CAP Talk

Quote from: davedove on February 05, 2008, 07:49:31 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2008, 07:04:49 PM
And with all that has been said, and three active threads right now.  No one has written a single word anywhere that I have seen as to what NCO's would actually do in CAP that is different from officers, and how it would enhance and improve the program.

Exactly, right now the only difference between CAP Officers and CAP NCOs is the insignia they wear and who they have to salute.  Their duties are IDENTICAL.  Since the duties are identical, there is no need for a separate NCO Corps.

:clap:

I don't know if we need NCO's or not, but I kinda like the idea. I would like to see a system where our current NCO's can promote.

  What I do see a serious need for is that not everyone in CAP NEEDS to be an Officer. it makes us look foolish to other military members. I think we should have a real selection process and in-resident OCS program.

  I'm all for letting people serve in CAP, but not everyone NEEDS to be an Officer. Let them be Airmen, or maybe just have two additional classes of membership:

Civilian Instructors :  These are the guys who have no desire to be part of the CAP military model but yet still want to serve in CAP.  They wear the Polo Shirt with Khaki slacks. They can serve in any non command billet. (ES: IC is acceptable) These members are lead by the NCO's

Uniformed Instructors: These are the guys who want to be a part of the CAP military system but who have not qualified to be an Officer.  they wear the current CAP military uniforms and can not serve in any command billet. (ES: IC is acceptable) These members are lead by the NCO's

  Officer Canadates: These are the members who have met the educational and other selection criteria and who have been selected to be CAP Officers. They go thru a OCS program that's about a year long that includes two in-resident training encampments where they learn military drill and ceremony and officer leadership.

Officers: These are the members who have completed the OCS program or who where direct commissioned based on being a former or current Military Officer or thru a professional appointment system ie: Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses (R.N.) or P.A's

   Non Commissioned Officers: Use the current system we have in place but make provisions for them to be able to promote.


     Yes, this would be a radical change for CAP but a very good change,  it would take several years to become fully into place.  All current Officers freeze in their current place until they can meet the requirements for promotion on the new Officer promotion system. current SM w/o grade would fall into the uniformed or civilian instructor categories based on their preference.

  Such a system would actually increase recruitment and retention when put into place. CAP Officer grade would actually mean something and our Officers would actually have some credibility when dealing with military members and Officers.

Just an idea, one that I would love to see developed. the ACA does something similar and it seems to work great.

NCOs do more than care for the welfare of their subordinate enlisted folks (ie protect them from officers). They also maintain the standards of the force & mentor the officers appointed over them into competent leaders.

The CCM we had was charged with taking those key elements nation wide, and with a postion (slightly ceremonial & slightly real) meant to build up the NCO corps within CAP.

You can argue if you like that being a useful thing or not.


As to our having NCOs or not... I'm of the strong opinion that we don't all need to be officers. That's completely stupid on any number of levels.

A whole lot of CAP members don't meet the prereqs to be a mil officer, and of those that do, many could never make it (minus the physical element). That shouldn't be a suprise. It's only a very small portion of the population that can make it as a mil officer, and smaller still as they advance in grade. That is as it should be. Not everyone can or should be a leader or manager. Nothing would get done that way, which is pretty much CAP in a nutshell.

We do need officer, but they need to be actually competent & capable as officers on the same kind of high standards expected in the military. We want to walk into a multi-agency response situation, well you need to come with people capable of standing along side those professionals, not a bunch of poorly trained "volunteers" that have a big heart & little else going for them.

We need to bring members in enlisted & have a system by which most stay that way advancing thru an NCO system. Then we need prereqs for officers, with a tough selection process, and even tougher training that takes a good bit more than six months.

We've talked about all this many times in many older threads. Anybody that was around back then knows where I stand on the subject, and those that don't can take advantage of the search button for some good reading from several excellent contributors. All I want to say is I do think CAP is broke in many ways & in need of a major overhaul. Some people would like that & some would be out the door. I could care less. It's all an academic disucssion at this point, unless you feel like electing me president.

Quote from: DrJbdm on February 06, 2008, 12:16:27 AM
  Officer Canadates: These are the members who have met the educational and other selection criteria and who have been selected to be CAP Officers. They go thru a OCS program that's about a year long that includes two in-resident training encampments where they learn military drill and ceremony and officer leadership.

Haha.  Riiight.

If you required in-residence courses for CAP officers, you wouldn't have any in my unit.  You'd have to be either retired or independently wealthy.  Most people get 2-3 weeks of vacation time from their job, per year, or less.  To have them use it so they can help out their squadron by taking a command position is ludicrous.  You'd have squadrons where there are a handful of willing volunteers, but nobody with the time to jump through the hoops to become commander.  What then?  What would you do with squadrons that couldn't produce any officers under your system?  Shut down successful programs?

What would the residence courses teach that could not be accomplished during weekend in-residence courses, like CLC, SLS, TLC, and UCC?  Or that could not be accomplished by a series of weekend in-residence courses?  Or that could not be accomplished by evening courses on meeting nights?

You need to be realistic.  Unless of course, you've been hiding your knowledge of a source to pay us all and offer us benefits, to boot.

I still don't see a good answer to the question - Why does CAP need NCOs?

I spent all but one year of my time in the Navy as an NCO, so I think I have a little credibility in that area.

NCOs get the job done. They are the prime movers in the day-to-day functioning of the military. They provide most of the hands-on work in all but the least technical occupational areas. Much of the tasking assigned to CAP officers in CAPR 20-1 would be done by NCOs in the military, with officer oversight.

In order for the CAP structure to more closely mirror that of the military, there would have to be such a huge overhaul of the system that, IMHO, many current members would be alienated, and possibly leave.

But then again, why do we need to do such a restructuring? What end would it serve? What great improvement(s) would result?

I think improvements in current problem areas would do far more for CAP than reinventing the organization from the ground up. Let's put together a real training program, with trained instructors, instead of the current hodge-podge that exists today. Let's define some realistic standards, and then train to them, and enforce them.

But let's keep this inside a volunteer model, and not that of a paid, contracted military model that I don't see us ever fitting into. Using the structure and guiding principles, as related to the jobs we do, is great, but trying to be military,without all the bits and pieces, isn't going to work for us.

YMMV.

I'm still undecided as whether we need a NCO class of members, but I'll go with the concept.

There is a question that really bugs, and it comes down to the division of duties.  In smaller units, there are staff with numerous slots assigned.  Some that could fall on both sides of the O/NCO line.  At that point, you have a member that doesn't fit into either mold.  What do you do then?  Do you make those members Dual-Shirted, such as Lt Seng- LG overseer or SSG Seng Supply Sergent?

No...

For CAP NCO's to really work...they have to have specific duties....I.E. Drill and ceremonies instructions, cadet mentoring, and the such.  The should not also be holding down other staff jobs (at least on paper).  You have to establish a bright line between officer and NCO duties and stick to it.  There should not be a squadron of CAP NCO's out there.....there should be maybe 3-4 NCO's per squadron.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2008, 02:16:21 PM
There should not be a squadron of CAP NCO's out there.....there should be maybe 3-4 NCO's per squadron.

Why would there be so few?  Wouldn't that make most of the members still officers?  If we had 3-4 NCOs in my squadron we'd still have 30 officers and 4? NCOs?  Shouldn't it be the other way around? 

For example, you have:

1: Logistics Officer
    a) Supply NCO
    b) Transportation NCO
    c) Maintenance NCO

2: Deputy Commander for Cadets
    a) Activities NCO
    b) Leadership NCO
    c) Testing NCO

(just examples, not actual positions)

So in reality you'd have maybe 5 officers and 30 NCOs...?

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2008, 02:16:21 PM
No...

For CAP NCO's to really work...they have to have specific duties....I.E. Drill and ceremonies instructions, cadet mentoring, and the such.  The should not also be holding down other staff jobs (at least on paper).  You have to establish a bright line between officer and NCO duties and stick to it.  There should not be a squadron of CAP NCO's out there.....there should be maybe 3-4 NCO's per squadron.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Cadet programs is ideal for NCO work. While DCCs would remain officers. Leadership and activity slots are line operational, everyday grunt cadet programs work. It's the work done by NCOs in JROTC units. Officers are left to administer and oversee the program. I think many of our members would rather not be "administrators and overseers", so they would "enlist" as NCO's, but for that, we must allow all members to become NCO's. Not just prior/current service. However, members should start out as Airmen, not NCOs. NCO grade should be awarded with TIS (time in service), TIG (time in grade) and PD (professional development) completion. So say... someone having completed 6 months in service as Airman, would become A1C. Plus 1 year, Tech rating and SOS would get you SrA. Add to that 18 months in grade and ECI-13 would get you SSgt. That way NCO's have studied leadership to some degree and have some experience under their belt.

If we implement that, I think USAF ALS, NCOA, and SNCOA should become AFIADL courses that our "enlisted" corps could take via distance learning the same way as officer PME courses are offered to officers.

I also agree with logistics, medical (emts, techs, and paras), legal (paralegal), admin, personnel, ES, and AE being good fits for the job. Job titles would change to say... NCOIC/ES or something. Actually, NCOs could work all non-officer specific slots like unit commander/deputy commander/group officer/wing officer slots. They should also be able to perform in all slots as assistants.

If all that happens, a 1st Sgt may or may not be needed, but I think that decision could fall to the unit CC.

Okay, this is going to seem like drift, but it's not, just follow me for a minute.

PART I (ReOrg)
One big problem with the way CAP is organized is that we're calling everything a Sq, and expecting them to deal with the staff load & reporting reqs of a real mil Sq. In reality, virtually all units are more like a Flight in both size & scope.

I think it'd be tremendously better to reorg with most local units as flights. They could each be more specialized in dif aspects of ES, CP, etc. And, then 3-4 of these flts grouped together as a Sq, which shares resources & staff to cross support everyone. You'd still have Gps where they are now, which would be more like 4-6 Sqs. It's all around a much better span of control, it puts reporting & staff reqs at a level that makes sense. One big thing I like about it is training within a specialty. In a unit right now you slot someone up with an opening, but they need to be mentored up in the specialty by a Sr or pref Master rated officer in the specialty. That's not close to the reality on the ground & I think we suffer a lot for it in our officer development, which translates real badly through the program.

Now linking this back in.... The reason I explain that system is cause under that proven system, NCOs/enlisted make perfect sense, as does a seperate officer corps to manage/lead/support the local operating elements.

PART II (Enlisted/NCO system)
Basic = current level I plus more (highspeed low stress) orientation on DnC/CnC/uniform. Enlisted advancement based roughly on AF standards/timeframes juxtaposed with CAP mission/operational/specialty requirements.

PART III (1Sgt)
We discussed a 1Sgt system under this concept. That was to be an adult version of CAC. As in a way for advice from & support reqs to the field to make it directly to the decision making echelons w/o as much of the power protecting idiotic politics we currently have to deal with.

PART IV (OTS)
Defining this theoretical NCO/enlisted corps requires answering what we're talking about on the officer side. That's been done in detail several months back, so I'll just toss out the quick brief that there was some consensus on.

The concept was to produce high quality leaders/managers that could operate on par with the mil grade they're wearing. EX- Take CAP to a joint ICS disaster op, our LtCol should be able to stand on par with a NG LtCol. They should be able to take charge of a task force or whatever and lead on the level expected of a LtCol. That's what we need in ES & in our program as a whole. If that were the case, grade would be meaningful by default.

OTS would be roughly based in format on the ARNG OCS program (similiar to what ACA does but w/o the AT). The delivery would be: local over online/CD based modules (just like AF SOS is now); in conjunction with a local (maybe not Sq, but close by) OJT officer mentor; and a Wg level specialty branch manager to oversee specialty training & development. This would all happen over a min one year period, done at member's pace up to three years max. The time req to do it in one year would be no more than regular wkly mtg attendance & one wknd per quarter.

The curriculum would be based on AF OTS, combined with the good parts of AFIADL 13 & the AF's ASBC (officer basic course). Basically, it'd be roughly the same standards as AFRes/ANG 2Lt minus about 10-20% & minus the pysical element.

Logistically, they'd all come in enlisted. Then could apply for OTS after basic (level I), or at any point later in their career. Involves meeting some prereqs. We debated those a whole lot, but basically we were looking at 21 & some education in the range of 60hrs/AA or waivers for equiv level applicable trng (inst pilot, comm, IT, EMT-I, FF, etc). Meet mins, apply, get boarded w/ State director or designated (ret AF field grade) input on the board, complete trng 1-3 yrs, board for appointment. As I recall, we were willing to allow under 21 to enter trng, but had to be 21 to appoint.

PART V (Officer/enlisted progression)
Progression as an officer would be based on same timeframes as AF & follow roughly the same PME & board reqs. Obviously, all juxtaposed w/ CAP specific trng.

Enlisted progression would also follow AF timframes & trng profiles. On this side though the AFIADL trng tends to deal with a lot that we can't use, so CAP would have to interject a lot more. Same deal though with career field mgrs at Wg or higher, selection boards, Sr raters, etc.

PART VI (why talk about this?)
This is all pretty academic obviously - unless some genius figure out how to make me president, then standby for a couple exec orders.  ;D  Seriously though, I think there's some value in discussing a concept of what CAP could be if it wanted to. I thin kit helps us identify problems with the way things work now & to target local efforts on addressing those issues.

Quote from: SarDragon on February 06, 2008, 04:31:27 AM
I still don't see a good answer to the question - Why does CAP need NCOs?

The organization does not have a need for NCO's.  Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles!  

What exactly would it accomplish?  Nothing.  The NCO's currently serving in CAP (and I know a few who are terrific people) can be doing the same thing as a CAP Officer.  

I think wanting NCO's has something to do with that old saying "I'm not an Officer, I work for a living".  I always hated that when I heard an NCO say it, and I loose some respect for the individual.  

I am a firm believer that we should get rid of CAP NCO's, and any prior service/ current military NCO should be given CAP Officer Rank.  

I just can't believe the posts that say CAP NCO's can get more done, know more about drill/ceremony and are "better" than a CAP Officer.  Sure, the NCO went through a basic training, and technical school, and most likely has a few PME courses under their belt, but that does not necessarily equate to being more educated in military matters.  

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 04:55:34 PMSure, the NCO went through a basic training, and technical school, and most likely has a few PME courses under their belt, but that does not necessarily equate to being more educated in military matters.  

As compared, say, to a CAP 2nd or 1st Lieutenant with a couple of weekend trainings under her belt and some on-line courses?

Or even a CAP Major who has had the benefit of a whole week of Region Staff College?

Sorry, sir, but by definition even a humble CAP SSgt has far more "education in military matters" than any non-prior service CAP officer will ever have.

The real question is:  how should we best employ their knowledge and skills.

Ned Lee
Retired Army Guy

Quote from: Ned on February 06, 2008, 05:05:00 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 04:55:34 PMSure, the NCO went through a basic training, and technical school, and most likely has a few PME courses under their belt, but that does not necessarily equate to being more educated in military matters.  

As compared, say, to a CAP 2nd or 1st Lieutenant with a couple of weekend trainings under her belt and some on-line courses?

Or even a CAP Major who has had the benefit of a whole week of Region Staff College?

Sorry, sir, but by definition even a humble CAP SSgt has far more "education in military matters" than any non-prior service CAP officer will ever have.

The real question is:  how should we best employ their knowledge and skills.

Ned Lee
Retired Army Guy

Sorry, I was thinking prior-service (that whole one-track mindset thing).  You are right though.  However, why keep the stripes?  Why not make them a CAP Officer?  If you keep NCO's, what about Warrant Officer?  We should create CAP Warrant Officers.  Fair, is fair!

OK, I could buy into that.

However, not all wings have groups, Iowa never did, and OK just doesn't have the necessary manpower to support groups + that the works was being done right at the Squadrons.  In the perfect world, DNall, that would be a great way to do things.  In fact it's not too different from my "super squadrons" that I suggested for getting better training.

I just want this to work. 

Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 06, 2008, 02:22:58 PM


For example, you have:

1: Logistics Officer
    a) Supply NCO
    b) Transportation NCO
    c) Maintenance NCO

Concur

Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 06, 2008, 02:22:58 PM

2: Deputy Commander for Cadets
    a) Activities NCO
    b) Leadership NCO
    c) Testing NCO

Actually, Testing NCO- if following functional address, as well as Spec Track pamphlets,  Testing NCO would fall under the PDO.  I like the idea, and it would have to be very specific as to where each job falls, for the proper control.

Could someone tell me where in the regulations the NCO duties are listed I have been watching this forum for awhile now and have to say that I have not meet a CAP NCO in my almost 9 Years in the program.  I was just wondering how big of a program it was, because it sounds like its bigger than I thought.  Just was wondering about the details of it.  Thanks.

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 06, 2008, 05:17:02 PM
OK, I could buy into that.

However, not all wings have groups, Iowa never did, and OK just doesn't have the necessary manpower to support groups + that the works was being done right at the Squadrons. 

Yeah I get that, and this is where you may REALLY not like what my answer is.

I understand why we're org'd on states & that has to stay that way, but they don't all need to be Wgs. The ANG (or ARNG) doesn't org that way, why do you think that is? What I'd do is... really small units are NCO led Dets reporting to a Flt or direct to a Sq. Flt is 20-45 or so & only needs one officer. Sq runs 100-180 kind of range give or take, and that needs 2-3 line & a half dozen staff officers max. Gp then takes 2-5 or so Sqs.

In that system you can see most states would revert to a Gp, which is appropriate for their membership size & resource level (span of control/authority). That CC would still have the same equal vote on the NB, and I don't frankly care if they're a LtCol or Col in that slot.

We can do away with regions as they currently exist though. They would be reorg as Wgs to which all the Gp level states report.

Here's bigger par tof that reorg though... Sq/Gp/Wg CCs all become corp officers. Gp CCs make the NB, Wg CCs make NEC.

I'm not really tied down to any of this, just thinking outloud.

Again, not trying to drift completely to another topic. It's just that NCOs make more sense in a system that makes sense & I'm trying to brainstorm out what that would look like.

^ Some Wings should be a SQD or Flight. 

We have a conversion chart for WO to officer grades. I've never seena complaint about that & I know lots of former CWOs in CAP.

Why do we NEED NCOs in CAP versus forcing them to officer grade? We don't, but why do we NEED to use officer grade rather than have everyone be enlisted? Or why do we even need grade for that matter?

I'm a strong believer in the military side of the program, you all know that, but CAP in the current encarnation is unfortunately not a military program or even military based. It's a bunch of civilians running around with really big hearts but almost no legitimate trng & begging to do things they aren't remotely qual'd (at least thru us) or for that matter allowed to do. To a great extent, it's a big waste of time & taxpayer money in my opinion. That's not syaing it should be shut down. It has enormous potential to become something really great, and on the street/indiv level (especially with cadets) it does accomplish some really great & rewarding things.

All I'm trying to say is if you're going to get into a discussion about grade in CAP, & NCOs in particular, you have to look at a total revamp of the program, cause that's the only thing that makes any kind of sense. 

From what I've seen, that would probably work, with the exception of finding staff for each echelon.  That is the point where most of this talk starts to putter out.  In OKWG there is a hard enough time getting staff for Wing and Squadrons.  I'm the Admin. Personnel, Pro. Dev, Logistics, Supply,Alt- Testing, and it looks like I'm about to be MLO, and Transportation.  I'm sure that there are many other places that are in the same situation.

BTW, I don't think that changing the names from Squadrons to flights or Detachments does anything  to help.  But I do like the idea.

Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on February 06, 2008, 05:57:53 PM
Could someone tell me where in the regulations the NCO duties are listed I have been watching this forum for awhile now and have to say that I have not meet a CAP NCO in my almost 9 Years in the program.  I was just wondering how big of a program it was, because it sounds like its bigger than I thought.  Just was wondering about the details of it.  Thanks.

There are no NCO-specific "jobs" for NCOs in CAP.  A CAP NCO could serve doing testing, leadership, personnel, or any number of jobs just the same as the CAP officer in your squadron.  No job duties are different.  The only thing that changes is who salutes whom.

It is not a particularly huge group of members.  We don't have any CAP NCOs in our squadron (though we do have Guard & AD NCOs as members), we don't have any CAP NCOs in our Group (even though our Group Commander is a Guard NCO).  I've only met one CAP NCO in my 10 years in New York Wing, and he ultimately switched to the officer track and became a Lt Col.

Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on February 06, 2008, 05:57:53 PM
Could someone tell me where in the regulations the NCO duties are listed I have been watching this forum for awhile now and have to say that I have not meet a CAP NCO in my almost 9 Years in the program.  I was just wondering how big of a program it was, because it sounds like its bigger than I thought.  Just was wondering about the details of it.  Thanks.

There aren't that many Senior Member NCO's in CAP because of the requirement that you have to be a current or former NCO in the military.
Senior Members who are current or former military NCO's have the option of retaining their NCO grade instead of becoming an officer.
As an example, in the whole of California Wing, there are just three NCO's. Two CMSgt's and one SMSgt. All three are retired military.
As for duties, they're the same as any other senior member. Do what you want to do.

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 06:04:33 PM
^ Some Wings should be a SQD or Flight. 

I don't think there's a state with under a hundred members, much less under 45. If there were, it'd be completely non-functional, we should fire everyone & start over from scratch.

^ Not AF here....can you tell me how many people make up an AD AF flight.  Then I guess 4 AF flights make a SQD? 

A flight is comparable to an Army Platoon?  A SQD to an Army Company? 

Quote from: DNall on February 06, 2008, 06:10:27 PM
All I'm trying to say is if you're going to get into a discussion about grade in CAP, & NCOs in particular, you have to look at a total revamp of the program, cause that's the only thing that makes any kind of sense. 

There it is!  Spot on!  I can not agree more with you, that we need to change the current program.  Loosing rank/grade may actually be the best thing to happen to CAP.  It seems to work well for the CG AUX.  Members join, and they are simply a member.  Then you have those that have taken on extra responsibilities and we can call them; SQD CC, Group CC, Wing CC, etc.  Since we are loosing rank and grade in the new VSAF program, NOW would be the best time to get rid of it altogether. 

Our organization is hugely different than it was in the 40's and 50's.  Then there was a clear cut rank system, and development program.  In today's CAP we try to blend rank and grade with an outdated development system, and positional structure.  IF NHQ would invest resources into changing the climate and program to better emulate other Federal Agencies, (like FEMA) we would all be better off in the long run.  Instead we are sitting here discussing why we need NCO's when they make up what, like .06 PERCENT of our total membership?

I understand we may loose people if we took away their oak leaves, but I bet we would gain those numbers back in a few years.  Perhaps now is the time to "trim the fat".

Roughly yes. Det/Element = Sqd > Platoon = Flight > Sq=Co > Bn=Gp. However, the exceptions in the AF are kind of hard to understand. It's based more on span of authority. So you may have one Sq w/ 200 but fewer resources, versus another with 50 but lots of officers & shiney planes. It's pretty standardized within functional areas though. The above crosswalk is pretty solid if you take the modifiers out.

^ Cool, thanks!

Please note that this is about a big change from what it is now, to what it could be.  This is a not about who can do what NOW, but about what CAP NCO's would do if we had a CAP NCO Corps that do not have to have prior service.

If you want to talk about what they do now, please take it elsewhere.

If you want to make it a viable program, please contribute.

Thank you.
RL.

Here's why it won't work, at least without major problems.

Let's say you come up with specific positions for NCOs.  So, each squadron is supposed to have a Supply NCO and a Leadership NCO.

Now, suppose a unit doesn't have any NCOs handy.  Guess what - they will have an officer perform those tasks.

Suppose the unit has an NCO, but he decides (and everyone agrees) that he should be the next Deputy Commander for Cadets - an officer's job?  Do we deny him that slot, even if he's the most qualified?

How about the former squadron commander who is cutting back on his CAP due to family obligations and volunteers to help out in the vacant Supply NCO slot?  Do we say "you can't do that - you're an officer.  So thanks - but go sit in the corner."



Here's the problem - our members move up and down the chain depending on their talents and the where the need is.

Today's "NCO" is tomorrow's "Officer" and visa versa.  I can't see it being any other way in a volunteer organization.

The only way we could have NCOs and Officers with any kind of meaning would be if the insignia of grade was tied to the job, and as you changed jobs you changed what you wore to reflect the position.  And most folks egos are, frankly, too delicate to accept that kind of system.

The CG Aux does have enlisted rank structure. The officer grades are temp & related to positions, usually unit command billets.

All civilian fed agencies also have a rank system. It may not be some insignia on a shirt, but it is VERY meaningful.

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 06:34:18 PM
Our organization is hugely different than it was in the 40's and 50's.  Then there was a clear cut rank system, and development program.  In today's CAP we try to blend rank and grade with an outdated development system, and positional structure.  IF NHQ would invest resources into changing the climate and program to better emulate other Federal Agencies, (like FEMA) we would all be better off in the long run.  Instead we are sitting here discussing why we need NCO's when they make up what, like .06 PERCENT of our total membership?

I understand we may loose people if we took away their oak leaves, but I bet we would gain those numbers back in a few years.  Perhaps now is the time to "trim the fat".

I understand what you're saying here, but I take just the opposite tact. That is that we should return to an effective & updated proven mil system similiar to what we once had before the corporate movement came along & standards passed us by.

However, I also agree that I'm not concerned about member losses in such a case because they will be replaced quickly with a new crop of high quality people drawn to the new program & turned off by what we have now.

I think that end state more effectively accomplishes our mission set than civilianizing the program.

Quote from: DNall on February 06, 2008, 07:26:37 PM
All civilian fed agencies also have a rank system. It may not be some insignia on a shirt, but it is VERY meaningful.

Not as meaningful as you might think.

Under NSPS, the vast majority of DoD civilians are transitioning to one of  3 "pay bands" - no more GS rating. 

Positions will be by band, but it's very possible that a Band 3 boss will be actually making less than some of his Band 3 subordinates.

The key will be "what is your current position?" not "what is your pay grade."

When Military and Civilian intersect an 0-5 might supervise some Band 3s, or a Band 3 might supervise some 0-5s.  It's all about position, not grade.


CAP is best suited, I think, by focusing on position and not grade.

We still need PD, because when people apply for a position, PD should matter - maybe even be mandatory.

But it's all about the position.  That way, if you move up or down, you get the authority you need to do the job.

We could reflect that authority in temporary officer grade, or in position titles/badges.  I think there are advantages to each.  But permanent grade doesn't make sense in an organization where a persons scope of authority and responsibility can grow or shrink drastically from job to job. It's what makes us fundamentally different from the U.S. military.

^ We should perhaps take cue from the NSPS, and do similar. 

Quote1.  Currently, all of our NCOs have BTDT.  As long as this is true, they gain instant "street cred" when dealing with the RM.

This makes the huge leap of faith that people currently in the military have any clue that a CAP NCO is wearing the rank that they earned in the actual military.  General recognition of CAP is so low that I will bet you that fewer than 1% of any sample you'd care to take would know anything about the difference between CAP NCO rank and CAP officer rank. 

I am 100% certain that they will assume that a CAP NCO earned that rank through some CAP specific training program and will probably wonder why this is the one person in the whole unit not an officer and will assume that something is wrong with them. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2008, 10:14:37 PM

Quote1.  Currently, all of our NCOs have BTDT.  As long as this is true, they gain instant "street cred" when dealing with the RM.

This makes the huge leap of faith that people currently in the military have any clue that a CAP NCO is wearing the rank that they earned in the actual military.  General recognition of CAP is so low that I will bet you that fewer than 1% of any sample you'd care to take would know anything about the difference between CAP NCO rank and CAP officer rank. 

I am 100% certain that they will assume that a CAP NCO earned that rank through some CAP specific training program and will probably wonder why this is the one person in the whole unit not an officer and will assume that something is wrong with them. 

Everybody in the military knows the difference between officer and NCO rank, the color of it doesn't matter. Military members may not be familiar with the how they came by it, but they will know the difference. And military personnel usually only assume there is an issue if the member is low ranking, but has a lot of time in. As long as they are professional, most military personnel won't care.

But, it's a reason why we should allow prior military NCO's to progress. Someone could come in as a 1LT and they have the opportunity to progress up to higher grades, why shouldn't NCO's?

As far as those not in the military, it doesn't matter, they rarely know the difference, and aren't worried about how long someone has been in, how old they are, or if most of the other members of CAP are officers. The NCO will be introduced as "Sgt Joe Blow", and they'll work from there. If someone asks, they'll be properly informed.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 06, 2008, 10:27:33 PM
But, it's a reason why we should allow prior military NCO's to progress. Someone could come in as a 1LT and they have the opportunity to progress up to higher grades, why shouldn't NCO's?

Thats the whole question!  They should not come in as an NCO.  They should be advanced to a CAP Officer commensurate with their enlisted grade. 

We are allowing NCO's to keep NCO grade in CAP, to appease them.  We are so desperate for such a small group of individuals, that we continue to bow to an outdated system.  This is what needs to change.  We should either make everyone an Officer or get rid of the system alltogether. 

Many here believe that an NCO is bringing in something special to CAP.  Well, CAP is it's own animal (only slightly similar to the AF).  The basis that an NCO has more knowledge is ridiculous.  The A1C who wants to join CAP, has to be a CAP Officer, why can't the SSGT?  Because of that reasoning on my part, I have to dismiss the theory that NCO's will bring more to the CAP table.

QuoteEverybody in the military knows the difference between officer and NCO rank, the color of it doesn't matter.

My point is that someone in the military will recognize that the person is a CAP NCO, but just how would they know that the CAP NCO rank was given to them based on their own past experience as a military NCO? 

They won't.  They will just see another CAP member and give them the same amount of "legitimacy" as they would to a CAP Lt. Col.

The real military has no idea how CAP people earn their rank, and probably don't care. 

I think the real question is:

Do we change the grade system to fit our current organization or do we change our current organization to fit the grade system?

We obviously don't feel satisfied in it the way it is.

Should we eliminate all NCO's and make them all officers while keeping the program as it is or do we change the program to make room for enlisted job positions?

I think the latter will require a much stronger grassroots movement and also a lot of re-thinking about how we work and train. It will also need a lot of debate. I've seen many training requirements, but I've never seen anyone say that while military NCOs and Officers get paid to train that hard, we do not. It is a very valid point though.

Is there enough benefit expected from such a change to justify it? I don't know. What do you think about specifically that question?

Or we could leave the program as it is.  The people who want to be an NCO can be one without any skin off anyone's nose.  I don't think there is anything really wrong with that either. 

^ I agree, leave it how it is.

I have only been in a squadron with one NCO before, and he seemed pretty happy with how things were. He didn't have a real desire to promote to anything else, still did his job, and still completed PD.

I think with NCO's, that if they can do the PD then the whole rank thing doesn't really matter. Really, across the board with CAP, the PD levels are more of an indication of accomplishment than rank is anyway.

^^  Thank you.  Leave things alone.  If you don't like the way the system is set-up, you can always find another organization to join.  This system has been working just fine for quite a few years now.  If people would quit trying to change it and go with it, you will see it's fine the way it is.

Quote from: brasda91 on February 07, 2008, 12:54:33 PM
^^  Thank you.  Leave things alone.  If you don't like the way the system is set-up, you can always find another organization to join.  This system has been working just fine for quite a few years now.  If people would quit trying to change it and go with it, you will see it's fine the way it is.

OUCH!

Has it really been working fine these past years?  Then why are there so many proposals and suggestions to add to it, or change things about it?

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 07, 2008, 02:28:45 PM


OUCH!

Has it really been working fine these past years?  Then why are there so many proposals and suggestions to add to it, or change things about it?

Because of the "writers strike", we have nothing else to do.   ;D
OK, now that I got that out of my system, my opinion is to do what ever keeps the members involved, retained and proud of their association.  If NCO grades will help this agenda, I'm all for it.  

What keeps members involved is meaningful activities and a feeling that their time is well-spent and appreciated.

The grade is a small part of that, but anyone staying (or leaving) because of it doesn't understand CAP.

My poor analogy:

Grade is like nice rims on a car.

An Escalade is an Escalade whether it it has high-chrome spinners or stock steel wheels.  A few people may question why such a nice car has such dull wheels, but most won't think twice about it because the vehicle itself has obvious value and power.

On the other hand, a '92 Corrolla is a '92 Corrolla, whether its got 26" spinners or not.  And most people >will< ask why anyone would bother putting such effort into the rims when the rest of vehicle lacks any value.

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 07, 2008, 02:28:45 PM

OUCH!

Has it really been working fine these past years?  Then why are there so many proposals and suggestions to add to it, or change things about it?

There are things that don't work; but is the NCO program dysfunctional enough to change the entire CAP system over? A proper military copied system is going to change CAP considerably; should we be spending our time and our money on that, or on mission costs.

Up at NHQ this may not be taking a a lot of time, but it is taking someones time. That time could be better spent finding ways for us to perform more ES type missions for more agencies, updating CP, extending our AE program, or bettering our PD curriculum. With an all volunteer program we have to prioritize what staff time is spent on, and I don't believe restructuring CAP to accommodate a larger NCO program is one of those things.

Perhaps when we are nearly perfect in all other aspects, we can take a look at items like this.

Quote from: edmo1 on February 07, 2008, 04:39:19 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 07, 2008, 02:28:45 PM

OUCH!

Has it really been working fine these past years?  Then why are there so many proposals and suggestions to add to it, or change things about it?

There are things that don't work; but is the NCO program dysfunctional enough to change the entire CAP system over? A proper military copied system is going to change CAP considerably; should we be spending our time and our money on that, or on mission costs.

Up at NHQ this may not be taking a a lot of time, but it is taking someones time. That time could be better spent finding ways for us to perform more ES type missions for more agencies, updating CP, extending our AE program, or bettering our PD curriculum. With an all volunteer program we have to prioritize what staff time is spent on, and I don't believe restructuring CAP to accommodate a larger NCO program is one of those things.

Perhaps when we are nearly perfect in all other aspects, we can take a look at items like this.

Actually, CAP is quite broke, and it certainly has not always been that way.

We're doing a VERY poor job of accomplishing our several missions. A biggest reason for that is how we're organized, trained, & managed. Which again has not always been this way.

I don't say for a minute that we should alter the program to find a place for NCOs. I'm saying we should alter the program to make it effective, and in doing so you'll find there is an enormous place for NCOs.

Again, it's all about "what is rank actually for?"

If the answer is "rank is primarily a recruiting tool", then letting NCOs keep their stripes is just fine.

But, if you follow that logic, then we should expand the handing out of grade to other folks we want in CAP

Fire Captains should keep their bars, to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

Police Sergeants should keep their stripes, to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

Warrant Officers should keep their bars, to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

Navy Officers should be able to be addressed as "Lieutenant Commander" and Ensign" instead of "Major" and "Lieutenant" to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

etc. etc.


It's not like military NCOs are the only group of talented folks we need in CAP.


Now, if we not only decide that NCOs can keep their stripes, but that NO ONE ELSE CAN EVER WEAR THEM....


Then  perhaps a whole bunch of us ought to take your bars and oak leaves off.  Because we should restrict those to former/present military officers as well.



I'm not actually advocating any of this - just pointing out how the current philosopy behind NCO grade in CAP doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

I like the old phrase about "condusive to good order and discipline."  Shouldn't we come up with a grade structure that is designed to bring better "order and discipline" to CAP?  Isn't that why most organizations come up with grade structures in the first place?

As for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it argument" - I'm not sure what "broke" looks like.  I don't think we'll every be "broke."  But isn't it fair to say that CAP is less than 100% effective, and there's room for improvement?

Quote from: Dragoon on February 08, 2008, 02:58:08 PM
Again, it's all about "what is rank actually for?"

I like the old phrase about "condusive to good order and discipline."  Shouldn't we come up with a grade structure that is designed to bring better "order and discipline" to CAP?  Isn't that why most organizations come up with grade structures in the first place?

good points.

We used to have a CAP enlisted system that most all adults came in under. I won't go into why we changed, but it was about how others perceived our low quality. The only people that kept stripes coming out of that were the ones that'd actually earned them.

From talking with folks who were in back then, the thing I heard that killed the CAP NCO program was the mobility of members between roles couple with a permanent grade system.

Sooner or later, most folks ended up in an "officer" position, and ended up being officers.  And then kept that grade forever, even if they moved back to "NCO" duties.

So after a while, the only NCOs were those frankly not talented enough to take on incredibily demanding jobs like "squadron logistics officer" (sarcasm intended).  That set the NCO bar pretty durned low.

Basically, most squadron jobs, based on the size of squadrons, ARE really NCO duties.  But folks keep changing jobs!   We have to grapple grade mobility -  today's Wing Vice Commander is tomorrow's Squadron ES Officer.  It happens.

Again, I think the only way to use military grade effectively is to make it temporary and position based. This doesn't mean anyone can get it - you could still have minimum requirements for, say a Wing Staff job that limits it to folks who have some experience and training (or at least, limit the GRADE to those folks filling the roles who have the prerequisitions - in CAP you have to accept untrained folks in key roles now and again.)

But any kind of permanent grade structure quickly results in rank becoming meaningless, as people keep moving around. 

Since grade is a symbol of authority, if we want "good order" we need to tie grade to authority.  And in CAP, that means to position.

Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit. If they want to stay at a local unit or area, then why do they ever need to be an officer? And by the way, that involves boards for promotions & you hav to be going to a slot, not just grade for bling sake.

I like that a lot more than temporary grade. The prob w/ temp grade is it indicates the reality you're looking at this second, but it doesn't say anything about a person's competency/experience or the background hierarcy that's really running the show regardless of who's in what position.

And by the way, I came up in CAP under a couple highspeed members that'd stated out in the CAP enlisted system. From what I understand, the AF Sgts Assoc raised all kinds of hell about the quality of CAP members walking around claiming to be NCOs. Historically, you have to understand the military went from a seat of the pants kind of thing to highly educated & professionalized. CAP didn't follow. As that solidified in the AF culture thru the second generation, then they became less interested in respecting CAP members, and to an extent offended by our use of grade/resources/etc. That's led to all the modern seperation btwn the two, and I'm personally of the opinion that CAP should step up rather than hold down standards so civilians won't see it as a challenge. I feel insulted by that. That anyone would treat me as if I can't or won't rise to the challenge & seek parity. Anyway, it was a multi-part thing, and that was part of it.

Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2008, 06:47:30 PM
Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit. If they want to stay at a local unit or area, then why do they ever need to be an officer? And by the way, that involves boards for promotions & you hav to be going to a slot, not just grade for bling sake.

I understand what you're saying, but this still doesn't take into account one situation.  What about the member who is able and willing to work at higher echelons, then later - for whatever reason - can no longer do so, but he can still contribute at the local level.  If this person can no longer work at the higher levels (because of distance, time, etc.), but under this system can't go back to the local level, we will lose the member.

It's not an either or decision (stay local or move up).  Sometimes people's life circumstances change and they can no longer serve in the same way.

We don't need more grades. 

We have a lot of talented members who aren't and will never be executive material (CC's, IC's, major project officers like encampment commander) who are field grade officers.  They did a good job at their thankless assignments and went to the seminars and waited.  Our grade system, at least in part, is merit badges for grownups, and exists to feed egos. That's not bad, but ...

It doesn't tell who is in charge, but looks to the public like it does.

Reduction of grade on downward assignment is a great idea, but my request for reduction in grade was denied.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2008, 05:35:15 PM
Actually, CAP is quite broke, and it certainly has not always been that way.

We're doing a VERY poor job of accomplishing our several missions. A biggest reason for that is how we're organized, trained, & managed. Which again has not always been this way.

I don't say for a minute that we should alter the program to find a place for NCOs. I'm saying we should alter the program to make it effective, and in doing so you'll find there is an enormous place for NCOs.

It's interesting you say that CAP is broken and is doing a "VERY poor job".  I would like to know how and why?  Other than the usual petty squabbles all organizations have, I don't see failure,  I see great successes.  We have thousands of cadets enjoying the program, improving themselves and going on to lead better lives.  We administer 10's of thousands of dollars in scholarships, a safe flying program, saved hundreds of lives and our CN program  has been amazingly successful.   We have a modern aircraft fleet which is maintained to the highest standards possible.  We're a major sponsor of NCASE have a decent model rocketry program and have a promising school program which may bring CAP into more thousands of young students.  And, we've been privileged to partner with EAA and AOPA, the BSA, AFA and, maybe soon, AFJROTC.
Now I do see a lot of room for improvement.  But Failure, nope.

Quote from: SarDragon on February 06, 2008, 04:31:27 AM
I still don't see a good answer to the question - Why does CAP need NCOs?

I spent all but one year of my time in the Navy as an NCO, so I think I have a little credibility in that area.

NCOs get the job done. They are the prime movers in the day-to-day functioning of the military. They provide most of the hands-on work in all but the least technical occupational areas. Much of the tasking assigned to CAP officers in CAPR 20-1 would be done by NCOs in the military, with officer oversight.

In order for the CAP structure to more closely mirror that of the military, there would have to be such a huge overhaul of the system that, IMHO, many current members would be alienated, and possibly leave.

But then again, why do we need to do such a restructuring? What end would it serve? What great improvement(s) would result?

I think improvements in current problem areas would do far more for CAP than reinventing the organization from the ground up. Let's put together a real training program, with trained instructors, instead of the current hodge-podge that exists today. Let's define some realistic standards, and then train to them, and enforce them.

But let's keep this inside a volunteer model, and not that of a paid, contracted military model that I don't see us ever fitting into. Using the structure and guiding principles, as related to the jobs we do, is great, but trying to be military,without all the bits and pieces, isn't going to work for us.

YMMV.

How about this: Division of labor.

Officers will be more effective if allowed to concentrate on strategic and on junior level, tactical administration of our 3 main missions. If we leave the hands on training to the Airmen/NCOs, it frees up our officers to do what they were hired for. To plan training, create policy, revise current programs, provide effective administraion, and to move forward. The Airmen/NCOs would in turn focus on the every day carrying out of the mission by working with cadets, putting together AE classes and tools, and taking teams out for ES training. I think it would be a more effective and efficient way of leading and administering our mission. I think it would result in fewer cases of burn-out, raise morale of members by allowing members to focus on specific tasks rather than generally "everything" which would lead to more success and in turn, confidence.

I think a year in "OTS" while doing OJT in unit coupled with Level 1 and AFIADL-13 are perfect for 2nd Lt. Maybe education prerequisite should be an Assoc. level degree instead of Bachelor's, but I'm open to either. Too often we recruit people without leadership experience and throw them to the wolves. Eventually, if they stick it out, they become effective leaders, but by then they are Captains or above and often end up as staff officers at Group HQ or higher which again leaves the squadrons with little capability. I think this type of program would alleviate (although not eliminate) this problem and that is my main reason for restructuring CAP to include Airman/NCO grades.

Quote from: davedove on February 09, 2008, 01:01:04 AM

Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2008, 06:47:30 PM
Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit. If they want to stay at a local unit or area, then why do they ever need to be an officer? And by the way, that involves boards for promotions & you hav to be going to a slot, not just grade for bling sake.

I understand what you're saying, but this still doesn't take into account one situation.  What about the member who is able and willing to work at higher echelons, then later - for whatever reason - can no longer do so, but he can still contribute at the local level.  If this person can no longer work at the higher levels (because of distance, time, etc.), but under this system can't go back to the local level, we will lose the member.

It's not an either or decision (stay local or move up).  Sometimes people's life circumstances change and they can no longer serve in the same way.

As in no longer competent to do so? Or just doesn't want to anymore (for whatever reasons). One's a case for retirement & the other is reserve status at that higher echelon. They are then perfectly able to attend & help at any subordinate unit they want, but couldn't be assigned a job there. That's inappropriate anyway. We need to keep the path open for newer members to take those local jobs & work their way up so there will be qualified people in the future to take those higher echelon jobs.

Quote from: FW on February 11, 2008, 08:53:20 AM

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2008, 05:35:15 PM
Actually, CAP is quite broke, and it certainly has not always been that way.

We're doing a VERY poor job of accomplishing our several missions. A biggest reason for that is how we're organized, trained, & managed. Which again has not always been this way.

I don't say for a minute that we should alter the program to find a place for NCOs. I'm saying we should alter the program to make it effective, and in doing so you'll find there is an enormous place for NCOs.

It's interesting you say that CAP is broken and is doing a "VERY poor job".  I would like to know how and why?  Other than the usual petty squabbles all organizations have, I don't see failure,  I see great successes.  We have thousands of cadets enjoying the program, improving themselves and going on to lead better lives.  We administer 10's of thousands of dollars in scholarships, a safe flying program, saved hundreds of lives and our CN program  has been amazingly successful.   We have a modern aircraft fleet which is maintained to the highest standards possible.  We're a major sponsor of NCASE have a decent model rocketry program and have a promising school program which may bring CAP into more thousands of young students.  And, we've been privileged to partner with EAA and AOPA, the BSA, AFA and, maybe soon, AFJROTC.
Now I do see a lot of room for improvement.  But Failure, nope.

You really want to have a bash CAP session? Is that what we need to spend our time on a public forum doing?

Our mission set is... Above all, CAP exists to aid the AF in accomplishing the total force mission. Traditionally, we contribute to that thru 3 sub-missions....

1) Bring to bare combined arms (air/grd/C4RSI) emergency response assets specialized in the areas of inland SaR, DA/R, and HLS, that states cannot otherwise afford to acquire or maintain, including trained professional personnel. And to be able to respond with those assets for sustained operations anywhere in the US on a moments notice.

2) Conduct AE programs directed at youth (internally & externally) that lead to a larger portion of the best/brightest pool seeking military aviation or supporting career opportunities versus more lucrative alternatives. Conduct a program directed at adults (in/out) that impacts public support of strong budgets for AF, FAA, NASA... strong air & space force.

3) Conduct a cadet program that acquires the best & brightest, and a massive number of people overall, in order to educate and indoctrinate them to a life of selfless service to their country.

So lets talk about that...
1) We don't meet FEMA credentialing requirements, and CAP was specifically considered in the development process. The NIMS standards NB is going to vote on shortly are the equiv of GES. They still don't qualify anyone to do anything in a mission AO, much less get called to do so. We shouldn't be stretching to reach outside standards so we can beg state/fed customers to invite us to contribute. We should be leading the way with a critical resource/skill set they can't otherwise provide. That's why Congress funds CAP, that's not what we return to them for the money.

2) What AE? We do a little bit with cadets, maybe there are a couple of people in your wing doing something small. We certainly are not having a major national impact on budgets or the quality & quantity of labor supply to military aviation or aerospace R&D fields.

3) We have cadets, a couple of them. We aren't making an impact on military recruiting. We aren't impacting a large number of people. The impact we do have is not great. We have horrid retention. The curriculum we provide is sub-standard to JROTC, much less the higher mission objective we're charged with.


Is CAP doing some good things in some places within a few areas of the program? Sure it is, and it has enormous potential. However, it is failing to meet the mandated mission objectives. What's bad about that is not the failure to reach those high standards, it's that we accept where we are as good enough, even if that level drifts down over time, which it has.

Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2008, 05:04:12 PM

Our mission set is...

3) Conduct a cadet program that acquires the best & brightest, and a massive number of people overall, in order to educate and indoctrinate them to a life of selfless service to their country.

Sir,

This is a classic "strawman" argument.  Your personal version of the CP mission is interesting, but not reflected in any official document.

Thus it become easy to "refute" the poster by showing how "unsuccessful" CP is when compared to the non-existent standards.

It's actually not easy to find the official descriptions of our cadet program.  Let's take a look.

The orignial 1946 legislation creating CAP did not describe the cadet program in any detail or set any specific goals or objectives.  See 36 USC 40301  (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C403.txt)et seq.)


Perhaps it might make sense to refer to the governing Air Force Instruction for guidance.

Quote from: AFI 10-2701 (Organization and Function of Civil Air Patrol)
1.1.3. Cadet Program. The CAP cadet program originated in World War II when CAP was estab-lished as a preparatory program for the Army-Air Force Aviation Cadet Program. The CAP cadet pro-gram motivates American youth to become responsible citizens through aviation-centered activitiesthat emphasize aerospace education, leadership skills, physical fitness, and values education whilesimultaneously providing services to the Air Force and the local community, state, and nation. TheCAP cadet program provides support to the Air Force by introducing American youth to opportunitiesand careers in the Air Force and providing a drug demand reduction program to Air Force Installations near CAP cadet squadrons.

And of course that AFI is effectuated by the Statement of Work.

In the Statement of Work for Civil Air Patrol (the 2001 agreement), under section 2.3 Missions, it says:

Quote from: SOW2.3.3. CAP Cadet Program. CAP shall conduct a comprehensive cadet
program. CAP shall incorporate into or maintain as an element of their cadet
program specific elements contained in this section. The cadet program shall
provide study and involvement in five areas: aerospace education, leadership
laboratory, moral leadership, activities, and physical fitness. This program shall
accommodate US dependent youth interested in participating in CAP at US Air
Force installation host squadrons on installations outside the United States, its
territories, and possessions. Where practical, this program should make
accommodations for physically and mentally challenged individuals. Per the
provisions of 10 U.S.C. Sec 9444 (b) (11), Air Force support, including
appropriated funds, is authorized for the CAP cadet program consistent with
furthering the fulfillment of Air Force missions and objectives.

But maybe the best place to go is the proverbial "horse's mouth" -- the 52-16:

Quote from: CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management"1-1. The Cadet Program's Mission & Goals. The mission of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is to provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community.

Nothing in any of the regulatory guidance remotely resembles your formulation of the CP mission.


Now let's discuss your conclusions:

Quote

So lets talk about that...
3) We have cadets, a couple of them. We aren't making an impact on military recruiting. We aren't impacting a large number of people. The impact we do have is not great. We have horrid retention. The curriculum we provide is sub-standard to JROTC, much less the higher mission objective we're charged with.

If by "a couple" you mean roughly 20,000, you'd be right.  Indeed, cadets and the dedicated seniors who primarily support them represent over half of CAP membership.

I'm not aware that anyone has done any research to determine whether we are "making an impact on military recruiting."  But perhaps since that is not one of our CP missions, it is not altogether surprising.  Anecdotal evidence would suggest that cadets are enlisting and/or accepting commissions at about the same rate they have for the last 60 years or so.

it is easy to point at our first-year retention (roughly 1/3) and decry it as "horrid," except for the fact that our retention levels are pretty much in line with our historical averages.  IOW, we have always had a retention rate close to the 1/3 level.

Just like every other major youth organization operating within our age cohort, like Scouting, the high school chess club, and many church youth organizations.  Heck, even if every single cadet who joined remained until they "aged out", our maximum possible retention rate is only 75-88%.  And we know that just isn't possible because teenagers are . . . well, teenagers.  Who pursue a number of different activities, sometimes have academic challenges, enlist in the military, move, or otherwise no longer participate.

Can we do better?  Certainly.  There are already a number of initiatives in the works to improve retention by improving the quality of the weekly meeting night.


Finally, do we suffer in comparison with AFJROTC?  Almost certainly in important areas like funding and resources.  They have roughly 5x as many cadets as we do, but have over 1,700 paid instructors, the advantage of daily contact hours, full-time curriculum writers, and a sizeable national headquarters commanded by an AD O6 with four separate directorates chock-full of paid civil servants.

We have exactly three (3) employees in the CP shop at NHQ.

I'd say that dollar for dollar, they suffer in comparison with us.

So, CP is highly successful when compared to our published goals and missions.

We can certainly do better, but it is certainly not time for doom and gloom.

Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

I think just about everybody is forgetting that: military or not, a lot of CAP is based on aircrew operations, and that means you have a lot of officers. A typical Air Force, Navy and Marine squadron has more officers than they need from a purely management point of view. So we really do have qualified officers, just not in the same way the Regulars do. I'm ex-Navy enlisted and officer and I can tell you, officer is better in many ways, except from the technical management side, which is very important and why I used to worship my Chief Photographer and Chief Journalists. CAP does not require the high degree of technical expertise that enlisted personnel bring to the active services. We "train up" our own, as it were.

CAP NCO grades is not new to the organization. We have had NCO for over 30 years before they were removed by individuals who could not conduct themselves as NCO. There has always been members who do not wish to become and officer and would prefer to have an enlisted grade. I know of one wing commander who said that very same thing.

Ned,

I am a primarily a cadet programs officer & have had a very rewarding career in that field. I know the size/scope & impact of our program, on that small number of folks. I also know its a very small drop in the nationwide bucket.

I also worked in Congress for a couple years for a former CAP cadet. The perspective I'm offering is about why Congress funds CAP. They want to accomplish X, so they fund program Y with that intent.

I agree with the AFI, SOW, & CAPR 52-16. However, you need to step back to see the bigger picture, and then read those asking "to what end."

In other words, we conduct the program described in those sources. As far as CAP is concerned, that's the end of it. However, the govt's intent is that such a program exist in order to procure a higher number of better quality candidates drawn to military aviation or other service, or aerospace development in support of a strong air & space force.

Certainly it is okay if they choose another route in life & we never force or pressure them into anything, but they aren't giving us money because of the kids that choose those paths.

CAP is not making a significant impact in the number of high quality people in that pool, as a recruiting source, or on people entering aerospace development. To that extent, it is failing to reach the level the govt wants it to perform at. It has amazing potential to reach those objectives & in doing so to make a significant contribution to the country as a whole. But right now that's not the case, and CAP doesn't seem very motivated to do anything about it.

The hypothesis I'm offering in this thread is that CAP is not organized effectively to reach strategic goals of that scale. And, that in reorganizing to reach such goals, creating a well trained & structured force would have to be an essential element. That a well developed enlisted corps in combination with a corps of qualified & effectively trained/empowered officers would be the best way to accomplish that - by following the proven system offered by our parent organization & with tradition rooted in our own organizaiton.

QuoteCAP is not making a significant impact in the number of high quality people in that pool, as a recruiting source, or on people entering aerospace development.

Opinion, not backed up by any research I'm aware of.

QuoteHowever, the govt's intent is that such a program exist in order to procure a higher number of better quality candidates drawn to military aviation or other service, or aerospace development in support of a strong air & space force.

Actually, it is not.  If the government intended that to be a primary focus of the cadet program, Congress would have written that into the law authorizing CAP.  They knew the difference as providing aviation training for youths going into the AAF in WWII was a big part of the cadet program when it started.  If that was what they wanted out of CAP, they would have been specific about it and they would have pushed us towards designing our program more around that specific goal. 

Should it be a goal?  I wouldn't have a problem with it.  But, it certainly isnt something that is currently on our task list. 

D.

I understand what you are trying to say and thank you for your rewarding career in CP.  However, AFJROTC is a more appropriate organization to fulfill the mission you are describing.  CAP fills a different niche and actually does a good job, IMHO, in its leadership program for youth. I think it's about 10% of each class at the AF Academy which are or was in CAP.  But that is not good enough a measurement.  You did say you worked for a congressman who was a cadet.  That says something.  How many thousands of cadets over the years have become successful in any field they have undertaken.  Let's look at Paul Graziani, our latest BoG member.  He is the founder and CEO of "Analytical Graphics"  maker of the "Satellite Tool Kit" and a leader in computer graphics software; oh, and yes a former cadet.

If congress wanted to fund us to act as you describe, we would need millions more to accomplish it.  I doubt that will happen, and I know a couple of things about how our funding is established.  

Our ES standards do need improvement.  However, CAP has a seat at FEMA.  Our agency liaison is a FEMA employee and, as I understand it, there are no major problems with FEMA on how we accomplish our DR missions.  Also, AFRCC, doesn't have any hiccups with our services.  We continue to get calls on a daily basis 24/7.
We did a pretty good job during Katrina, Rita, and Fossett, and we have a pretty good record going back as far as I can remember (about 40 years).   I think we even do a pretty good job in Texas.

I agree our Aerospace Education mission is our "weakest link".  Congress, for what ever reason, does not really fund us for this mission.  Funding basically comes from our corporate budget, which is stretched pretty thin, and donations.   However, I think we do pretty good with what we have.  One of the reasons the "CAP Foundation" has been established is to improve on this mission's performance by providing more scholarships and better programs for our members.  Now, having admitted to this, we still do a good job with the tools we have.  I'll use my experience as a cadet as an illustration of what happens:  After going through CAP's aerospace program, I became a pilot and entered college as an aerospace engineering student.  Let's count that as a success.  I wonder how many other such stories we can come up with.    I would venture to be wild and say tens of thousands over the past 60 years maybe hundreds of thousands.

Now, back on topic.  As I mentioned before, if establishing an NCO or any other grade structure can improve on our missions or member satisfaction,  I say go for it.

River Aux says no research was done. Actually it's been done at least twice I'm aware of. In 1972 Air War College paper, a survey was made of cadets that attended the 1965 Florida Wing encampments. The results showed that less than 10% of the cadets from that encampment that entered the military went into the Air Force. The majority 85% went into the Army. More cadets went to college majoring in Education that went into the Air Force.
A followup survey (I have a copy around somewhere) was conducted in Pacific Region of cadets that attended the 1992 California Wing encampment. This survey was done in 2000. The percentages from both were fairly identical, other than smaller increase went into the USAF. Keep in mind the first survey was during the Viet Nam period, the 2nd was during a "no-conflict" period.
Neither survey included information on cadets that may have gone through a University AFROTC commissioning program.

Hey......I was at the 1965 FLWG encampment. Hope they are not still tracking my where abouts.  ;)

Well, after all that I have traded my stripes in for butter bars so I can take the Deputy Commander position at my squadron... oh well, service before self.

Quote from: 2d Lt Rudin on February 12, 2008, 04:27:07 AM
Well, after all that I have traded my stripes in for butter bars so I can take the Deputy Commander position at my squadron... oh well, service before self.

Actually, there can be a NCO Sq. Commander.  CAPR 35-5 does not REQUIRE the officer to hold a certain Grade

Quote from: CAPR 35-5, Section C, 13, d
Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of first lieutenant concurrent with the member's appointment as squadron commander. He or she becomes eligible for promotion to captain at the end of 1 year's service as squadron commander. NOTE: Commanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

While it may be a good idea, as well as concurrent with traditional military wisdom, a CC or DCC/DCS should be an Officer Grade, but does not have to.

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 12, 2008, 06:03:15 AM

Quote from: CAPR 35-5, Section C, 13, d
Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of first lieutenant concurrent with the member's appointment as squadron commander. He or she becomes eligible for promotion to captain at the end of 1 year's service as squadron commander. NOTE: Commanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

While it may be a good idea, as well as concurrent with traditional military wisdom, a CC or DCC/DCS should be an Officer Grade, but does not have to.

The advancement of a senior in grade, as quoted above, has nothing to do with an NCO being a sqd cc.  That simply means if a sqd needs a commander, the Wing CC may promote a senior to 1st Lt right off the bat, for example a brand new sqd.

Other than that, I have not been able to locate anything that states the sqd cc has to be an officer.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 11, 2008, 11:00:00 PM

QuoteCAP is not making a significant impact in the number of high quality people in that pool, as a recruiting source, or on people entering aerospace development.

Opinion, not backed up by any research I'm aware of.

Regardless of what you may believe, the govt is not funded on the basis of research, not ever. Stats are complete crap. Most govt stat research is done to back up pre-existing positions in congress. They know what the research will say before they ask it to be done, and do that selectively to advance their position. Always question that stuff & look at the motives/circumstances before you make any kind of judgement.

Intuitively though... CAP has 20-odd-k cadets spread btwn 12-21, out of 300mil US population, and how big's the AF now? If every one of them was an honor student & pursued the mil or aviation development careers, that'd be a drop in the bucket.

This is quanitity of high quality that we're trying to create. We aren't attracting and retaining large numbers of the best/brightest kids in the country, and then shaping them into core values driven aviation minded real leaders. We get a few, but not nearly enough to make ourselves a critical part of the AF's supply chain.

Quote

QuoteHowever, the govt's intent is that such a program exist in order to procure a higher number of better quality candidates drawn to military aviation or other service, or aerospace development in support of a strong air & space force.

Actually, it is not.  If the government intended that to be a primary focus of the cadet program, Congress would have written that into the law authorizing CAP.  They knew the difference as providing aviation training for youths going into the AAF in WWII was a big part of the cadet program when it started.  If that was what they wanted out of CAP, they would have been specific about it and they would have pushed us towards designing our program more around that specific goal. 

Should it be a goal?  I wouldn't have a problem with it.  But, it certainly isnt something that is currently on our task list.

Actually they wouldn't write that into law & I'll tell you why. Cause a program for 12+ yo kids that indoctrinates them to a values system, teaches them selfless service to the state, inspires them with weapons of war... that's the hitler youth there bud, especially to the ACLU crowd. So, they hint at it instead & they expect you to understand the congressional/commander's intent as it flows down.

The govt does not want CAP to run a program that is explicitly about funneling people into mil service. They want a community based program that teaches common values, inspires toward math & science with aviation, and instills volunteerism (which is the first step toward recognizing duty to the state thru selfless service)... because, the implicit side-effect if done correctly is to produce that supply chain of highly qualified candidates coming into the mil.

Going back a ways on the whole grade thing.

Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2008, 06:47:30 PM
Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit.

You're missing the point - what if they WANT to go back to a local unit

People do.  I've done it.  Heck, I've seen a former Wing CC hang out in on squadron staff because his grandkids joined that unit.  

What are you gonna do - fire the guy because he doesn't want to work at Group.

Also, beware of "if you want a break, just become an assitant on Group staff."  That attitude is what fills up some Region HQs with former bigwigs who, frankly, are just taking up space.  And occasional screwing things up because they really don't have the energy or initiative to work hard at that level, but for some reason feel they want to hang out at the higher echelons.

Our work force is going to be more mobile, up and down, than any paid workforce will ever be.


Again, I think the only way to make grade meaningful is to tie it to position.

Either you can go halfway, and require service in a appropriate position before earning a permanent promtion (we do it for O-6s, so why not do it for 0-4s and 0-5s)
This helps a bit, but you will still end up with commanders being outranked by their staff.

Or you can go all the way, and use grade as a symbol of office (but require certain PD as well, to ensure quality).

The key to grade is not "it tells us how good you are."  The key is "it tells us what responsiblity and authority you possess."

Quote from: Dragoon on February 12, 2008, 04:06:58 PM
Going back a ways on the whole grade thing.

Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2008, 06:47:30 PM
Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit.

You're missing the point - what if they WANT to go back to a local unit

People do.  I've done it.  Heck, I've seen a former Wing CC hang out in on squadron staff because his grandkids joined that unit.  

What are you gonna do - fire the guy because he doesn't want to work at Group.

Also, beware of "if you want a break, just become an assitant on Group staff."  That attitude is what fills up some Region HQs with former bigwigs who, frankly, are just taking up space.  And occasional screwing things up because they really don't have the energy or initiative to work hard at that level, but for some reason feel they want to hang out at the higher echelons.

Our work force is going to be more mobile, up and down, than any paid workforce will ever be.


Again, I think the only way to make grade meaningful is to tie it to position.

Either you can go halfway, and require service in a appropriate position before earning a permanent promtion (we do it for O-6s, so why not do it for 0-4s and 0-5s)
This helps a bit, but you will still end up with commanders being outranked by their staff.

Or you can go all the way, and use grade as a symbol of office (but require certain PD as well, to ensure quality).

The key to grade is not "it tells us how good you are."  The key is "it tells us what responsiblity and authority you possess."

Grade should actually inidcate BOTH how good you are AND your resp/auth. In that you are advanced in grade only if you are good enough for the next one, & then placed according to that skill level in positions of resp/auth.

Far as wanting to move up/down. The system I proposed makes local units flights which are almost exclusively enlisted. It takes higher quals & long academically intensive trng to become an officer, and then you promote by virtue of trng/TIG & board to open slots. With the exception of Flt CC, all of that is above the local unit level. All of it deals with the strategic, with pgm mgmt, etc. Viturally none of it is tactical. An officer would not be qualified to do the hands-on technical stuff at a local unit.

If an officer no longer wanted to serve in an active position at higher then they become a reservist attached to higher & can attend/help out where ever within that command they choose. That doesn't mean asst or slotted in a position they won't be committed to. It doesn't even mean HQ. It means a seperate res-only Sq/flt which is attached to that echelon. They have no auth other than their grade, can serve where they want within the command, but can't hold a position there. If they REALLY want to digress from GBD at Sq/Gp to GTL at a local unit, then they can resign their commission & do so.

Quote from: brasda91 on February 12, 2008, 03:36:03 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 12, 2008, 06:03:15 AM

Quote from: CAPR 35-5, Section C, 13, d
Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of first lieutenant concurrent with the member's appointment as squadron commander. He or she becomes eligible for promotion to captain at the end of 1 year's service as squadron commander. NOTE: Commanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

While it may be a good idea, as well as concurrent with traditional military wisdom, a CC or DCC/DCS should be an Officer Grade, but does not have to.

The advancement of a senior in grade, as quoted above, has nothing to do with an NCO being a sqd cc.  That simply means if a sqd needs a commander, the Wing CC may promote a senior to 1st Lt right off the bat, for example a brand new sqd.

Other than that, I have not been able to locate anything that states the sqd cc has to be an officer.

That's what I was saying, according to the regs, the do not "have" to.  I also said that to most people, commanders should be Officers.  in the Military,  unit commanders ARE Officers.

What about the wings that do not have the staffing capacity to make your squadrons work- if all local units were flights?  I do not see how changing the terms of units will actually change the situation, where the Rubber meets the Road.  If I started calling manure chicken, would it still not stink? 
There are some wings where you could do exactly what you are talking about, but like the Iowa Experiment, it can not work for all.  If you truly feel hat there is a problem with the current organization,  it needs to fit in our current model, or a new model that works for all.  At least the Iowa Model worked for that wing, and they did not say it should be applied uniformly across the board.  in fact, they repeatedly said that it wouldn't work that way.

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 12, 2008, 07:43:13 PM
What about the wings that do not have the staffing capacity to make your squadrons work- if all local units were flights?  I do not see how changing the terms of units will actually change the situation, where the Rubber meets the Road.  If I started calling manure chicken, would it still not stink? 
There are some wings where you could do exactly what you are talking about, but like the Iowa Experiment, it can not work for all.  If you truly feel hat there is a problem with the current organization,  it needs to fit in our current model, or a new model that works for all.  At least the Iowa Model worked for that wing, and they did not say it should be applied uniformly across the board.  in fact, they repeatedly said that it wouldn't work that way.

I thought I addressed smaller states earlier. No state is so small it can't support this structure. New or struggling units (below 20) would be dets. 20-45 is flt. At 45 & stable you're breaking that into two flts who answer to an area Sq. 2-5 flts fall under a Sq. 2-5 Sqs make a Gp. Small states fit in as Gps. Large states carry that thru to wing. There might be a couple cases where a lg state needs to form two wings, but it'd still be one state level HQ, kind of like the guard.

It's not a matter of calling it something dif, it's changing the way we do business. That is putting all the tactical operations at the local level in the hands of technical specialists (enlisted), and taking all the strategic & support functions off the local unit to a new echelon where resources get shared & the staff load is greatly reduced.

WIWAC most seniors had to start off as  Warrant Officer, promote to (and serve a specific time as) Chief WO, THEN became eligible for 2nd Lt.

Perhaps if we simply re instituted something along those lines, using the Flight Officer Grades, and eliminated or severely restricted most of the special appointments/mission related, it would slow the rate of progression to field grade ranks.

For instance, perhaps a CFI ought to serve a year as 1 Lt, and be required to instruct at a flight encampment, serve as a check pilot, or give a specified number of O flights, BEFORE being eligible for Captain.

Perhaps a newly promoted Group CC should serve a year as Captain AND complete the PD requirements for Major BEFORE promoting.

Quote from: DNall on February 12, 2008, 10:05:00 PM

I thought I addressed smaller states earlier. No state is so small it can't support this structure. New or struggling units (below 20) would be dets. 20-45 is flt. At 45 & stable you're breaking that into two flts who answer to an area Sq. 2-5 flts fall under a Sq. 2-5 Sqs make a Gp. Small states fit in as Gps. Large states carry that thru to wing. There might be a couple cases where a lg state needs to form two wings, but it'd still be one state level HQ, kind of like the guard.

It's not a matter of calling it something dif, it's changing the way we do business. That is putting all the tactical operations at the local level in the hands of technical specialists (enlisted), and taking all the strategic & support functions off the local unit to a new echelon where resources get shared & the staff load is greatly reduced.

That does not change the staffing problems that Wings face right now.  OK just deactivated our 2 groups due to staffing problems.  It also doesn't change the way people operate.  Instead of calling us LT, Capt, or MAJ, you would prefer SSgt, MSgt etc, you think that would make us technical specialists? ???  The title we go by does no change the way we operate.

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this will help.  Who would do all the tracking?  Squadrons?  At two levels above the lowest level?  We hardly see Wing right now.  They don't have the resources to be able to track all the admin/personnel without the local admin/personnel/etc officers.  With the requirement that local Officers needed to do what you would like to see happen just defeaters the whole premise of your reorganization.   

Every unit, no matter what you call it and what the rank is of the people in charge will always have a certain minimum amount of staff and paperwork/electronic work that will have to be done at that level.  Only so much can be shuffled up to people in other locations and only so much can be cut as unnecessary. 

Someone at the local unit will still have to go pull the logs out of the airplane and the van and process them, someone will still be adminstering tests to cadets, etc.  For all the "minor" staff positions, small squadrons simply don't fill those jobs unless someone interested wants to do it and even though they're supposed to do a lot, except for certain key things there isn't much consequence for not doing them. 

Converesley, there are only so many people at "higher" levels willing to do paperowork and administrative work.  You are not going to find some untapped resevoir of people chomping at the bit to really do this sort of thankless staff work for people at lower levels in the organization.  Sad, but true. 

So, while there is a certain amount of sense in changing our unit names, it won't make any actual difference in what still has to be done. 

Man there's like six dif conversations going on in this thread. Gotta love CAPTalk.  ;D

Step back with me for a minute. Imagine local units where there are no staff positions cause they don't do those functions. No supply, trans, PAO, ES, comm, DCS, DCC, nothing. ALL those functions occur at this new Sq echelon. All the decision making, programming, everything you're used to having at the local level would be gone. That'd be centralized & standardized at this new Sq level. See those officers there get all the power, but none of the fun.

The local unit now, they do nothing but the mission. Say it's GT focused. They organize & train for GT, nothing else. They don't do their own thing. They conduct a program created with & supervised by an ES officer at Sq. That ES officer is also overseeing a flt that focuses on air ops, one for comm, etc so that the Sq can come together & field an operable task force. Everything that unit needs from supply to logistics to whatever is dealt with by Sq personnel.

As NCOs, they can be play a role in that decsion making & support capacity by serving at higher echelons, just like happens int he real military, but they aren't going to command or fill primary decision making billets. Their job is to execute tactically.

Above that Sq level (gp/wg) the structure isn't drastically changed other than to standardize the size of force that title refers to. The difference in staffing is, like Iowa, we pull all field grade officers up to Gp/Wg level. That gives you resources to fill those holes. They can decline that promotion, but under this system there is real authority at those levels. A Gp ES officer can order subordinate Sqs to change elements of their trng or operations plan & they will do it or be fired & demoted. People won't take those slots right now because they're meaningless. All the power is at the local level. All you can do at higher is advocate for better practices, beg people to comply, and swim thru a nightmare of paperwork. Who wants to do that? You give those people real authority to effect positive change & they'll step up.

Right now... we don't do half of what we're actually supposed to function or reporting wise; don't really accomplish all our three missions; don't field geographic task forces that can respond to ES... the list goes on. What I'm talking about is taking all the BS off the local unit, freeing them to focus in specifically on tight mission parameters. Rather than trying to staff six units we now consolidate to staff one Sq that supports 5 subordinate operational units. We're taking a note from Iowa on consolidating power, but on a more local scale than them, and standardizing across our span of control. Those Sqs are still relatively local geographically focused units & directly organically tied to each of their functional elements (flts).

Let's take your GT based unit. How do they deploy? POV? CAP vehicle? Something else? Let's give them an apparopriate vehicle like a Suburban. Now, since that unit has no trans staff, who files the vehicle usage reports? The LGT at the headquarters who may or may not see the vehicle monthly? Someone at the unit? reports don't get filed? The headquarters unit may cover a few hundred square miles. Is the HQ staff supposed to visit every subordinate unit monthly to make sure all paperwork and staff functions are handled?

Who makes sure all the equipment is properly accounted for and maintained? Certainly not the GT unit, afterall, that's not their responsibility. And unless you're going to budget for serious gas monies, the HQ staff won't be making those kinds of monthly rounds.

Who enters the qualifications for the unit?

How big an area are you looking at? What about the person interested in GT who can't come to meetings on the night the GT unit meets but is available other nights? Too bad, so sad?

I found your idea that if a subordinate unit reaches 45-50 members, they should split, to be quite laughable. There are very few ideas put forth here that I can say that about.

^^ Thank you, you have expressed what I was trying to say.

Quote from: arajca on February 13, 2008, 05:25:01 AM
Let's take your GT based unit. How do they deploy? POV? CAP vehicle? Something else? Let's give them an apparopriate vehicle like a Suburban. Now, since that unit has no trans staff, who files the vehicle usage reports? The LGT at the headquarters who may or may not see the vehicle monthly? Someone at the unit? reports don't get filed? The headquarters unit may cover a few hundred square miles. Is the HQ staff supposed to visit every subordinate unit monthly to make sure all paperwork and staff functions are handled?

Who makes sure all the equipment is properly accounted for and maintained? Certainly not the GT unit, afterall, that's not their responsibility. And unless you're going to budget for serious gas monies, the HQ staff won't be making those kinds of monthly rounds.

Who enters the qualifications for the unit?

Such a Sq HQ unit should never be covering several hundred miles. The whole point is to keep it small & close to the ground, most likely co-loacated with one of the flights. And total pers in flts assigned to one sq, we're talking 60-80 on average. It's not changing how a Sq works, just cutting the admin load by a third by consolidating it.

A local GT focused unit would still have to pull logs & email them up to a LG NCOIC at Sq, but they wouldn't have to do the report. That same Sq staff member would be taking data from each of the other flts & combining it into one report, rather than one from each unit. They'd also have an officer there commanding the flt, and that's who is responsible for sign offs. As a corporate officer (under this system), he's legally responsible for the legitmacy of those sign offs. However, his primary responsibility is to supervise & ensure that ops/trng are being conducted according to the plan/pgm handed down from the dept director (ESO in this case) at the Sq level.

QuoteHow big an area are you looking at? What about the person interested in GT who can't come to meetings on the night the GT unit meets but is available other nights? Too bad, so sad?

I found your idea that if a subordinate unit reaches 45-50 members, they should split, to be quite laughable. There are very few ideas put forth here that I can say that about.

Yeah if you can't get to the unit that does GT, or can't make that mtg time, then too bad. That's how it is right now. Despite regs, most units are focused on one aspect or another of the program, be that CP, GT, comm, or air ops. If you aren't willing to drive to a CAP unit then you can't participate, if you aren't willing to drive to one that does what you're interested in, then that sucks for you.

Our problem right now is we try to do too many thing at once & have too much admin hammered down on us while trying to do it, so we do very little well. What I'm trying to do is pull back & regroup. If we can consolidate & standardize functions, and if we can alleviate some of the admin load off our operators, then we should be able to do our jobs a lot better.

This is exactly how the military does it. I'm not saying we should do it their way because it's the mil way, I'm saying they do it that way for really good reasons that help them accomplish their objectives.

And what's the big deal about splitting a flight when it gets stable at a big size? Right now you can have 2 Wg CC, where one is in charge of 5k+ folks with dozens of aircraft, many times more vans, and millions in comm gear; or you can have one with a couple hundred folks & a miniscule fraction of the resources; yet, they both have the same authority? That doesn't make sense from a mgmt perspective.

The reason to split into two flts is to maintain a level span of control. One flt makes for two GTs. That comes with trainers & an officer to supervise. When you get big enough to split to two flts then you push that up to addl GTs, you get extra supervision & extra trainer/support slots. Each one of those units becomes a self-contained operating unit, and when you add it all together you get an ES task force.

Dnall, you're missing the point -- someone down at the lowest level is still going to be doing the nuts and bolts associated with the paperwork that has to be done.  Whether they're officially the squadron supply or logistics officer (in this example) makes no difference.  It will still be someone's job  In a small unit, it will still probably be the commander (no matter what their title/rank) and in a larger unit, it will probably be assigned to someone else if they can find a volunteer/sucker. 

And keep in mind that not everybody lives in a state where there are enough units close enough together to do paperwork in this fashion.  There is only 1 squadron in my state that is closer than an hour away from their nearest companion and most of them are even farther. 

The only place this might work is in some urban areas which now have enough units to form their own groups.  In the rest of the country, I don't see it as a viable option.   

Quote from: RiverAux on February 13, 2008, 11:17:30 PM
Dnall, you're missing the point -- someone down at the lowest level is still going to be doing the nuts and bolts associated with the paperwork that has to be done. 

No, I do understand. You said it before. Only the most critical 10 or so positions will be manned & the other work won't get done. Okay, so if five units are manning those same 10 positions each, then first of all they're duplicating a lot of effort, and second of all none of those other positions are getting manned for any of them.

What if instead of that you all shared one staff section that did all of that support work for each of the units. I do understand that some essential functions have to happen at that local unit, but they are very few & far between. I can keep that number extremely low thru two methods. One is consolidating to Sq like I said, the other is focusing the scope of the mission that each unit is trying to accomplish.

In our logistics example, you just need an Amn to pull the log & scan/email it up, not to do a report. That leaves that operator a whole lot more time to focus on trng rather than house keeping.

QuoteAnd keep in mind that not everybody lives in a state where there are enough units close enough together to do paperwork in this fashion.  There is only 1 squadron in my state that is closer than an hour away from their nearest companion and most of them are even farther. 

You do paperwork in that fashion right now when you send it on for approval. The difference now is you just send the log used to fill out the form, rather than filling it out yourself. That LG NCO/Officer at Sq isn't doing any more work than a current Sq LG officer. They are just consolidating the several logs into one form.

Basically, this is 75% of the Iowa system scaled down to the local level. I know it's not perfect, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than what we're doing right now. And it is scalable to dif environments.

Let's apply this idea to real unit:
ABC Composite Sqdn is located about 100 mi from the nearest other sqdn. ABC currently has 1 C-182 w/ a couple crews, 1 van w/ a couple GT's, and a good cadet program. According to DNall's plan, this sqdn would break into four individual units: Air Flt, GT Flt, Cadet Flt, and Headquarters sqdn. What has changed for the better? Instead of having cadets able to serve in all missions, they are separated out as a separate flight or they abandon the cadet program to do ES. Where have efficiencies been found? Who 'owns' the van and a/c? Each flt? HQ? Who sets priorities for the equipment? Vans are assigned based on cadet strength, not GT status.

Additionally, you lose a tool to fill staff slots. If ______ job doesn't get done, you can't do the fun stuff. Suddenly, I can do the fun stuff and 'someone else' will handle the mundane. Why should I take on the admin job? Why should I worry about logistics? Those are HQ problems, not mine. My job is to keep my qualifications up and respond when called and available. When the aircraft and van are reassigned because HQ didn't do their job because no one wants to work at hq, who is really to blame? When the units fold because without an aircraft, you can't do flying stuff, and without a van you can't do GT, what impression would that leave on everyone - both in and out of CAP?

QuoteNo, I do understand. You said it before. Only the most critical 10 or so positions will be manned & the other work won't get done. Okay, so if five units are manning those same 10 positions each, then first of all they're duplicating a lot of effort, and second of all none of those other positions are getting manned for any of them.

What if instead of that you all shared one staff section that did all of that support work for each of the units.

Dnall, you've been around long enough that you should understand that this is like a lot of CAP -- it could work if everything goes right and every person does everything they're supposed to do.  In this case, if one staff position isn't filled or is filled with someone who doesn't really do the job then it would be 5 units that would suffer not just one.  How many staff officers at Group or Wing do you know about who don't do the job now?  Why make the local unit even more dependent on people "higher up" in the organization? 

Just how would this work in most of the country where units are few and far between? 

First of all, this is an academic discussion, not an effort to effect change. I understand CAP isn't willing to endure dramatic change.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 14, 2008, 01:03:55 AM
In this case, if one staff position isn't filled or is filled with someone who doesn't really do the job then it would be 5 units that would suffer not just one.  How many staff officers at Group or Wing do you know about who don't do the job now?  Why make the local unit even more dependent on people "higher up" in the organization? 

So, in what way is that different than what we have now?

This seems so simple to me.

Problem: We expect more of our local units than they are capable of doing. The admin load is too high, the staffing too low. The same functions get left behind everywhere in favor of a common support load. Even though our regs say we can't specialize, all units do to some extent because they just can't do stuff like external AE or mission staff functions, but they will do things like GT/aircrew/CP.

Solution: Move the admin load up & off operators so they can focus on the mission. Consolidate those common support functions & share resources to accomplish them. Standardize btwn units & hold them accountable.

That just seems like common sense to me.

Quote from: arajca on February 14, 2008, 12:50:48 AM
Let's apply this idea to real unit:
ABC Composite Sqdn is located about 100 mi from the nearest other sqdn. ABC currently has 1 C-182 w/ a couple crews, 1 van w/ a couple GT's, and a good cadet program. According to DNall's plan, this sqdn would break into four individual units: Air Flt, GT Flt, Cadet Flt, and Headquarters sqdn. What has changed for the better? Instead of having cadets able to serve in all missions, they are separated out as a separate flight or they abandon the cadet program to do ES. Where have efficiencies been found? Who 'owns' the van and a/c? Each flt? HQ? Who sets priorities for the equipment? Vans are assigned based on cadet strength, not GT status.

There are 1500 odd units in the country, almost all in clusters related to population centers. It is the extremely rare case that is 100 miles from the nearest other unit. There is no system, including what we have now, that works perfectly for everyone. You have to do what makes us most functional on the large scale.

Taking your example though... That would be three flts & a Sq HQ if they have something around 100 people. If that's the case then they're probably already operating informally as three flts (aircrew, GT, and CP) with a shared admin/support structure.

Far as cadets on ES, I don't think you're understanding me on this. The Sq, not the flt, is still the basic operating unit. When a mission comes, the Sq gets called up. They are a self-contained task force with GT, air, CnC, comm, etc. They have everything spread out amongst the flts. They do come together for trng & do cross-train. Cadets do learn ES. An aircrew flt should be able to put out a UDF team. It's not walled off so you cannot do anything else, just that each flt focuses more on one function than the others. Far as cadets, there would most likely be a cdt detachment at each of the flts, but they all answer up thru a DCC at the Sq level.

I know it's a little complicated to understand something so different, but are you seeing what I'm talking about? 

QuoteAdditionally, you lose a tool to fill staff slots. If ______ job doesn't get done, you can't do the fun stuff. Suddenly, I can do the fun stuff and 'someone else' will handle the mundane. Why should I take on the admin job? Why should I worry about logistics? Those are HQ problems, not mine. My job is to keep my qualifications up and respond when called and available....

I thought I addressed this already. There's a few key parts.
1) Flts don't make policy or control their fate at all. In our GT example, there is an ESO at Sq dividing up the components of a complete self-contained SaR/DR task force among each of the flts. He directs that GT focused flt to train on XYZ, and they do it. They have input, but it's not their choice & they never do their own thing. People would want to serve at that Sq level cause they have real authority over policy, and on the ES side it's the only way to move up into CnC positions.
2) Sq level is were most of the officer slots are. You want ot be an officer, have some real authority, be able to make policy. You go to Sq & prob serve most of your career at that level.
3) The Sq CC, DC & XO would be officers, any other position could be a junior officer or NCO. That's the flts sharing personnel btwn each other to staff the HQ element. You're motivated to file those transportation reports because you came up from the flt that has that van & you deploy on a GT with them during a mission.

The difference is now that if you've got 5 squadrons, each of them probably has some holes that force the squadron commander do double duty to get the job done.  However, they will be different holes in each squadron.  One might not have an Ops officer which means more work for that squadron commander, but it is doable for him to cover it.  However, in your proposal if the Ops officer doesn't do his job, then 5 planes get grounded for not having their monthly reports turned in rather than just one.  You're putting all your eggs in one basket. 

I am all for paperwork reduction as much as possible, but you haven't actually proposed anything that would reduce it.  Some fraction of the paperwork might actually get done at a higher level with your proposal, but it would be very small and would actually result in redundant work being done in that it would still need to be initially worked at the local level, then shifted up for finalization where it would be re-done in some form or fashion. 

Got it. CAP should be an urban organization. OK.

I quit.

Quote from: DNall on February 13, 2008, 11:47:15 PM

Basically, this is 75% of the Iowa system scaled down to the local level. I know it's not perfect, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than what we're doing right now. And it is scalable to dif environments.

No, it is not.  The only thing that was different was in how they trained.  Training was done at Wing.  Proficiency was done locally.  All paperwork and reports was done by the squadron- the way it is for the rest of us.  Trust me I was there under the system.  The only squadron reports done at Wing were the finances, but that was due to the Wing Banker Program, not the Iowa Plan.  Making all reports done by wing would have resulted in a huge backlog of paper.  You'd have to get all the squadron officers to Wing so they could complete all the paperwork, at that point, you'd have only a few Officers to oversee/train all the Cadets.  At that point, there would be no point in having a WTA.

Quote from: arajca on February 14, 2008, 04:52:53 AM
Got it. CAP should be an urban organization.

Whatever. I didn't say urban. Very few Sqs are in the middle of no where or beyond access to a neighboring unit.

It seems like yall are having trouble understanding what I'm getting at. Forget what I was saying, let me try this from another angle.
EX. -
You get a new Sq CC. He says, "I think we're doing too much admin & not enough operational trng. We're going to reorg a bit so we can be more efficient & I can keep my operators more focused on the mission. We're going to have separate flights for cadets, GT, & aircrew. For right now we're all going to still meet at the same time, but as we get our feet under us, each group may decide to meet on a dif day so they have full access to all the resources they need. We're also going to have a mission support section under the DCS. The flights are going to be told from the command section what they need to train on so the pieces of the puzzle come together to make a complete picture. But, they are going to do their own training, and otherwise are only responsible for the most essential & immediate self-support tasks. The mission support section will take care of the rest."

Now, ignoring for a moment how I'm going to staff the mission support section, does anyone actually have a fundamental problem with the rest of that?

ALL I'm doing is taking that mission support section from a couple units & combining them. Instead of now having 5 mediocre ops officers where one or two might not do the job well, now I got the one best ops officer out of that whole pool. You want to train in a specialty, hey look I actually have someone that knows what they're doing, you aren't getting tossed in the fire handed a reg to learn the job & set up for failure. Not only that, I now have the manpower to not only fill those short-term most critical jobs, but I can staff out the others that make a bigger difference for the long-term strategic health of the unit. And, I'm not trying to do all three missions of CAP & every ES specialty at every local unit. Now, I'm spreading that out over 2-5 units. Suddenly it's all more manageable.

I understand it's different than you're used to. I understand most people in CAP are distrustful of levels above local. This isn't some far off disconnected HQ unit that justs gets up in your business. This is one combined arms team at the street level sharing resources to do the job, and able to get it done better than we can now.

Does that make more sense, or are you still not feeling it?

Just doesn't seem workable considering that many active CAP members often wear multiple hats.  The most common example is that usually senior GT members are also active in leading the cadet program and now you would be having them go to multiple meetings instead of just one. 

You can still have special training for each of these groups as needed, but I don't see any advantage at all to formalizing such a split. 

Maybe, maybe not, that would depend on the exact circumstance.

It's a bad thing though that people wear so many hats. In trying to do too much they end up doing almost nothing well or completely; it burns people out fast; and, they don't have adequate time left for their operational role (be that an ES specialty or CP). The net result of that on every level of the program is what really holds us back more than anything else.

At the same time, you know there are FEMA standards coming down at some point. When that happens, it's going to require significantly more trng, both initial & on-going, to be involved in ES, especially GT. It's not really feasible to be a legitimate responder under that matrix unless you give it your full focus.

DNall is making a great deal of sense here (in part because he is suggesting something I've been preaching for a very long time!)>

For a good number of our local units, the active membership would, in fact, constitute a flight...12-20 acitve members at most.

Even in our larger squadrons, it is not all that unusual to see a handful of officers actually doing most of the administrative work, no matter whose name appears in manning charts.

CAP's local units tend to be training oriented; some also carry out tactical operations (GT/aircrew).

Relatively few, if any, can run a UCC, SLS, CLC on their own, fully staff a GT school or provide  complete mission base staffing for a large operation.....which is fine, it's not their role.

DNall is proposing consolidation -- in these days of technology, instant communications, computer record keeping, there is no reason whatsoever that many staff functions can not be performed "virtually"....flight personnel can provide raw data to squadron/group staff officers, who prepare required reports, plan large scale training/operations, and so  forth.....in effect, as I think someone mentioned, expand "wing banker" into other areas....not to centralize power, but to free flight members to do what they joined CAP to do -- carry out the missions!

With much of the admin work happening online, there is no reason that interested seniors could not assist in various higher level staff sections -- providing a pool of talent for position succession when necessary -- but there would not be the pressure to fill every 'slot' at the local level, and try to replicate someone's idea of how a USAF squadron operated half a century ago!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it common in USAF for most admin, personnel, logistics, finance, professional development and such to be assigned anywhere except the operational squadrons?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 15, 2008, 06:44:55 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it common in USAF for most admin, personnel, logistics, finance, professional development and such to be assigned anywhere except the operational squadrons?

AF bases have an "MPF" (Military Personnel Flight) typically that consists of Admin, Personnel, Finance, Retention, etc.  However, most squadrons also have their own admin/personnel person that handles someone getting assigned to the unit, award processing, etc.  So it is common to have a few admin people in each squadron - at least physically, not necessarily on the units roster.  My wife's last AD unit had 3 admin people and her unit was just barely large enough to be called a squadron.

Consolidation of "not fun" tasks is a good idea....BUT.

We've got to convince people to do these "not fun" jobs.

We'd probably need to change the way we hand out ribbons and grade so that the folks doing the "not fun" jobs get more of it and the folks just doing the "fun" stuff get less.

Otherwise....you'll have a lot of empty "not fun" job slots.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 25, 2008, 03:28:54 PM
Consolidation of "not fun" tasks is a good idea....BUT.

We've got to convince people to do these "not fun" jobs.

We'd probably need to change the way we hand out ribbons and grade so that the folks doing the "not fun" jobs get more of it and the folks just doing the "fun" stuff get less.

Otherwise....you'll have a lot of empty "not fun" job slots.

Hence the officer/enlisted element. Local units become flights that are manned 99% by enlisted. The "not fun" tasks are consolidated to Sqs that service several local flts. Officer slots exist there & up.

And just to clarify, "not fun" jobs is a bad way to put it. It's a division of labor. The operators at flt level are first team GT/aircrew/comm. But they are never ES officers, ICs, OSC/PSC, etc. That's done by (mostly) officers at Sq & above. They get schools & trng that focus on qual'ing them to be operational leaders that can be inserted into a multi-agency ICS situation. The Sq when it comes together becomes a combined arms task force. It's got specialists in SaR/DR/HLS. Plus, a staffer at Sq or above can also spend the extra time to train with a flt so they can still go on missions in the field, but they'd very clearly be the second team in that regard. Beyond ES, all the power & decision making really happens at the Sq. The DCC is there for the whole Sq. The CP NCOIC at each flt doesn't make up their own program, they execute one standardized program handed to them by Sq. In other words, there's a natural progression of professional growth & authority across the unit matrix.

I am not sure why NCOs should be in CAP, Nor am I really sure why there are Officers anymore. As an Cadet Captian, learning about command structure was great and really helped me in my actual job.

In CAP as a 1st Lt. There are plenty of guys that are 2nd Lts. that I can admit are far more qualified in their fields (example, Former AF Flight Engineer, now FE Instructor) Getting told by a Capt. how he should do his flight plans.

But then we realize this in CAP, and now have a 2nd Lt. Incharge of how many Capt.s and Maj.s, when we put him into some type of staff position like the Ops Officer.

And as for being an NCO, Well to tell you the truth I would never take my rank as a SSgt/E-5 (my true rank and grade in the USAF) In CAP, because other officers don't listen to 22 year old 1st Lt., Why on earth would they listen to a 22 year old CAP SSgt?

(Oppps, CAP has a long way to go when it comes to professionalism, and command structure.)

I apologize for the above rant.

I am just a little angered by the lack of development in an organization as old and well staffed as ours.

The problem with having a flight system what has been proposed in the above, in my own opinion, is that we don't function as flights, nor do we function as squadrons.

A Flight or a squadron has one particular task.

If it is an Alphabetical organized Flight, it is usually one of mulitiple flights in a "Squadron" which preforms a very specific specialized task.

Example. Aplha flight and Bravo flight are two flights assigned to APGs in an AMXS. Alpha and bravo are both comprised soley of maintainers, and specifically of crew chiefs. The sole purpose of both flights is to field crew chiefs to maintain aircraft for a wing.

Numbered flights: Numbered flights are usually used when a like task must be accomplished, mainly I have seen numbers in basic training flights or field training flights.  example: Flight 704 of the 321 TRS would be just that the 704th training Flight to go through the 321st Training Squadron. They are usually only put together for a short duration, and at the end of the task are disbanded.

Then you have flights like you MPF (Military Personel Flight) which take care of only administrative tasks. And they are very specific in that need.


CAP Squadron- Has Logistics, safety, Leadership, Operations, Professional development, ect....

Half of these things would be flights themselves, others would actually encompas up to the Group level.
So to have a squadron redone as a flight makes no true sense at all.
Nor does the current command structure in CAP Squadrons.

But thats my 2 cents.

Quote from: DNall on February 25, 2008, 07:41:22 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on February 25, 2008, 03:28:54 PM
Consolidation of "not fun" tasks is a good idea....BUT.

We've got to convince people to do these "not fun" jobs.

We'd probably need to change the way we hand out ribbons and grade so that the folks doing the "not fun" jobs get more of it and the folks just doing the "fun" stuff get less.

Otherwise....you'll have a lot of empty "not fun" job slots.

Hence the officer/enlisted element. Local units become flights that are manned 99% by enlisted. The "not fun" tasks are consolidated to Sqs that service several local flts. Officer slots exist there & up.

And just to clarify, "not fun" jobs is a bad way to put it. It's a division of labor. The operators at flt level are first team GT/aircrew/comm. But they are never ES officers, ICs, OSC/PSC, etc. That's done by (mostly) officers at Sq & above. They get schools & trng that focus on qual'ing them to be operational leaders that can be inserted into a multi-agency ICS situation. The Sq when it comes together becomes a combined arms task force. It's got specialists in SaR/DR/HLS. Plus, a staffer at Sq or above can also spend the extra time to train with a flt so they can still go on missions in the field, but they'd very clearly be the second team in that regard. Beyond ES, all the power & decision making really happens at the Sq. The DCC is there for the whole Sq. The CP NCOIC at each flt doesn't make up their own program, they execute one standardized program handed to them by Sq. In other words, there's a natural progression of professional growth & authority across the unit matrix.

You have to draw a distinction between ES and everything else. 

Being a Ops section chief IS a "fun job".  Being Wing Director of Ops is not.

Those ES folks in the units WILL want to progress above pilot and GTL into the mission staff positions - but that doesn't mean they want to take on similar roles in the admin (non-CAP) side of CAP.

Effectively, CAP is going to have two chains of command - one for the administration of units, and one for ES missions.  And people's roles are going to be different.  I can't imagine telling someone they can't train for mission staff unless they agree to become the Group AE officer.  That dog won't hunt.

The issue is with the "not fun jobs" - handling finance, personnel, logistics, safety and even command - to most of our members, these are frankly not fun.  Those that do them now are those that realize they need to be done.  But there aren't ENOUGH folks with this attitude.  We need more incentives to get people to take on these jobs and do them well.

And you still have to deal with today's Wing Vice Commander who decides he just wants to be a pilot for a while down in a squadron.  Do we demote him to NCO? Of just let him hang out with Lt Col grade doing a 2d Lt's job?  That's where we are today!

Quote from: Dragoon on February 26, 2008, 03:04:38 PM
Effectively, CAP is going to have two chains of command - one for the administration of units, and one for ES missions.  And people's roles are going to be different. 

I can't help but think herein lies a problem or a potential for improvement.  In my Squadron (and within Group) we're taking a slightly different tack with this.  There is one chain of command within the squadron, and squadron personnel support wing ES missions. 

Where and when ever possible unit integrity is maintained.  I find this consistent with other agencies and organizations which act to support ES/DR missions. 

The Squadron, working with two other neighboring Squadrons within Group, has undertaken to train for self-contained ES/DR operations within our Group's geographic area.  That's training to handle all ES mission functions up to and including IC3. 

But I digress from the issue of CAP rank/grades. 

If we're going to wear it (rank/grade), it ought to mean something other than accomplishment of a PD goal.  A nice ribbon can denote that.

Quote from: Ricochet13 on February 26, 2008, 03:59:35 PM

But I digress from the issue of CAP rank/grades. 

If we're going to wear it (rank/grade), it ought to mean something other than accomplishment of a PD goal.  A nice ribbon can denote that.

Bingo!  And that my friends is how it should work.  We have a multitude of PD ribbons we earn while progressing our way up the PD charts.  Grade should only be awarded for progressing up the leadership chart.   I don't care how long you've been in CAP or if you made it to level 5 in 2 years.  If you want to be a Capt or Maj or Maj Gen, you need to be willing to accept a corresponding leadership position in CAP.  And, if you do the job right,  you get to keep the grade.

Quote from: FW on February 26, 2008, 05:08:11 PM
Grade should only be awarded for progressing up the leadership chart.   I don't care how long you've been in CAP or if you made it to level 5 in 2 years.  If you want to be a Capt or Maj or Maj Gen, you need to be willing to accept a corresponding leadership position in CAP.  And, if you do the job right,  you get to keep the grade.

PD and time in grade are important and should still be requirements for grade.  The RM does it and we should too by keeping it in the "Leadership Chart".  I do think the concept of serving at a certain level to achieve a corresponding grade has merit.

Quote from: davedove on February 26, 2008, 05:59:09 PM

Quote from: FW on February 26, 2008, 05:08:11 PM
Grade should only be awarded for progressing up the leadership chart.   I don't care how long you've been in CAP or if you made it to level 5 in 2 years.  If you want to be a Capt or Maj or Maj Gen, you need to be willing to accept a corresponding leadership position in CAP.  And, if you do the job right,  you get to keep the grade.

PD and time in grade are important and should still be requirements for grade.  The RM does it and we should too by keeping it in the "Leadership Chart".  I do think the concept of serving at a certain level to achieve a corresponding grade has merit.

Sounds like a plan to me.  Now, if I have it right; Grade to be awarded based on a combination of PD advancement, TIG, and a corresponding leadership position in CAP.
Soo.... maybe I'll ask Col. Guimond if he'll work on formalizing the"concept". ;)

I like it and hope you can make it happen. But be prepared to counter the following argument:

"This means that members of squadrons too far from Group/Wing to serve at those levels will never get promoted - that's not fair!"

In the end, everyone believes it's their God given right to get promoted.  Hard to change that perception.

It will be the NB who makes such a decision.  However, the counter arguments to the two statements you make, in my opinion, are non issues.
1.  I live well over a thousand miles from my "HQ." and have no problem doing my CAP business.
2.  There is not one word in the current regulations mandating a grade as a "birthright"  :D.  It has, though, become conventional wisdom.

Onward to the windmills.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 26, 2008, 07:10:40 PM
In the end, everyone believes it's their God given right to get promoted. 

I've never felt I had a right to promotion. I do feel that I should have the same opportunities as anyone else. At present, I do have those opportunities. I meet the requirements, I take the necessary courses, I do my job and move forward.

In some of these other systems, I wouldn't have the opportunity, and neither would a lot of others. Fair competition is fine. Creating "haves" and "have nots" is wrong.

My experience has been that even in ES (missions) you have those who want to do the "fun" stuff (flying, GT) and never ever take on mission management responsibility.

That's fine....these are tactical operations personnel....in a normal organization, since they are not the senior leaders/managers, there would be a "ceiling" beyond which they would not rise.....we need to re-invent some 'junior' grades, whether these are enlisted /NCO, or flight/warrant officer, is almost immaterial....the principle needs to become re-established that one does not rise above, say, 1 Lt, without accepting significant responsibility in command, staff, mission management, training activities (RES, Basic encampments).

From my limited understanding of CGAux, their base "rank" (I know, they don't call it rank) is equivalent to our SMWG...advancement accompanies jobs, some elected, some appointed.

I don't think we'd do well electing commanders, but the rest of it sounds pretty good to me!

^ they use enlisted grade & promote thru it similar to CAP. The officer grades are reserve for command/staff billets & are both temporary & elected, which I think is a bad idea. They also have much more direct supervision by active operational CG.

I just sent my outgoing company commander from Houston to a staff billet in Dallas, and it doesn't come with a promotion. That's a 250 mile drive each way. If he were enlisted, he could stay in the same unit forever. He chose to be an officer, which means less slots with more responsibility & if you go to a higher echelon that sometimes means some travel.

That's not the case under the system I'm proposing here though. The overwhelming majority of personnel would be enlisted & stay within one Sq forever (unless they move & transfer). The majority of officers would also be at the Sq level, which is very close to the ground (how far is the next closest CAP unit). The only people really forced above Sq level are at the field grade point. Right now we have officers at very distant locations working for Wgs & Regions. Why would this be any different?

Far as right to promote... well that's fine if the grade is meaningless, but it's not under this system. In the real world (be that the mil or corporate world) you have to board/interview for promotions, at least in mgmt. That's supposed to cause the cream to rise to the top, and it's fairly effective at that despite the downfalls. We don't have that in CAP & it kills our leadership & mgmt potential. I'd care a lot more about promotions that I earned & that meant something or anyone else cared about than the relatively meaningless crap we have now.