wanting to. Not to mention that I'm not advocating a change in grade structure as much as I am promoting an alternative path for those who don't want to be officers and would rather handle the operational aspects of the unit.

And the officers currently don't handle to operational aspects of the units? I take offense at your comments that officers aren't "do-ers". Perhaps in the military, it may be that way, but in CAP the officers ARE the do-ers.

What can you do as an nco that you cannot do as an officer? The only difference I have seen between CAP ncos and CAP officers is the insignia. They do the same jobs. The make the units run.

QuoteI can speak only from my personal experience but, the Commander says we need to do BLANK. The first sergeant makes that happen. He delegates the tasks to NCO's that use their people to accomplish the mission.

That's the military way. It isn't the CAP way. What are you going to do to the CAP member who is assigned a task, but does not have the time to complete it? The lack of time will hamper ncos as much as it hampers officers.

QuoteIn the current world, the Commander says BLANK. Who makes sure it happens? Where does that person get help from? If subordinate individuals are assigned to that persons section, he/she will have resources to utilize; an ability to disperse the work load so that no one person has to do it all.

Again, making your changes will affect this how? How many senior members do you have in your unit? Dump the military mindset for a minute and consider that CAP members have alot more going on than CAP. There's the time spent earning money to afford our CAP habits. There are family issues. There are other activities. In the military, the enlisted/nco/officer structure works because IT IS THEIR JOB. They don't have the same distractions of real life to take up most of their time. The military come FIRST and FOREMOST. BTDT.

QuoteFrankly, I had a year as a 2Lt and hated it. I belong in the trenches with my hands in the mix. I don't want to deal with MOU's and planning... I want to train, focus on cadets, and respond when needed. If everyone really wanted to be an officer, we wouldn't have ANY NCOs in CAP.

The only NCO's we have in CAP are those military ncos who cannot give up their stripes and fit in the the organization. They claim they are special. Bull-pucky. I have yet to see anything an nco has done that cannot be done by an officer in CAP.

Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2007, 08:21:57 PM
The only NCO's we have in CAP are those military ncos who cannot give up their stripes and fit in the the organization. They claim they are special. Bull-pucky. I have yet to see anything an nco has done that cannot be done by an officer in CAP.

Funny, you talk about taking offense, but you assign a viewpoint that you don't even know whether or not is factual. It probably isn't. Many of them are just comfortable being an NCO. It's "bull-pucky" to make that statement when you don't even have the facts on why some of them do it.

And I think that there are a few NCO's here that will probably be rather irate over your diminishing their accomplishments. They spent a lot more time and effort earning their stripes than you did earning your bars or leaves.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Hawk.

arajca, I'm not going to take offense to the comments you made. In my two years in CAP, I have seen a great deal of good ideas flushed down the crapper because the people assigned to the task couldn't get it done. Of the officers I've dealt with, few are do-ers. Those that are are an asset to the organization. Those that aren't have proved to me that they just want to be in CAP.

I had a CAP 1Lt tell me to stand at Parade Rest when I spoke to him. I politely informed him in a discreet tone that if he ever disrespected me in front of a cadet again, I would make sure that he knew where my stripes came from and what it took to earn them. This guy was 6 months in and a CFI, got his rank the easy way and just came to fly. Is that what a CAP officer should be?

As far as being special... I'm not special because I wear stripes. They may make me a oddity but with 4 NCO's in my unit, not much of an oddity. Though NCO's must have some place in the organization, as the CG has appointed the first Command Chief Master Sergeant that CAP has ever had. Only after that point did I turn back to NCO. I think history will show that NCOs are going to play a big role in the future of CAP. None the less, I'll let CCMSgt Chiafos know that some people think he doesn't want to fit in.

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 31, 2007, 09:05:27 PM

Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2007, 08:21:57 PM
The only NCO's we have in CAP are those military ncos who cannot give up their stripes and fit in the the organization. They claim they are special. Bull-pucky. I have yet to see anything an nco has done that cannot be done by an officer in CAP.

Funny, you talk about taking offense, but you assign a viewpoint that you don't even know whether or not is factual. It probably isn't. Many of them are just comfortable being an NCO. It's "bull-pucky" to make that statement when you don't even have the facts on why some of them do it.

And I think that there are a few NCO's here that will probably be rather irate over your diminishing their accomplishments. They spent a lot more time and effort earning their stripes than you did earning your bars or leaves.

I know several military NCO's who are in CAP. Only two are CAP nco's. The others are officers (Capt - Lt Col). What unique role do nco's play in CAP that they cannot play as officers? So far, no one has been able to answer that question. 

arajca,

Sir you seem determined to stay on offense and I challenge you. Von Schtuben created the NCO corp and turned the Continental Army from a losing fistful of disorganized failures into a force capable of defeating the greatest army in the world. The NCO has been an integral part of every military since, and adapted by the civilian world as "middle management". Are you telling me that this organization operates so well and so efficiently that it could never benefit from having a layer of individuals whos entire job revolves around making things run efficiently?

If you don't see a need for NCOs in your unit, thank God you have such a great group of OFFICERS. I personally see a great need for such a corp and it's attitudes like yours that make me despise the idea of being an officer and very proud to have served the NCO corp as it has served me very well.

Read the NCO creed, it may enlighten you. Then search for the Officers Creed...

Again, I raise the question:
What unique role do nco's play in CAP that they cannot fill as CAP officers?

In the miltary, they are a valuable asset serving an important role. In CAP they do not serve in the same - or vaguely similar - manner.

I don't see Andy being dierespectful towards NCOs. I see a valid quesion that I will echo - What unique role do NCOs play in CAP that they cannot fill as CAP officers?

I spent 21 years in the Navy, 20 of it as an NCO. I have been in CAP since 1964, with a couple of periods of non-participation. Given the structure of CAP, and its system of job assignments, I see little need for an NCO segment. As much as some folks think so, the system isn't broken.

What it does need is better enforcement of the existing rules, and a better indoctrination of new members about the system. The latter is easy; the former not so much. As long as there are people in charge (declining to call them leaders) who abuse the system for the gain of individuals, there will be problems. Adding an NCO corps will not solve that problem.

YMMV.

Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2007, 10:51:13 PM
I know several military NCO's who are in CAP. Only two are CAP nco's. The others are officers (Capt - Lt Col). What unique role do nco's play in CAP that they cannot play as officers? So far, no one has been able to answer that question. 

Unique role? How about showing that they have experience in the system that many cadets aspire to? That they've been places where cadets want to go. Even a CAP officer with military background doesn't show that. The NCO does by virtue of their stripes. They've invested a great deal of time earning that grade, a lot of experience comes with it.

Which is another reason why CAP should never consider trying to mint its own NCO's. They would never be close to be on a par with military NCO's. They would simply be lacking the experience necessary to have even close to the same leadership skills.

What about them is so threatening to you that you would force them to take the officer grades? And why shouldn't they have a choice? NCO's in CAP is a system that gives cadets a look at the military. We can do the same things with only officers, but they will never see the enlisted leadership that they would experience in the military.

Quote from: SarDragon on August 01, 2007, 12:58:49 AM
What it does need is better enforcement of the existing rules, and a better indoctrination of new members about the system. The latter is easy; the former not so much. As long as there are people in charge (declining to call them leaders) who abuse the system for the gain of individuals, there will be problems. Adding an NCO corps will not solve that problem.

Adding an NCO corps isn't designed to alter the chain of command in CAP from what we've been told here. We all know that there really isn't much of one anyway. NCO's would present leadership example. Might even rub off on some of us so called "officers".

Besides, what if you have a guy who made E-8 or E9 in the military, retired as such. Maybe he just doesn't want to deal with going through a new rank system. I've known a couple like that. Why shouldn't they be "Sergeant Jones" if they want to be? Why look down on them? They won't be any less competent as an observer, or doing admin, or teaching Aerospace while wearing NCO stripes.

It's quite true that adding an NCO corp won't solve any problems. Neither will throwing out the system. You just give someone a new system to learn how to abuse. And there is no such thing as a system you can't cheat. Some may be harder than others, but they all have shortcomings.

Quote from: Hawk200 on August 01, 2007, 01:56:33 AM
We can do the same things with only officers, but they will never see the enlisted leadership that they would experience in the military.

Enlisted leadership of what in CAP?  In CAP, we have no junior enlisted.  We have no "backbone" of CAP in the form of an enlisted force, while officers serve as only management.

In CAP, our "senior member officers" perform the duties of airmen, NCOs, and officers.  So when the uncommon CAP NCO gets thrown into the mix, who exactly are they leading that demonstrates to cadets this "enlisted leadership that they would experience in the military"?   They're not leading other senior members - there's no senior member junior enlisted.  And they're not leading cadets in that sense - that's the job of the cadet staff.  So....   ?

Our lack of an NCO corps causes, in fact, the blurring of the officer role to the point we have reached....that the rank is virtually meaningless within AP itself, which is of course the only place it ought to matter.

So many people on this board (echoing sentiments I hear out in the real world) proclaim again and again that they don't want to command, don't want senior level staff responsibilities, want to remain at the squadron forever "where the action is".

This is fine -- basically what is offered by these members is a description of the role of the NCO, and, to a far lesser degree, the company grade officer.

When CAP had grade allocations based on position, composite and senior squadrons could have two lt col (commander & deputy or DCS; composite DCC was limited to major, as was, IIRC, ops officer). Cadet sqdn CCs maxed out at major, and no other field grade officers were allocated to cadet squadrons.

Colonels & majors that aren't in senior leadership roles should not be assigned to squadrons. In this I really believe Iowa has the right idea. Their 'unit of membership' ought to be wing or, if available, group....even if the geographic distances are great.....where possible, it is ideal for these field grade officers to serve as staff officers for the higher headquarters....where distance or other factors prevent this, there is no reason they could not attend squadron meetings & activities as instructors, mentors, trainers and the like....but they should not be staff officers (other than in extraordinary circumstances) in squadrons.

Finally, all CAP grade should be earned....and it should be challenging, and require commitment of time and effort. Under the right circumstances, following this concept, I could see some CAP members without prior military service earning (and advancing) in the NCO grades...particularly former cadets.

Quote from: Pylon on August 01, 2007, 04:08:51 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on August 01, 2007, 01:56:33 AM
We can do the same things with only officers, but they will never see the enlisted leadership that they would experience in the military.

Enlisted leadership of what in CAP?  In CAP, we have no junior enlisted.  We have no "backbone" of CAP in the form of an enlisted force, while officers serve as only management.

In CAP, our "senior member officers" perform the duties of airmen, NCOs, and officers.  So when the uncommon CAP NCO gets thrown into the mix, who exactly are they leading that demonstrates to cadets this "enlisted leadership that they would experience in the military"?   They're not leading other senior members - there's no senior member junior enlisted.  And they're not leading cadets in that sense - that's the job of the cadet staff.  So....   ?

You missed the point completely. They would see in our NCO's what they would see in the military. It would be one of the different concepts of leadership, not leadership due to a rank bracket, but what they will see in the future. Probably hard to explain the way I see it, but it's important that they understand NCOs. The leadership is primarily by example, which military NCO's tend to excel at.

Many cadets need to understand some of the C&C concerning NCO's as well. We had our CAP-RAP NCO visit last night at our meeting, and the DCC asked the commander and myself when the cadets were supposed to salute or call the room to attention. The commander and I looked at her completely puzzled. Apparently, cadets from other units told our cadets that they had to do this. What are those cadets going to do when they get to the "real" military and do this? They're going to embarrass themselves, and our organization.

NCO's can do any of the specialty tracks in CAP with the same competence that an officer can. Why force them to do anything that they may not want to? If you became a commander of a CAP unit, would you tell all you NCO's that they had to become officers or leave? It would be a foolish move, you'd be pushing out people that are willing to contribute.

As far as the "chain of command" goes, any officer that thinks an NCO is there to "order around" is a fool. CAP officers may have to deal with real live NCO's if they do things other than just working in their unit. It would be good for them understand those customs too.

Quote from: Hawk200 on August 01, 2007, 05:38:38 PM

Quote from: Pylon on August 01, 2007, 04:08:51 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on August 01, 2007, 01:56:33 AM
We can do the same things with only officers, but they will never see the enlisted leadership that they would experience in the military.

Enlisted leadership of what in CAP?  In CAP, we have no junior enlisted.  We have no "backbone" of CAP in the form of an enlisted force, while officers serve as only management.

In CAP, our "senior member officers" perform the duties of airmen, NCOs, and officers.  So when the uncommon CAP NCO gets thrown into the mix, who exactly are they leading that demonstrates to cadets this "enlisted leadership that they would experience in the military"?   They're not leading other senior members - there's no senior member junior enlisted.  And they're not leading cadets in that sense - that's the job of the cadet staff.  So....   ?

You missed the point completely. They would see in our NCO's what they would see in the military. It would be one of the different concepts of leadership, not leadership due to a rank bracket, but what they will see in the future. Probably hard to explain the way I see it, but it's important that they understand NCOs. The leadership is primarily by example, which military NCO's tend to excel at.

Many cadets need to understand some of the C&C concerning NCO's as well. We had our CAP-RAP NCO visit last night at our meeting, and the DCC asked the commander and myself when the cadets were supposed to salute or call the room to attention. The commander and I looked at her completely puzzled. Apparently, cadets from other units told our cadets that they had to do this. What are those cadets going to do when they get to the "real" military and do this? They're going to embarrass themselves, and our organization.

NCO's can do any of the specialty tracks in CAP with the same competence that an officer can. Why force them to do anything that they may not want to? If you became a commander of a CAP unit, would you tell all you NCO's that they had to become officers or leave? It would be a foolish move, you'd be pushing out people that are willing to contribute.

As far as the "chain of command" goes, any officer that thinks an NCO is there to "order around" is a fool. CAP officers may have to deal with real live NCO's if they do things other than just working in their unit. It would be good for them understand those customs too.

The cadets in my unit looking at the military are looking at commissioning programs (academies, ROTC's, etc) not enlisting. Given the non-specific role NCO's play in CAP, how will the cadets learn anything about what they do in the military? As far as most cadets I see, a SM nco is just another SM to them. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess it would be because there is no nco-specific role in CAP as there is in the military. The cadets get excited about military personnel - regardless of grade - when they start talking about what they do/did in the military.

Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2007, 11:34:09 PM
Again, I raise the question:
What unique role do nco's play in CAP that they cannot fill as CAP officers?

In the military, they are a valuable asset serving an important role. In CAP they do not serve in the same - or vaguely similar - manner.

I can answer this question. The NCO is a professional military educator, trained to assure that the unit is ready and capable of completing its mission. Not even an AD Officer is taught to do that, and I'm [darn] sure no CAP only officer can either.

Now, maybe you can tell us what you have against NCOs. You appear to think that CAP functions fine without them. I differ in that I know what a well trained unit looks like and think that if we made it half way there we would be twice as good as we are. Again, this thread is about changing things. Why not set the system in place to use these people the way they need to be used?

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on August 01, 2007, 08:24:42 PM

Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2007, 11:34:09 PM
Again, I raise the question:
What unique role do nco's play in CAP that they cannot fill as CAP officers?

In the military, they are a valuable asset serving an important role. In CAP they do not serve in the same - or vaguely similar - manner.

I can answer this question. The NCO is a professional military educator, trained to assure that the unit is ready and capable of completing its mission. Not even an AD Officer is taught to do that, and I'm [darn] sure no CAP only officer can either.

What is mission you speak of that requires nco's? ES? CP? AE? Other? An nco not trained in a mission (as most are not is regards to CAP) cannot ensure the unit is ready.

QuoteNow, maybe you can tell us what you have against NCOs. You appear to think that CAP functions fine without them. I differ in that I know what a well trained unit looks like and think that if we made it half way there we would be twice as good as we are. Again, this thread is about changing things. Why not set the system in place to use these people the way they need to be used?

I have nothing against nco's in general. I have issues with those who believe that nco's are the answer to everything. In the military, NCO's are valuable. In CAP, they are just another SM. If they are so essential to CAP operations, why are there not more of them in CAP? Why hasn't CAP developed a program to train up nco's. Or is it only miitary nco's that have value?

Quote from: arajca on August 01, 2007, 10:59:56 PM
I have nothing against nco's in general. I have issues with those who believe that nco's are the answer to everything. In the military, NCO's are valuable. In CAP, they are just another SM. If they are so essential to CAP operations, why are there not more of them in CAP? Why hasn't CAP developed a program to train up nco's. Or is it only miitary nco's that have value?

eh...just my 2000 dong..... (sorry, just left Vietnam and have extra dong left over; equivalent to less than two cents ;D)

My opinion is that a CAP NCO corps would be...interesting. In fact, as I've mentioned in other threads about this topic, I would even be interested in trading my oakleafs for stripes....because I once wore stripes and understand the value of them.

Why are there not more? Probably because there is no promotion capability within the senior enlisted structure....it's a static display....like a museum piece.

Develop a promotion system from E-1 to E-9 similar to the State Defense Force system, and I believe you might have more enlisted members in CAP. You might even have several officers go reverse mustang!

Also, make the cadets E-1 through E-9. Cadet "officers" should be those enrolled in college....but that's aluding to another thread already running....

Mission report: Just left R&R in Singapore and on our way to Papua New Guinea. Be well...

v/r
LT

Quote from: arajca on August 01, 2007, 10:59:56 PM
I have nothing against nco's in general. I have issues with those who believe that nco's are the answer to everything. In the military, NCO's are valuable. In CAP, they are just another SM. If they are so essential to CAP operations, why are there not more of them in CAP? Why hasn't CAP developed a program to train up nco's. Or is it only miitary nco's that have value?

Nothing against NCO's in general? Kinda hard to believe.

And the way you put it, any senior member is just another senior member. So what's wrong with them wanting to wear stripes? The way you put it, it doesn't matter.

Nobody has said they are essential to any CAP operations, only that some training and leadership could be improved with their experience. And no one is really talking about an NCO corps made from scratch, just utilizing those members a little better when it comes to their skills.

If CAP were to train their own NCO's, who do you think would do the initial training? How many do you think we would get? Probably not many. Easier to just rely on the experience of the few that come to us, and want to continue doing what they do best.

Are military NCO's the only ones that have value? You're kidding right? Show me someplace else that has actual Non Commissioned Officers. Not just someplace that calls someone a "Sergeant" like the Police or Fire Department, but refers to them as NCO's, and relies on them as such. I doubt there are any.

Just say you don't like NCO's, don't try to tell everyone that they have no place.

Anyone who does not appreciate military NCOs probably has had limited contact with them....most of the ones I have had the privilege of knowing over the years have been dedicated patriots and consummate professionals who look to the well-being of their people before themselves.

OK, my solution is far from elegant ... here goes.

Improve Prof. Development and increase TIG for promotions - say to the standard TIG rate of the AD AF. ex: 2 years to 1LT, 4 for Capt etc...

BUT Id also say to go a step farther: expand the FO grades to what the ARMY did with WO and the old specialist system. In other words equate a FO spot to each 'comisioned grade' ( I know we arent comissioned) - just as there was a specialist equating to about all the old elisted rating or how WOs equated to Lts, Captains, and Majors.

Having done so use the FO spots for those who progress through our PD and whatnot; ALSO good for those who otherwise would be a LT 'for life'

Reserve the bars and leaves for those who are active in the program as a staff member or as a Commander.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 02, 2007, 04:03:37 AM
Anyone who does not appreciate military NCOs probably has had limited contact with them....most of the ones I have had the privilege of knowing over the years have been dedicated patriots and consummate professionals who look to the well-being of their people before themselves.

Emphasis added.

That's the leadership example I think would present so much to CAP in general. It's the kind of thing that is just hard to teach, you have to see it. Considering some of the members of my wing, it's an example that's sorely needed.

CAP rank should be eliminated completely. It does not matter what your grade is. You all get paid the same. The command structure should be based on current position. " I am a Major General!  Really how much money do you make with that rank and what do you do outside of CAP? Uh, $0.00 and I work at Subway right now" rank - pointless and too easy (just a title). I was a 2nd Lt in CAP and went on an AFROTC training exercise. It was embarassing trying to explain to the cadets and cadre that I am NOT (in their eyes) a real 2nd Lt. JMHO

Quote from: 2bLT on August 02, 2007, 10:47:22 AM
CAP rank should be eliminated completely. It does not matter what your grade is. You all get paid the same.

Your logic does not make sense. If it did, then all IRR soldiers would not be allowed to have rank since they are not paid. Pay has nothing to do with rank structure. In the military, senior NCO's can make more than company grade officers--does that affect command? Of course not.

The solution I see to most of this is to mirror the military more, especially the Army. Use a warrant officer corps and allow all pilots and other speciliasts with no higher education to go into that field. Those with the education that mirrors the Army, or Air Force in the case of officers, will be commissioned. Also allow enlisted personnel for those with no other qualifications, just as with the AF/Army and have them advance up.

Quote from: 2bLT on August 02, 2007, 10:47:22 AM
CAP rank should be eliminated completely. It does not matter what your grade is. You all get paid the same. The command structure should be based on current position. " I am a Major General!  Really how much money do you make with that rank and what do you do outside of CAP? Uh, $0.00 and I work at Subway right now" rank - pointless and too easy (just a title). I was a 2nd Lt in CAP and went on an AFROTC training exercise. It was embarassing trying to explain to the cadets and cadre that I am NOT (in their eyes) a real 2nd Lt. JMHO

So ... how long have you been in CAP to be a "former" second lieutenant?  Why "former"?  Did you hand your rank back in? 

Jack

gallagheria - to me, the option I chose for rank structure makes sense (similar to the USCG Aux). Not sure what IRR soldiers are but I am sure that has nothing to do with CAP. CAP is not military. I see no reason to have officers vs NCO's as it serves no purpose that I am aware of. CAP are CIVILIANS. Again, this is just my personal opinion to which I am entitled. Nevermind a former National Commander who decided he wanted to be a Major General w/o Air Force approval and completely embarrassed the entire organization.

ColonelJack - I was in CAP off and on 3 years as a S/M with the rank of FO and then 2nd Lt at age 21. I was also a cadet for a year but chose to be more active in my AFJROTC unit in high school. Yes, I turned my rank back in. I resigned. This was in 1996 and I just recently started getting interested in the organization again. I was a Deputy Cmdr of Cadets, Mission Scanner and Mission Observer.

Quote from: gallagheria on August 02, 2007, 04:13:27 PM

Quote from: 2bLT on August 02, 2007, 10:47:22 AM
CAP rank should be eliminated completely. It does not matter what your grade is. You all get paid the same.

Your logic does not make sense. If it did, then all IRR soldiers would not be allowed to have rank since they are not paid. Pay has nothing to do with rank structure. In the military, senior NCO's can make more than company grade officers--does that affect command? Of course not.

I fully agree with your assessment. The IRR are non-paid standy-by military that are fulfilling their eight year civil obligation to military service. However, if activated, they receive full pay and benifits.

Let's look at the State Defense Forces: Probably a step below IRR although they can volunteer for state active duty for pay and even deploy if necessary.

Let's look at the CG AUX: They (I) wear rank devices but not for pay although there is some compensation for expenses for use of surface facilities (boats) and air facilities (aircraft). The CG AUX is a full partner in the USCG and DHS.

Let's look at Naval Sea Cadets: The officers wear rank devices, unaltered as in the CG AUX, and do not receive pay. The USNSCC officers actually have to earn their rank and no advanced appointment except for unit commander is authorized. This program is fully endorsed by the Department of the Navy.

Let's look at CAP: The officers wear rank devices as authorized by the Department of the Air Force and do not receive pay except for compensation for use of aircraft and some minor expenses.

2bLT: Why are you so adament about eliminating officer rank devices? Please expand upon your arguement.

Quote from: gallagheria on August 02, 2007, 04:13:27 PM
The solution I see to most of this is to mirror the military more, especially the Army. Use a warrant officer corps and allow all pilots and other speciliasts with no higher education to go into that field. Those with the education that mirrors the Army, or Air Force in the case of officers, will be commissioned. Also allow enlisted personnel for those with no other qualifications, just as with the AF/Army and have them advance up.

gallagheria: Well said.

/r
LT

One aspect I see is people are looking at CAP as a totally civilian organization with no ties to the military. OK CAP members are civilians, but the organization from the beginning has been semi military. Except for the first year when CAP operated under the Office of Civilian Defense, CAP has been under the jurisdiction of the Army Air Force and later USAF. CAP is not the Auxiliary of a civilian organization. It is the Auxiliary of the Air Force. Now you Navy or Army types may say the Air Force is not military <grin> the fact remains that CAP as the USAF Auxiliary is military. The cadets are totally military, seniors less so. Cadets earn gade and ribbons for completing achievements. which follows basic military training schools/courses. CAP has tasked non combat duties now and also in time of war. There is nothing to prevent CAP from being armed during time of a declared war. The role of CAP as authorized by Congress puts CAP under the military, not Homeland Security, the Red Cross or Boy Scouts.  Where is CAP National Hq? On a military base? With DHS in Washington? While CAP members may be civilian, they still drive vans and aircraft funded my the military. While many may wear the multitude of corporate uniforms, still the basic uniform is military. Cadets wear USAF funded uniforms. CAP is a blend of both the civilian world and military world, it's not 100% civilian or 100% military.

I think the big questions are: Does the current system work well? Can it be improved upon? What specific problems do we have? How can those improvements assist in solving these problems?

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on August 03, 2007, 01:16:13 PM
I think the big questions are: Does the current system work well? Can it be improved upon? What specific problems do we have? How can those improvements assist in solving these problems?

At least according to the poll the consensus seems to be that it generally works well, but could probably be toughened up. 

The reason I chose the USCG AUX style of command is the current culture does not work very well. Regarding the Army rank structure, most if not all Warrant Officers have some form of college education (and time as an enlisted soldier) as it is very competitive to get a flight slot. I am currently a Flight Dispatcher for San Antonio Airlife and most of the pilots who were prior military (Army Warrant Officers) have a college education. Back in the day, I cared alot about progressing through the CAP rank structure, but now I can really care less as I am more motivated toward ES. CAP has to have a rank structure just like any other paramilitary organization but I would prefer the admin title method especially since CAP is a corporation and seems to be getting further from the Air Force. The cadet program should keep the current rank structure.

Member
Personnel  Officer
Admin Officer
ES Officer
PA Officer
Comm Officer
Squadron XO
Squadron CO
Etc.

Uniform insignias will have to be changed/overhauled completely. No more rank epaulets similar to any branch of the military. A specific device for the qualified position can be worn in lieu of rank over the left/right breast pocket signifying the member's status within the squadron. For ES services, rank does not matter anyway - only mission qualifications. What is the motivation for rank in today's structure? Just to be called a Major, Lt Col, Col? Join the real military and have a real goal (money and career progression/seniority) for obtaining rank whether enlisted or officer. To me, CAP is not a career and it makes me laugh to hear that. You pay your dues diligently every year.

From Wikipedia:
A career is traditionally seen as a course of successive situations that make up a person's "worklife". A "career" in the 20th century referenced the series of jobs or positions by which one earned one's money.

Right now my career is some form of EMS and has been since I was 22 (now 32).

Quote from: 2bLT on August 04, 2007, 12:21:15 AM
...Join the real military...

which makes us...a fake military?  I thought the Brazilian Civil Air Patrol was the fake one...  ???

Quote from: 2bLT on August 04, 2007, 12:21:15 AM
I would prefer the admin title method especially since CAP is a corporation and seems to be getting further from the Air Force.

Gee, this is a good thing?  I don't know about the rest of us, but i am quite happy that we are under the AF, and I would be much happier if we were much closer to the AF than we are now.  Scraping the rank would only push us away from the AF, and if we lost AF support, particularly of the $$$ sort, you can kiss CAP goodbye, unless you could give the Corp $10 Million a year for operations.  Last I checked, we have Admin Titles.  I'm an Administration Officer.  at one time I was PD, TCO,and for a time, R&R/ATCO.  Would I keep all of those Titles, or just my current one?

Rank not only shows your PD Level, but it also shows- to a certain extent, your connections outside the unit.  For example, as a SMWOG, you probably know just some in your local squadron, by the time you get 2lt, you know the unit pretty well, as starting to know those from other local units.  For the 1Lt, the member knows more from other units, and starting at Group/Wing. . . . . .saving time. . . . . By the time you hit Lt. Col. You know those at Region and some at National.  By the time you get to Col, you know quite a few people all around.  No this isn't hard and set- it all depends on how the person is socially.  If a person is reserved, that member knows fewer people than a socially engaged member; thus the more engaged member may know as many, if not more, than a reserved people at a higher Grade.

JC004  - You are taking my words out of context. You (the CAP) are NOT the military and never will be. Right now your status is US Air Force Aux (OFF) unless you are currently on an Air Force assigned mission. I never made the current rules or situation. Truth be told, CAP is getting further way from the Air Force regardless of reasons. I do not like the fact that it is but it is.

RogueLeader - Again, this is just my opinion. So take it with a grain of salt if you will. The Professional Development falls into the same category as CAP as a career. Now in regard to command/admin title, you would be qualified in those positions (but you would wear your current title). Yes, I know CAP currently has Admin as a title  ::) I don't think the Air Force/CAP came up with the current rank structure to help facilitate social skills in the squadron/group/wing/region/national.
The Air Force might be happy if we chose to eliminate our rank structure w/their approval. I know they weren't happy when one of the former National Cmdr's promoted himself to Major General and the Air Force punished CAP with the maroon epaulets. Were you in CAP at that time? They were horrible and most people in CAP I knew wore BDU's/Flightsuits most of the time to prevent wearing those. Eliminating the current rank structure would also eliminate political promotions as well.

Quote from: 2bLT on August 04, 2007, 02:25:05 AM
Eliminating the current rank structure would also eliminate political promotions as well.

Don't think so...it ain't entirely about the titles, uniforms, and costume jewelry....some, in fact probably most of the intrigue and politicking are about POWER!!!

This may seem pathetic (sure does to me!) but I honestly believe it's the case....so whether you called someone "District Supervisor" or "Group Commander" will make no difference whatsoever as to how much some people are willing to do to get the job.

I should know....I am a former group CC, and still have the sharp implements sticking out of my shoulder blades where my 'successor' stuck them!

Now, if folks will do that to oversee a handful of squadrons, just think what they'll do to get a corporate officer position....preferably a national one.

Quote from: 2bLT on August 04, 2007, 02:25:05 AM
Air Force punished CAP with the maroon epaulets. Were you in CAP at that time? They were horrible and most people in CAP I knew wore BDU's/Flightsuits most of the time to prevent wearing those.

Actually, the maroon epaulets were a requested item.  Along with it was a request for a Maroon Beret.  The Beret was shot down, but the berry boards were approved.  This was told me by a member close to the project.  I know that many will refuse to believe my source- who WILL remain anonymous, but there it is.

Quote from: RogueLeader on August 04, 2007, 04:48:44 AM

Quote from: 2bLT on August 04, 2007, 02:25:05 AM
Air Force punished CAP with the maroon epaulets. Were you in CAP at that time? They were horrible and most people in CAP I knew wore BDU's/Flightsuits most of the time to prevent wearing those.

Actually, the maroon epaulets were a requested item.  Along with it was a request for a Maroon Beret.  The Beret was shot down, but the berry boards were approved.  This was told me by a member close to the project.  I know that many will refuse to believe my source- who WILL remain anonymous, but there it is.

Accepting the accuracy of this report, this has got to rank right alongside the NASCAR fiasco as one of the silliest things CAP leadership has ever done!

ZigZag911 - I agree with you regarding POWER.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 04, 2007, 04:56:32 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on August 04, 2007, 04:48:44 AM

Quote from: 2bLT on August 04, 2007, 02:25:05 AM
Air Force punished CAP with the maroon epaulets. Were you in CAP at that time? They were horrible and most people in CAP I knew wore BDU's/Flightsuits most of the time to prevent wearing those.

Actually, the maroon epaulets were a requested item.  Along with it was a request for a Maroon Beret.  The Beret was shot down, but the berry boards were approved.  This was told me by a member close to the project.  I know that many will refuse to believe my source- who WILL remain anonymous, but there it is.

Accepting the accuracy of this report, this has got to rank right alongside the NASCAR fiasco as one of the silliest things CAP leadership has ever done!

Not sure of what the NASCAR fiasco is about, but I do agree that without the beret, the epaulets don't look good- thus silly

Obviously, then, you are a wise person!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 04, 2007, 05:05:39 AM
Obviously, then, you are a wise person!

Not sure about wise, but I do try to reasonable. . . ;)

Quote from: 2bLT on August 04, 2007, 02:25:05 AM
JC004  - You are taking my words out of context. You (the CAP) are NOT the military and never will be. Right now your status is US Air Force Aux (OFF) unless you are currently on an Air Force assigned mission. I never made the current rules or situation. Truth be told, CAP is getting further way from the Air Force regardless of reasons. I do not like the fact that it is but it is.

I wasn't aware that CAP was attempted to be the military.  I didn't join the Air Force - I joined Civil Air Patrol.  Call me crazy, but I hate the term "Real Military" as it's used by some folks in CAP.  You see, I think that CAP members should view themselves as civilians volunteering their time, energy, and large buckets of cash to aid the US Air Force in its domestic responsibilities.

I don't think there's a real and fake military - I think it should be one team.  Air Force folks will treat CAP members based on how they act.  If they behave like civilians doing a job for the Air Force (or other federal agency, still being in Auxiliary status) rather than pretending like there are real and fake Captains or Majors, they are going to be treated as professionals.  If they act like they are playing dress-up, they are going to be treated that way.  I largely support doing away with the current promotion structure because it's about attitudes and attitudes matter. 

JC004 - touché

2bLT; JC004,

Why join CAP then?

Why join an organization and try to change it's culture so radically rather than change youself to fit into the culture?

If your not happy with wearing the CAP bling, then go polo or join another organization: Red Cross for example. Visit www.usafreedomcorps.gov for other fine examples that might suit your needs.

Be well..
LT

Quote from: sandman on August 04, 2007, 12:52:02 PM
2bLT; JC004,

Why join CAP then?

Why join an organization and try to change it's culture so radically rather than change youself to fit into the culture?

If your not happy with wearing the CAP bling, then go polo or join another organization: Red Cross for example. Visit www.usafreedomcorps.gov for other fine examples that might suit your needs.

Be well..
LT

I don't care about the means, just the end result.  I have mixed feelings about the rank structure.  The uniforms are fine by me, although I would like to see less of them.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary has the uniforms and does without the titles just fine.  By whatever means we can create a better working relationship with the Air Force and better accomplish our Congressionally-assigned missions, we should do that.  Success in any organization depends on culture, attitudes, and the like.  This is why it is important to constantly examine our methods.

JC, with all respect for your right to your opinions, you do seem uncomfortable with CAP as it actually exists.

Many of us who remember when we were fulltime "AUX ON" want that status restored.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 04, 2007, 07:27:12 PM
JC, with all respect for your right to your opinions, you do seem uncomfortable with CAP as it actually exists.

Many of us who remember when we were fulltime "AUX ON" want that status restored.

I am not happy with things like spending 3/4 of the National Board meeting discussing uniforms or term extensions that have already failed a vote.  Why should I be comfortable with that? To be clear, I want CAP to be the Air Force Auxiliary.  I want CAP to develop a closer relationship with the Air Force and stop pissing on them.  If that means maybe altering the uniform, rank structure, corporate missions, and other fun stuff like that, then that's fine by me.

Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2007, 07:20:05 PM
I don't care about the means, just the end result.  I have mixed feelings about the rank structure.  The uniforms are fine by me, although I would like to see less of them.

I see your point and I agree with having less uniforms. In fact I believe that the weight/height restrictions should be done away with. My opinion is that all members should wear the AF uniform just as CG AUX does (I've seen some horizontally big people in the uniform!). Fuzzies should wear the AF uniform too just as in CG AUX. We're not active duty as many point out, but we should be able to wear the same uniform to identify with our parent organization. The active duty AF maintain height/weight appearances for a good reason....combat readiness. Besides, a rotund fuzzy in an AF uniform would never be mistaken for an active duty member; you wouldn't need glaring shoulder marks, double breasted suits, or altered bling to show that you're not actually in the AF ;)

Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2007, 07:20:05 PM
The Coast Guard Auxiliary has the uniforms and does without the titles just fine.  By whatever means we can create a better working relationship with the Air Force and better accomplish our Congressionally-assigned missions, we should do that.  Success in any organization depends on culture, attitudes, and the like.  This is why it is important to constantly examine our methods.

The CG AUX works well in it's own sphere of adult members. The difference is that we have a cadet program we're charged with overseeing. The cadet program is by intention to mimic a military culture and rank titles for officers are an important part of the culture.

Lose the cadet program and I have no problem with CG AUX style positional identifiers.

On the other side of the coin, if the CG AUX would get off it's butt and incorporate a maritime cadet program (I'm starting a white paper on that), then for me it's "see ya later CAP" without any exceptions. Let's see....hmmm...USCG Maritime Cadets....USCGMC....AF blue shirts, AF blue pants, ODU's, Water and air search activities, ground search activities, water safety for cadets, maritime domain awareness......lot's of stuff for cadets to do.....starting with a clean slate....rank structure from E-1 to E-9 only.....glaring orange safety vests with SOLAS tape.....excellent adult program already in place.....wow, I don't know.... ;D

/r
LT

Quote from: sandman on August 04, 2007, 11:02:22 PM
...
The CG AUX works well in it's own sphere of adult members. The difference is that we have a cadet program we're charged with overseeing. The cadet program is by intention to mimic a military culture and rank titles for officers are an important part of the culture.
...

One good reason why my feelings are mixed about changing the structure.  Whatever we change in rank, uniforms, etc. is going to have pros and cons.  A very basic example would be temporarily driving up costs by phasing out some uniforms.  Hopefully soon the National Board as a whole stops  focusing so heavily on the petty (albeit, easy to handle) stuff.  Addressing the promotion system would be one smart thing, since how we promote directly impacts the training in which members participate.

sandman - I am not trying to change anything. I was just expressing my opinion (idea) that could possibly make things better. FYI, I am currently not in CAP. I was thinking about joining again but I am still on the fence right now.

2bLT: Absolutely; we're exchanging ideas and opinions. In fact I thnk you have a good point in doing away with rank structure in CAP. My counterpoint depends solely upon keeping the cadet program or jettisoning it.

It is my opinion that the CG AUX and CAP need to do a role reversal. With CAP structured as an adult program only, it would be able to augment the AF in a better way than we do currently. Considering that the AF is the military, geared to blow up things and kill people, having cadets in the mix does not hold well with many liberal parents.

However, in my fantasy world, the CG AUX has more to offer in a cadet program than one can hope for. Think about it; the missions that the USCG is charged with......water and boating safety for adults and especially for kids......environmental awareness and enforcement....maritime domain awareness....communications....
With the USCG extended out in its new Homeland Security mission, how well can it keep up with it's domestic safety and environmental programs? Why do you think the CG AUX is now more than ever relied upon for some of these missions?

Understand, the CAP is a great program and can use many improvements. But if you're on the fence about CAP then I suggest looking into some other programs for comparison. If it's CAP that wins out on your list, then jump in fully with the program already as it is! Make your way up to a national position, then attempt to implement some of your suggestions.....best of luck!

On the other hand; here's an opportunity for a shameless plug for the CG AUX: There's some great programs you can get into including going underway on a CG vessel on a real mission. Container inspectors are needed, commercial vessel inspectors are needed, communicators are needed....

How about your local firefighter, police, or sheriff's reserve (the explorer cadets need leadership)? What about a local state defense force unit?

Quote from: sandman on August 05, 2007, 12:20:20 AM
...
It is my opinion that the CG AUX and CAP need to do a role reversal. With CAP structured as an adult program only, it would be able to augment the AF in a better way than we do currently. Considering that the AF is the military, geared to blow up things and kill people, having cadets in the mix does not hold well with many liberal parents.
...

How would we best meet our inland SAR missions without the cadets?  We would need some serious recruitment to cover all that they do.

It is my opinion that inland SAR missions can be handled by the prolific numbers of volunteer programs that already exist; the adult only CAP program would do air searches (which still compete with other air search volunteers). Example for ground team usage: SDF's. Why not? They have equipment and training to do the job better than we can while hearding a bunch of cadets around, many of minor age.

Sheriff/police reserves and explorers: they have the equipment and training and the cadets don't wear camoflague uniforms.

CAP= Civil Air Patrol. Regardless of history, we really don't need ground teams in this day and age. Ground teams are best suited for programs that focus on "ground pounding" such as the US Army (i.e. State Defense Force) DF experience can be obtained through the other programs including my newly created "USCG Maritime Cadets" I'll concede that the AF has a pararescue program that is essentially "ground pounding" to search for downed aviators. But what is the focus of the cadet program in CAP? Isn't it essentially a JROTC type program with emphasis on aerospace education and producing youth interested in science and aerospace power? How much emphasis should we place on DF'ing and ground pounding vice airpower?

Quote from: sandman on August 05, 2007, 12:49:07 AM
It is my opinion that inland SAR missions can be handled by the prolific numbers of volunteer programs that already exist; the adult only CAP program would do air searches (which still compete with other air search volunteers). Example for ground team usage: SDF's. Why not? They have equipment and training to do the job better than we can while hearding a bunch of cadets around, many of minor age.

Sheriff/police reserves and explorers: they have the equipment and training and the cadets don't wear camoflague uniforms.

CAP= Civil Air Patrol. Regardless of history, we really don't need ground teams in this day and age. Ground teams are best suited for programs that focus on "ground pounding" such as the US Army (i.e. State Defense Force) DF experience can be obtained through the other programs including my newly created "USCG Maritime Cadets" I'll concede that the AF has a pararescue program that is essentially "ground pounding" to search for downed aviators. But what is the focus of the cadet program in CAP? Isn't it essentially a JROTC type program with emphasis on aerospace education and producing youth interested in science and aerospace power? How much emphasis should we place on DF'ing and ground pounding vice airpower?

SDF's are only active in 23 states. And only effective in a few of those. CO is one that does not have an SDF.

I don't think the AF will let CAP give up the cadet program. CAP is the only air cadet program in the US not based in schools. There are other non-school based cadet programs for the other services and I don't think the AF will want to lose the potential for recruiting. (Yes, I'm aware that only a small percentage of CAP cadets join the AF, but it is still something the AF likes.)

The emphasis we place on ground pounding comes from our Emergency Services mission - which no other military cadet program has. It is the best place we can use cadets in that mission. Besides, have you considered what it would take to create a youth program from scratch? Even stealing borrowing materials from other programs, a serious amount of work would be required.

Aren't all military cadet programs - for the age group our cadets fall into - basically JROTC units with an emphasis in whatever service they are emulating? So why not suggest shutting down the other non-JROTC military cadet programs as well? Those orgs do not have a Congressional mandate to have a youth program as CAP does.

Oops. Forgot about that. Shutting down the CAP cadet program would take an act of Congress to modify the law that established CAP. There's a monkey wrench to throw into the mix.

arajca: All true. My arguements were all academic of course. My point was, in keeping with the thought of this thread, that although the CAP rank structure certainly needs to be tweeked, it shouldn't be tossed out. The use of the military rank terminology in the adult program needs to stay intact even if only for the cadet program.

From what I understand the CG has never shown any interest in having any sort of youth program except for maybe 1 or 2 JROTC programs.  They aren't having any trouble meeting recruiting goals so having a youth program to feed the service isn't necessary and would add more problems than its worth. 

There is no other national program that can do even the limited amount of ground SAR stuff that we do and there aren't any state or county-level programs that could come close. 

I like the SDF concept but as pointed out only a few of them are "operational" in any sense of the word, even in those states that have them.  Could they pick up the slack?  Maybe.  But why would the state want to spend their money to send SDFs out on these missions when the AF is willing to pay for CAP to do it. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 01:25:28 AM
From what I understand the CG has never shown any interest in having any sort of youth program except for maybe 1 or 2 JROTC programs.  They aren't having any trouble meeting recruiting goals so having a youth program to feed the service isn't necessary and would add more problems than its worth.

Agreed. Anyway, trying to get the ol' duffers in the CG AUX to change the bylaws to even support an experimental program would be impossible.....just as the CAP flying club types, the CG AUX'ers rather not have any added complications to their "yacht club"

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 01:25:28 AM
There is no other national program that can do even the limited amount of ground SAR stuff that we do and there aren't any state or county-level programs that could come close. 

No need for a national program. FEMA can be the national oversight for the local programs; after all, many programs look highly upon those who have completed FEMA courses, right? Local volunteers can do the job. Although I would welcome a look at the statistics regarding actual CAP participation vs. local-national (red cross, sheriff, mounted posse, etc.) if the stats existed.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 01:25:28 AM
I like the SDF concept but as pointed out only a few of them are "operational" in any sense of the word, even in those states that have them.  Could they pick up the slack?  Maybe.  But why would the state want to spend their money to send SDFs out on these missions when the AF is willing to pay for CAP to do it. 

Could they pick up the slack? Possibly. SDF's in a volunteer status could be effective. The volunteer would not be on state active duty orders so paying volunteers need not be an issue (but could be an incentive, something that CAP does not have). Use of equipment is an issue. FEMA could supply money for equipment use, that could ease the budget for the AF in comparison.

As for lack of SDF's; why is there a lack? With a FEMA initiative for a national volunteer SAR program using SDF's as the spearhead, I would think many governers would be inticed to start a SDF program in their state, especially if FEMA "recommends" it. ;D

Anyway, keep the CAP rank structure. Use a appointment and promotion system that closely mirrors the active duty, and start an enlisted program with promotion capability to E-9 for those without qualifying degrees, but have qualified hearts. That's what I say....

QuoteAnyway, trying to get the ol' duffers in the CG AUX to change the bylaws to even support an experimental program would be impossible.....just as the CAP flying club types, the CG AUX'ers rather not have any added complications to their "yacht club"

Who said anything about the Aux not wanting the program...you're forgetting that this decision would entirely be in the hands of the Coast Guard itself.  Granted, I doubt many CG Auxies would be interested either, but the CG is your target audience not the Aux. 
The Aux is already trying to absorb all sorts of other new missions while trying to recover from a significant membership loss.  Why would the CG want to strain them even more by trying to start a youth program that they don't really need?

The CG Aux is supposed to be focusing on recreational boating safety and I think we do more good by spending our time giving presentations, demos, etc. to hundreds of kids rather than focusing a large amount of time on a handful who might join a youth program. 

QuoteNo need for a national program. FEMA can be the national oversight for the local programs; after all, many programs look highly upon those who have completed FEMA courses, right? Local volunteers can do the job. Although I would welcome a look at the statistics regarding actual CAP participation vs. local-national (red cross, sheriff, mounted posse, etc.) if the stats existed.

We already know the statistics about the missions you're talking about turning over to locals...the AFRCC assigns something like 85-95% (depending on what source you're looking at) of the missions they get to CAP.   

QuoteAs for lack of SDF's; why is there a lack? With a FEMA initiative for a national volunteer SAR program using SDF's as the spearhead, I would think many governers would be inticed to start a SDF program in their state, especially if FEMA "recommends" it.

You're living in a dreamworld.  FEMA barely knows about SDFs.  Why would you ask 20+ separate state organizations, many of whom rarely do actual missions whose total membership is something like 15000 to try to do what an already existing nationwide program does?  Why would FEMA want to start funding SDFs to do CAP's work when the AF is already paying CAP to do it?  What is the advantage to FEMA?  You're dramatically underestimating how efficient it is to the feds to just go to CAP rather than trying to maintain relationships wtih dozens of SDFs.  Don't you realize that about 2/3 of states actual give money to CAP while only half have SDFs at all, and many of those that do give more money to their CAP Wing than they do their SDF. 

Go spend some time on the SDF board at VAJoe and see what the real situation is regarding SDFs.  Don't get me wrong, I would be an SDF member if we had one where I live, but as sickly as our ground program is, it is much better than any SDFs that I'm aware of. 

It was my impression that the Coast Guard had never expressed any interest in sponsoring a cadet program.

How about all the folks who have nothing to do but complain about the deficiencies of CAP get in the boats and drift over to the CGAUX. Im sure they would be glad to have you. All uniform issues squared away, etc. But then what would you have to whine about?  In the squadron Im a part of, the door swings both ways and you are welcome to avail yourself of that nifty bit of technology at any time.. Maybe if we spent as much time saying whats write with CAP or actually offering viable solutions for fixing what doesnt work, we would all be better off.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 03:40:23 AM
Who said anything about the Aux not wanting the program...you're forgetting that this decision would entirely be in the hands of the Coast Guard itself.  Granted, I doubt many CG Auxies would be interested either, but the CG is your target audience not the Aux.

True enough.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 03:40:23 AM
The Aux is already trying to absorb all sorts of other new missions while trying to recover from a significant membership loss.  Why would the CG want to strain them even more by trying to start a youth program that they don't really need?

I agree. But a youth program might get new members interested in mentoring youth.....maybe.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 03:40:23 AM
The CG Aux is supposed to be focusing on recreational boating safety and I think we do more good by spending our time giving presentations, demos, etc. to hundreds of kids rather than focusing a large amount of time on a handful who might join a youth program.

Sure. But teach the kids directly through a youth program and you have kids becoming leaders to their peers regarding safety issues. In other words, instead of just teaching the kids once and hope it sticks, the kids have "ownership" of the safety knowledge and are more willing to pass it on to other kids they see doing unsafe acts at the shoreline.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 03:40:23 AM
We already know the statistics about the missions you're talking about turning over to locals...the AFRCC assigns something like 85-95% (depending on what source you're looking at) of the missions they get to CAP.

I agree. Here's how the AF looks at CAP:

Quote from: AFRCC website
  Civil Air Patrol

The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a congressional chartered, nonprofit organization of volunteers devoted to the development of aviation through education, cadet youth programs, and emergency services. As the official auxiliary of the Air Force, CAP willingly and effectively conducts approximately three-fourths of all aerial search activity in the inland area.

The Civil Air Patrol provides SAR mission coordinators, search aircraft, ground teams, personnel on alert status, and an extensive communications network. When these resources are engaged in a SAR mission they are reimbursed by the Air Force for communications expenses, fuel and oil, and a share of aircraft maintenance expenses. In addition, CAP members are covered by the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) in the event of injury while participating in a SAR mission.

The AFRCC maintains an alert roster provided by the CAP wings in each of the states and the AFRCC is the central point of contact for CAP participation in SAR missions. The AFRCC also works closely with CAP national headquarters and directly provides inputs for CAP training in emergency services. The Civil Air Patrol is the AFRCC's prime air and ground resource in the inland area, especially for extended searches.

Without Civil Air Patrol's highly dedicated personnel, the United States Air Force would find it very difficult to fulfill it's mission responsibilities in the 48 Continental United States.

Civil Air Patrol is our 1st resource!

(dons flame retardant suit for next segment)

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 03:40:23 AM
You're living in a dreamworld.  FEMA barely knows about SDFs.  Why would you ask 20+ separate state organizations, many of whom rarely do actual missions whose total membership is something like 15000 to try to do what an already existing nationwide program does?  Why would FEMA want to start funding SDFs to do CAP's work when the AF is already paying CAP to do it?  What is the advantage to FEMA?  You're dramatically underestimating how efficient it is to the feds to just go to CAP rather than trying to maintain relationships wtih dozens of SDFs.  Don't you realize that about 2/3 of states actual give money to CAP while only half have SDFs at all, and many of those that do give more money to their CAP Wing than they do their SDF.

I already stated it was for an academic exercise, my fantasy version of reality; dreaming of a perfect world.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2007, 03:40:23 AM
Go spend some time on the SDF board at VAJoe and see what the real situation is regarding SDFs.  Don't get me wrong, I would be an SDF member if we had one where I live, but as sickly as our ground program is, it is much better than any SDFs that I'm aware of.

The idea was to swap administrative modalities in order to facilitate another dreamers perception of how things should be...CAP without a military rank structure. CAP is not perfect in any way, but keeping the military rank structure is a culture that I wouldn't agree to part with.

(doffs flame retardant suit)

/r
LT

Quote from: sandman on August 05, 2007, 11:21:38 AM

The idea was to swap administrative modalities in order to facilitate another dreamers perception of how things should be...CAP without a military rank structure. CAP is not perfect in any way, but keeping the military rank structure is a culture that I wouldn't agree to part with.

How does the current "military rank structure" help CAP, considering we don't use it the way the military uses it - as a way of determining authority and responsibility?

It would seem to me that having 1st Lt's in charge of sqdn's and giving direction to Lt Col Communication Officers would be confusing to both outsiders and Cadets.  The Code of Conduct says "if I am senior, I will take command," CAP says, "if I am in command, only then will I take command."

Also, if functions can be currently done by either an O or NCO, are we depicting the military structure correctly?

Some will say, "we're CAP, we're different" - that's true enough.  But should we use someone else's symbols and bend them to our will?  Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

CAP does not.

Can someone explain how important is this "rank culture" to CAP, considering we don't use it?

Quote from: ddelaney103 on August 05, 2007, 05:59:48 PM
  The Code of Conduct says "if I am senior, I will take command," CAP says, "if I am in command, only then will I take command."

Now I need an explanation, doesn't the Code of Conduct speak here of a POW situation?

CAP is a lot of things, not all pleasant, but it certainly isn't an enemy prison camp.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on August 05, 2007, 05:59:48 PM
How does the current "military rank structure" help CAP, considering we don't use it the way the military uses it - as a way of determining authority and responsibility?

It would seem to me that having 1st Lt's in charge of sqdn's and giving direction to Lt Col Communication Officers would be confusing to both outsiders and Cadets.  The Code of Conduct says "if I am senior, I will take command," CAP says, "if I am in command, only then will I take command."

Also, if functions can be currently done by either an O or NCO, are we depicting the military structure correctly?

Some will say, "we're CAP, we're different" - that's true enough.  But should we use someone else's symbols and bend them to our will?  Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

CAP does not.

Can someone explain how important is this "rank culture" to CAP, considering we don't use it?

Maybe the rank structure is not that important after all. Maybe those who have accepted promotions to an advanced grade are just lazy or too tired to take command. Maybe the senior rank structure takes the term "Army of One" and transliterates the meaning to CAP in a more literal term. Maybe there are many explanations and none at the same time.

Why worry about it? Can you fix it? How? Maybe you're right; do away with the rank insignia altogether and everyone just wear a plain blue suit / BBDU with only CAP cutouts on the collar (including the national commander and BOG). All one would need is a card stating their position and qualification. Although I'd bet you would want to keep your flight wings now wouldn't you? ;)

Fortunately, no one here can effectively change the current system, but it's been an interesting academic discussion.....

Quote from: ddelaney103 on August 05, 2007, 05:59:48 PM
Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

...Had a moment to think about this comment. For the most part it holds true....however, I am in charge of a couple of O-4's and have had O-4's/O-5's "report" to me because I was the mission OIC. It happens more often than you might think. ;D

If I may connect the dots....

Do we have a consensus that either rank is meaningless, an should be done away with or that if used, should be more directly linked to position and responsibility?

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on August 06, 2007, 12:15:21 PM
If I may connect the dots....

Do we have a consensus that either rank is meaningless, an should be done away with or that if used, should be more directly linked to position and responsibility?

No, not at all....read the results of the poll.  Those two options were rejected by about 90% of respondents (less than 10% supported them).   

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on August 06, 2007, 12:15:21 PM
If I may connect the dots....

Do we have a consensus that either rank is meaningless, an should be done away with or that if used, should be more directly linked to position and responsibility?

Oh, heck no - most respondents love their bling.  They're officers, dang gone it, and don't want it taken away.

Most that want change want to "raise standards:" usually read as "making sure other people can't get or keep rank."  I don't think I've ever seen anyone post, "let's raise standards so I won't be a Lt Col anymore."

(Well, really, I did: I have said before I'd be happy to turn in the oak leaves for FO/WO-4 until such time as I return to a field grade staff position, but I'm part of the "let's redo the whole system" crowd.)

Quote from: sandman on August 06, 2007, 09:47:31 AM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on August 05, 2007, 05:59:48 PM
Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

...Had a moment to think about this comment. For the most part it holds true....however, I am in charge of a couple of O-4's and have had O-4's/O-5's "report" to me because I was the mission OIC. It happens more often than you might think. ;D

Oh, sure, it does happen - especially in operational situations.  But it's not the rule and you're in charge because someone with higher authority put you in charge.  Absent other considerations, the highest ranking person has the ball.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 06, 2007, 06:03:27 AM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on August 05, 2007, 05:59:48 PM
  The Code of Conduct says "if I am senior, I will take command," CAP says, "if I am in command, only then will I take command."

Now I need an explanation, doesn't the Code of Conduct speak here of a POW situation?

CAP is a lot of things, not all pleasant, but it certainly isn't an enemy prison camp.

That was just to illustrate the point.  I could have used the example of the troops getting rowdy on an aircraft and a Chaplain not associated with them told them to settle down.  In a CAP situation, you have to hope their Wing King is riding the same aircraft because you can't just tell them, "settle down Captain, I'm a Major" and expect anything other than laughter.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on August 06, 2007, 01:10:16 PM
That was just to illustrate the point.  I could have used the example of the troops getting rowdy on an aircraft and a Chaplain not associated with them told them to settle down.  In a CAP situation, you have to hope their Wing King is riding the same aircraft because you can't just tell them, "settle down Captain, I'm a Major" and expect anything other than laughter.

That's a sad but true picture of how things would go. Unfortunately, most commanders and officers within CAP do not know (or rather, do not want to know) how to use the regulations already in place.

The captain in your example should be met with a stern warning about insubordination, conduct unbecoming, or insanity (perhaps charged with all). Your major in said example should make every effort to file a complaint with the commander of said captain. The commander of that captain should immediatly follow through with an investigation and submit a 2b to terminate the captain (depending on the severity of the misconduct).

The tools are already there to use but you're afraid to use them to maintain good order and dicipline. Sure the captain may appeal and keep his/her job, but the effect would be outstanding. Of course, if the captain's unit commander is impotent in dealing with even minor actions of misconduct or insubordination, then you bring it up the chain of command.

Don't be afraid to use the rules and regulations that are already there. If you're a commander of a unit or higher, then do your job, even if it means letting a few bad apples go. You don't want to spoil all the apples with one rotton one.

Believe me, I would rather have one or two good officers in my unit than a bunch of insubordinate curmudgeons.

...and I will 2b a member for insubordination....very quickly.

With no real consensus, what do we know at this point. The pole would suggest that the status quo is the way to go but, if the choices were to remain the same or change, it looks like the current system would not have a majority vote.

I think the organization, its goals, and its expectations need to be restated or clarified to better determine our future.

Some believe we are a civilian organization and wish to be civilians. Others believe we are a quasi-military entity and should act as such.

Who are we?

As a side note, I was active then reserve Army at the time when at first, guard / reservists were considered substandard and not worthy. They then, and now, are considered consumate professionals and respected for their sacrifice. Are we what the guard used to be and can we ever come to the point where we are respected as an organization for our sacrifices for our country?

It would be interesting to compare attitudes among Cadets to "rank structure" and that of Senior Members/Officers. 

Also note expectations of Senior Members/Officers to how cadets treat the adult rank structure.  Don't think cadets view it as recognizing only professional development.

Quote from: Sgt. Savage on August 06, 2007, 04:19:17 PM
Some believe we are a civilian organization and wish to be civilians. Others believe we are a quasi-military entity and should act as such.

Who are we?

As a side note, I was active then reserve Army at the time when at first, guard / reservists were considered substandard and not worthy. They then, and now, are considered consumate professionals and respected for their sacrifice. Are we what the guard used to be and can we ever come to the point where we are respected as an organization for our sacrifices for our country?

I'm really not sure how "quasi" would apply. By the MW definition, we are certainly a "paramilitary" organization.

Unfortunately, there are a number of people the want to be "paramilitary" if they outrank someone, but want to be civilians when they are outranked. I've seen it happen far to many times.

The rank structure was described on this board one time as position has the authority, outside of the unit, rank should be followed. As a caveat, if you order someone outside you unit, it had be what most rational people would consider "lawful". I mean that in the manner of it being a legimate order. You don't order someone to go scrub toilets with a toothbrush because you can.

Was there a time (aside from maybe WWII) when rank wasn't tied in with PD as much as it is now? A time when it actually meant more in regards to authority and position, within CAP then it does now...  ??

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on August 07, 2007, 06:18:04 AM
Was there a time (aside from maybe WWII) when rank wasn't tied in with PD as much as it is now? A time when it actually meant more in regards to authority and position, within CAP then it does now...  ??

Not for a long time. Somewhere in another thread (or maybe this one, or on CS), there was discussion of the olde billet-based promotion system. That went away a long time ago, because it was impractical, based on the number of members available. Even then, there were instances of officers working for others junior to them.

In the grand scheme of things, it's really no big deal. If someone isn't willing to work for someone junior if the circumstances dictate, then I don't think they are a very good officer. If the mission is getting done, then nothing's broke.

Personally, I think I made 2Lt too fast. I also feel sorry for those 18 yr olds who join then have to wait 3 years to become 2Lt.

I would like to see the FO ranks expanded and have every new SM go through them.

SM to FO1 would require Level 1
FO1 to FO2 would require time in grade, duty position, participation, and demonstrate knowledge of insignia, customs, & courtesies
FO2 to FO3 would require time in grade, time in duty position, participation, tech level in at least 1 specialty track
FO3 to 2Lt would require time in grade, time in duty position, participation - including assisting to teach at least 1 class, tech level in 2 or more specialty tracks, senior level in at least 1 specialty track

TIG could be set so that an 18-yo could not make 2Lt before their 21st birthday, but could be reduced for SM's over 21. I always felt awkward having a TO with 2+ years saluting me just because I'd reached my 6 mo point.

Based on my outline, I'd be a FO3 or 2Lt now rather than a 1Lt. Fine. I really don't feel I've earned 1Lt yet.

---

I don't know how to handle the rank for being a pilot, doctor, lawyer, or time in position for unit commanders.

One thing I really dislike about CAP rank is the way "Captains" think they can ignore standing orders. As a 1Lt, I was Project Officer for an event where our squadron did parking and crowd control. One standing order had to do with clearing the road for the AvFuel tanker truck. I saw the truck approaching and ordered the road cleared. A captain from another unit "pulled rank" on me and said the road didn't have to be cleared. I had to get the commander of my unit to "pull rank" back at him. I'm just glad she was there. Her usual duty position for that event was the other side of the event from me.

Perhaps we need to add a brevet rank structure for event commanders and rank given due to duty position.

Quote from: gistek on August 07, 2007, 03:20:08 PM
I also feel sorry for those 18 yr olds who join then have to wait 3 years to become 2Lt.

An 18 year old doesn't need to wait 3 years to become a 2d Lt.  If they complete their PD requirements, when they turn 21 they can be a 1st Lt.  A prior cadet can get to Capt on their 21st B-Day if they earned the Earhart...

18 YR OLD           21 YR OLD
SM                       SM
FO                       2d Lt
TFO                     1st Lt
SFO                     Capt

^ Senior Flight Officer comes after Technical Flight Officer

^ooops  ;D

Prior cadets who have achieved the Earhart Award can be promoted to 1st LT... Cadet who have achieved thier Eaker (or is it Spatz) can be promoted to Captain.   

Prior to turning 21 cadets who have earned those grades and are older then 18 can be promoted to he appropriate level of flight officer.

Ok here's the deal with the Flight Officers, and maybe a little clarification on my last post.

Cadets that earn their Mitchell and transfer their membership (under 21) can be advanced in grade to FO. If over 21, 2d Lt.

Cadets that earn their Earhart or Eaker and transfer their membership (under 21) can be advanced in grade to TFO. If over 21, 1st Lt.

Cadets that earn their Spaatz and transfer their membership (under 21) can be advanced in grade to SFO.  If over 21, Capt.

Now my point about the Earhart Cadet making Captain at 21 was because of the advanced promotion to TFO + 3 years TIG as TFO to get SFO, which transfers to Capt.

So if an 18 year old joins with no prior cadet experience or a former cadet who earned below the Earhart, the highest grade they will have upon their 21st birthday is 1st Lt, soley because of TIG restrictions.

Sorry about the re-direct...

And to finish it all off, with due diligence, the 18 yo non-cadet can become a Capt at 21 + 3 months.  :)

^I botched that... *stupid* *stupid* *stupid* :)

Suppose I should've checked the regs again before opening my BFM. (R 35-5, page 11 section b.)

Looks like they can get SFO in 21 months...

FO = 3 months TIG as SM
TFO = 6 months TIG as FO
SFO = 12 months TIG as TFO

so age 19 3/4 is when you can complete the FO grades...sorry guys :(

On another note, anyone ever read this?

Quote from: CAPR 35-3, Page 11, 33.a., 3)
3) Leadership qualities. Individuals recommended for promotion to flight officer grade must be occupying positions of supervision or leadership within the unit.

However, there is no such stipulation for officers, only...

Quote
5) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 08, 2007, 02:26:15 PM
^I botched that... *stupid* *stupid* *stupid* :)

Suppose I should've checked the regs again before opening my BFM. (R 35-5, page 11 section b.)

Looks like they can get SFO in 21 months...

FO = 3 months TIG as SM
TFO = 6 months TIG as FO
SFO = 12 months TIG as TFO

so age 19 3/4 is when you can complete the FO grades...sorry guys :(

On another note, anyone ever read this?

Quote from: CAPR 35-3, Page 11, 33.a., 3)
3) Leadership qualities. Individuals recommended for promotion to flight officer grade must be occupying positions of supervision or leadership within the unit.

However, there is no such stipulation for officers, only...

Quote
5) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.

I thought time in grade for Flight Officer Positions was the same as the Officer's Equivlent

Don't trust anything you read on the forums unless it's a direct ciatation... Usually provide by me.  >:D

Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on August 08, 2007, 02:34:38 PMI thought time in grade for Flight Officer Positions was the same as the Officer's Equivlent

Negative Ghostrider. RTFR.

You know, the fact that most members don't want to change the current system is no big surprise. 

It's also irrelevant.

Of COURSE the members want as many rewards as possible while doing as little as possible - that's just human nature.

In fact, if you gave a poll to all members of the Air Force and asked if promotions should only be tied to education and time in service, not responsibility, most airmen would vote yes.  Wouldn't YOU like Lt Col pay and priviledges while doing 2d Lt's work?  I know I would.   :-)

But the purpose of a grade system isn't to make members happy.  It's to make an organization run better.  And I'm not sure our current system is really helping CAP run better.

I know several Wing Commanders who can't fill critical staff billets.  The reasons for this seem to boil down to:

1.  These jobs are tough.

2.  Why should a do a tough job when I can do a fun job in a squadron and still get promoted?


I submit that a system that ties grade to responsibility might not make every member happy, but WOULD make the organization better by providing incentives to take the tough jobs and do well at them.

And every one of us would prefer a well run, professional Wing and Group HQ, full of the highly motiviated qualtiy people that supports the squadrons better than they are supported today.

Instead, today's system rewards individual study and tenure, rather than performance.  Not good if you want high performing leaders, staffers and units.  Imagine if a real military promoted and utilized its officers the way we do.

I've worked at Wing in some pretty high level jobs and, I think, have "earned" my grade.  But I'm not there anymore.  I'm back in a squadron.  If it were the law of the land, I'd have no problem giving back my oak leaves and pinning on silver bars.  Because that's the right grade for the job I have now.  If I felt the need for bragging rights, I'd just trot out the ribbon rack.  That's should be enough for any man.

In answer to the question"Do you think any kind of radical change stands a snowball's chance of happening."

And the answer is no, of course not.  Not today.

But things change. CAP's whole structure could change.  For example, the BOG may decide down the road to appoint various corporate officers, rather than allow the current "self licking ice cream cone" election system to continue.

Or USAF could decide they need us to do more, and start pressuring us to clean up our corporate act.

If someone in a position of power ever decided to take a long, hard look at CAP, I think he'd determine that our use of military grade could be used to make us a more effective organization.  And if that guy had enough power...things could change.

Until then, it's a pipe dream.  But that's no reason not to flesh out the concept. Because one day, someone may be in a position to make a change.  And perhaps, just perhaps, he may remember some stuff bandied around on these boards.....

We could use "brevet" rank (as was done quite a lot in the Civil War, as well as sometimes in other conflicts), only reverse it:

1) true brevet rank gives a higher grade to match responsibility of position --a captain serving as battalion commander would be brevetted to lt col, but the 'permanent grade' would be captain

2) in our system, when one served in a position 'below earned grade', the individual could be given temporary grade...so, for instance, a cadet squadron deputy commander would be a captain, even if that officer held earned grade as a colonel

3) for ceremonies, social events like banquets, national level activities like the Boards & NSC, permanent grade would be used

I think it's complicated & unnecessary...but it might meet a need that some see.