The significance of 2Lt in CAP

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

I would respectfully disagree that pilots are our most important human resource.  They are important, but without cockpit duties being divided between the pilot/observer/scanner(s)...imagine just a pilot on an ELT search.  Of course, there are pilots who will say I'm just saying that because I'm an Observer...

I've met quite a few pilots (not all) who could care less about PD (second looies for life), and that if it doesn't directly relate to Air Ops, then it's just a headache for them (some extend that to cadet O-rides).

Who would you rather have flying left seat:

A hotshot pilot too self-absorbed with his/her own skills and building up their hours to care about the CAP program as a whole, or a good, qualified pilot who also has a grasp of the CAP program as a whole, including the Cadet and AE missions which are just as much a part of this organisation as flying the plane?

I've flown with both, and I know which I prefer.

[Eclipse]

Its nice to fly with aircrew who don't think their CAP day begins and ends with wheels-up/wheels down, as well, or that the entire mission
should be scrubbed because of bad weather.

[tdepp]

Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I.  I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.

Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance).  What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.

And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.

I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES). 

And pilots?  Many are different.  Confident, smart, independent, mission and results oriented, low tolerance for institutional b.s.   I find those to be admirable qualities. That they think long discussions about uniforms and the latest machinations of NHQ are boring.  Did they want to fly?  Sure.  It's what they do.  And we have many requirements before they are qualified to fly missions.

If there is evidence that pilots who are at Level II or above in their PD are safer than those who are at Level I, that would be good to know and to consider before someone is a MP, perhaps.

And again.  We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol.  We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons.  They are our most important assets.  It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well.  Everything else is secondary in my book.  And though I think we Legal Officers are the most important human asset in the organization  , the pilots are the tip of our spear.  No planes, no pilots, no CAP.

[Eclipse]

I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES). 

I would not - there is a three-level track for ES and Flight Operations and any Mission Pilot worth his wings should be progressing in one of those, at least.  There's a lot more to CAP aviation than just the stick and rudder.  When they aren't flying, pilots and aircrew should be serving or training in mission base roles to help launch other planes, etc, - a much better use of their time than absorbing gravity in the FBO complaining that spins-ups aren't moving fast enough.

If there is evidence that pilots who are at Level II or above in their PD are safer than those who are at Level I, that would be good to know and to consider before someone is a MP, perhaps.

This is not about safety, per ser.  This is about making them better overall members, and even higher-value assets than simple specialists.  This is also about everyone accepting the responsibility for keeping things running equally, with no one being "special".

And again.  We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol.  We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons.  They are our most important assets.  It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well.  Everything else is secondary in my book.  And though I think we Legal Officers are the most important human asset in the organization  , the pilots are the tip of our spear.

The airplanes are our most expensive assets, but the people are our most important assets.

No planes, no pilots, no CAP.

Seriously?  Not even by a long shot.  There are any number of similar organizations which don't even have airplanes and are quite successful in their missions.  Aviation is certainly at the heart of CAP, and a huge part of its history, lore, and sadly, background noise, but it's far from the only thing CAP is about.

You only have to look around at all the CAP members who never see a CAP plane in person, the successful cadets who never had an O-Ride, and the units all over the country that have no aviation component to their programs to see that is true.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

And pilots?  Many are different.  Confident, smart, independent, mission and results oriented, low tolerance for institutional b.s.   I find those to be admirable qualities. That they think long discussions about uniforms and the latest machinations of NHQ are boring.

Like it or not, that "institutional b.s." goes with being in CAP.  Believe me, I've seen a hell of a lot of it during 17 years of being in CAP.  There are those with a lot more time in this organisation than I have who have seen a lot more of that "institutional b.s."  If you're in CAP, you learn to live with it.  That doesn't mean you have to like it, but pilots are not exempt from it, no more so than anyone else in any duty position.

Did they want to fly?  Sure.  It's what they do.

And if they want to do it in CAP, they do it as a member of CAP, with all its foibles and imperfections.  The fleet of Cessnas we maintain do not belong to the pilots (member-owned a/c exempted) and are not theirs to do with as they wish.

The whole "cult of the pilot" is changing, even in the Air Force, with the advent of UAV's.  It's been a bitter pill for some of those who turned and burned in F-16's to sit behind a console at Creech AFB or Syracuse ANGB and control a UAV half a world away.

And again.  We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol.  We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons.  They are our most important assets.  It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well.  Everything else is secondary in my book.

Perhaps in your book, but not in CAP's book, nor in the Air Force's.

We have three designated missions, all equally essential, and if/until the powers that be at CAP and/or the Air Force change that, they are and remain (once more, with feeling):

EMERGENCY SERVICES (and that isn't restricted to just Air Ops)
CADET PROGRAMS
AEROSPACE EDUCATION

WRT PD:

Unlike our founding CAP fathers, many of whom flew their own airplanes and performed life-threatening missions without any formal training, our 57,000 members are now provided with top-notch, year-round professional development training opportunities and with aircraft equipped with the most advanced technologies available for search and rescue.

Major General Amy Courter
CAP National Commander

[tdepp]

I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES). 

I would not - there is a three-level track for ES and Flight Operations and any Mission Pilot worth his wings should be progressing in one of those, at least.  There's a lot more to CAP aviation than just the stick and rudder.  When they aren't flying, pilots and aircrew should be serving or training in mission base roles to help launch other planes, etc, - a much better use of their time than absorbing gravity in the FBO complaining that spins-ups aren't moving fast enough.

If there is evidence that pilots who are at Level II or above in their PD are safer than those who are at Level I, that would be good to know and to consider before someone is a MP, perhaps.

This is not about safety, per ser.  This is about making them better overall members, and even higher-value assets than simple specialists.  This is also about everyone accepting the responsibility for keeping things running equally, with no one being "special".

And again.  We are the Civil AIR Patrol, not the Civil Cadet Patrol or Civil Aviation Education Patrol or the Civil Uniform Patrol.  We have a fleet of Cessnas for good reasons.  They are our most important assets.  It just goes to say that the people who drive them are quite important as well.  Everything else is secondary in my book.  And though I think we Legal Officers are the most important human asset in the organization  , the pilots are the tip of our spear.

The airplanes are our most expensive assets, but the people are our most important assets.

No planes, no pilots, no CAP.

Seriously?  Not even by a long shot.  There are any number of similar organizations which don't even have airplanes and are quite successful in their missions.  Aviation is certainly at the heart of CAP, and a huge part of its history, lore, and sadly, background noise, but it's far from the only thing CAP is about.

You only have to look around at all the CAP members who never see a CAP plane in person, the successful cadets who never had an O-Ride, and the units all over the country that have no aviation component to their programs to see that is true.

So, Eclipse, let's just get rid of those pesky pilots and expensive planes and hold cadet drillk competition and conduct meetings where we discuss corporate v. USAF uniforms and yellow v. orange safety vests then.  I keed, I keed. 

I joined an organization that FLIES to help the USAF and our fellow citizens.  And I'm not a pilot and will never be one.  Sure, we have three missions.  But I would say ES is by far our most important mission and within that mission, the ability to fly is most critical.  Everything else is secondary, except of course, we Legal Officers.  Lord knows the lawyer is always the most important part of any organization.    So, I think we should be the Civil Lawyer Patrol.   

We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization.  But every organization has to prioritize.  Either implicitly or explicitly, the Civil Air Patrol is not the Civil Air Patrol unless flying is its primary reason for being.  If it is not, we're some other sort of organization--a very good and commendable organization--but not the CAP.  And, I would argue, an organization that is no longer distinct from other fine organizations that provide ES assistance, JROTC programming, or advocate and education about aviation/aerospace.

As comedian Dennis Miller used to say, "Of course that's my just my opinion,  I could be wrong."

[Eclipse]

We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization.

Actually, I have an issue with that statement - I joined to be a part of a larger solution, not to have my part be the most important.

The inability to make that distinction is an issue across the board in CAP, not limited to any one faction - a lot of people have difficulty
understanding that they are a small part of the whole, which is less without them, but not solely dependent on them, either.

[DogCollar]

We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization.

Actually, I have an issue with that statement - I joined to be a part of a larger solution, not to have my part be the most important.

The inability to make that distinction is an issue across the board in CAP, not limited to any one faction - a lot of people have difficulty
understanding that they are a small part of the whole, which is less without them, but not solely dependent on them, either.

If I may piggy back on your statement, Eclipse?  It seems to me that the members that can accept their role in the larger picture, usually receive the most recognition and reward as oppossed to the person who has to do it "alone," or who sees themselves as THE most important cog.  At least that's been my observation.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So, Eclipse, let's just get rid of those pesky pilots and expensive planes and hold cadet drillk competition and conduct meetings where we discuss corporate v. USAF uniforms and yellow v. orange safety vests then.  I keed, I keed. 

I have not seen Eclipse, or anyone else, say to "get rid of those pesky pilots and expensive planes," etc.

However, what you seem to say is that the "three-legged stool" of our Congressionally-mandated missions, should be reconfigured, in practice if not on paper:

FLYING
Other ES
Cadet Programs
Aerospace Education

I am not an attorney; however, I have had some training in logical arguments and fallacies, and what you are saying, Captain (incidentally: would you give up your appointed grade to start at the bottom and work your way up the food chain?) seems to be very close to affirming the consequent:

A: The organisation's name is the Civil Air Patrol
B: The terms "Aerospace Education" and "Cadet Programs" do not appear in the organisation's name
C: Therefore, AE and CP are subordinate, if not irrelevant, to the mission of the Civil Air Patrol

Incidentally...you do not have to take part in discussions about uniforms, NHQ, PD, etc.  If you want to stay where you are in the program and not advance, if you want to ignore directives from NHQ, if you want to wear any authorised uniform combination correctly, that is your option.

I doubt anyone is going to try to order you to attend an SLS, CLC, Region, Wing or National Conference, or supervise a flight of cadets drilling.

I joined an organization that FLIES to help the USAF and our fellow citizens.

I did, too, which is why I earned an Observer rating.  But that is not all there is to it.  If I never flew another mission, I would still remain part of CAP.  I did other things, both mission- and administrative-related (comms, Safety Officer, Admin, Scanner) long before I ever pinned on Observer wings.

Sure, we have three missions.  But I would say ES is by far our most important mission and within that mission, the ability to fly is most critical.  Everything else is secondary...

Or tertiary, or even further down?

Your opinion is your opinion.

However, opinion is not policy.

We all like to think what we do is THE most important thing in the organization. 

I have no illusions that what I have done over 17 years in CAP, in the air or on the ground, is "THE most important."  But I do like to think that it helped things get done.  As well, if anyone were to suggest to me that what I or anyone else in CAP has done is automatically subordinate to pilotage, the most politely I can put that is Bravo Sierra.

But every organization has to prioritize.  Either implicitly or explicitly, the Civil Air Patrol is not the Civil Air Patrol unless flying is its primary reason for being.  If it is not, we're some other sort of organization...

We do have our priorities - our Congressionally-mandated ones.

I am not sure how much you know about CAP history, but from the getgo we have done a lot of other things besides flying.

ES on horseback.
Wartime patrol along the Mexican border
Guarding airfields

http://www.vawg.cap.gov/history.html

As comedian Dennis Miller used to say, "Of course that's my just my opinion,  I could be wrong."

Your opinion is what it is, and I don't expect to change that.

As an attorney, you are obviously effective at arguing that.

But again...it is not policy.  Policy is determined by Congress, the Air Force, NHQ, BoG, and anyone else higher up the food chain that I may be forgetting.  We are the instrumentalities of carrying out that policy.

However, you do have the right as a CAP member to forward your opinions about "reprioritising" up the chain (no, I'm not kidding).

[Eclipse]

Maybe it needs to be said more often that "flying", in and of itself, is not a mission of CAP (or even the Air Force, right?).  Flying is one tool necessary to efficiently carry out a small percentage of our overall mission.

If "flying", as a concept, were a AFAM, we'd get reimbursement for proficiency time (which I don't think would be a bad idea).

[tsrup]

Cyborg,
No offense but I think the "bravo sierra" talk is that in and of itself.

you quoted Epp's thread in a mannar to suit your own biased argument and lost sight of the fact that he was presenting both sides unbiasedly and brought up some good points.

Flying is an important part of CAP's identity and it is that capability that sets us apart from other organizations, however as he was trying to point out that it is a tool of our larger and more important ES mission.  Which after reading his whole post he said rather eloquently.  Of course if you do just read what you quoted you could just pick him apart as much as you like.

But speaking of context you talk a lot about experience but I notice the absence of any ES related ribbons on your signature.  Don't argue modesty, as displaying bling on line negates that anyways.
  Go ahead and ask our intrepid lawyer friend what him or myself has been doing this last week or so.
Believe me, we have no illusions where ES fits into our organization.

Also, no need to lecture him on the history of the organization, instead, ask him what other CAP websites he authors, or better yet, read his signature.

[flyboy53]

The name Civil Air Patrol has nothing to do with our missions, we are the Civil Air Patrol because we were formed, incidently, as an air arm of Civil Defense. When the organization was transferred to the Army Air Forces by executive order, the name stayed.

Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, which made CAP the auxiliary of the new US Air Force. CAP was charged with three primary missions: Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Emergency Services. Those are three federlly charged equal-in-priority missions and "flying" is an essential part of all three.

Flying is a tool even essential to the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Without the flying, what would make us any different then the federally-authorized State Guards or defense forces.

[RiverAux]

Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, which made CAP the auxiliary of the new US Air Force. CAP was charged with three primary missions: Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Emergency Services. Those are three federlly charged equal-in-priority missions and "flying" is an essential part of all three.

I usually let the talk of "three missions" slide, but since you explicitly brought federal law into the equation, here are the SIX missions that Congress envisions for CAP:

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.
2.  Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
4.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
5.  To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
6.  To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.

[OldSalt]

Ok, back after a long weekend. By the way, thanks to all of you participating in the floods and other crud going on right now across the country. :clap:

The discussion tree seems to be more of a winding snake. Before I go on I do need to clarify my relationship in CAP for those of you who have challenged my "credentials" for offering my 2 cents (ok, maybe 3 or 4 at times). I am a fairly new CAP Senior Member. I am also a U.S. Army and Air Guard enlisted veteran with service during the first Gulf War, as well as being a retired Deputy Sheriff. During my time in the military I was an Air Cavalry helicopter crewchief, flight crew member, and C130 Mechanic. I have never been a CAP Cadet.

So, while I may be relatively new to CAP, I am definitely not some inexperienced recruit without any real life military or ES training / longevity.

That being said, I do stand by my ideas, responses, and feedback. I don't think that any of my statements or positions have been anything that is out of the ordinary for Captalk, nor have I been intentionally disrespectful to anyone. I do tend to get passionate at times, but I would never denigrate anyone else for their service, perceived lack of service, or committment to CAP.

Quite honestly, this board is great for allowing us to vent or discuss things that we wouldn't necessarily do at any of our meetings simply because our meetings and missions are really why we joined CAP in the first place and all of "this" is mostly just a distraction.

I'm quite sure that any of us would go out of our way to help any other CAP member (new or old) in any way we could to help make their CAP time as enjoyable and rewarding as possible. If you know anything about the nature of volunteering and volunteer organizations, you know that not everyone is motivated by the same things. Some members join for the uniforms, some for the missions, some to fly, some to just come and shoot the breeze with comrades, some for cadet programs because they have a son or daughter involved and they want them to succeed, and some people join because they want to grow their own personal and professional abilities. Not everyone joins purely for "all of the above", though we all appreciate that in CAP you can do all of the above if you desire to and are motivated in that direction.

I most certainly would not want anyone who reads my postings to feel that their particular motivation for joining and participating in CAP's programs was any less honorable than another member's reasons. As someone wise once said, "Every job is honorable - from the toilet cleaner to the CEO, and without any one of them - we would fail miserably."

All that being said - who wants to banter? 

[Rotorhead]

The "You're lucky I showed up at all..." mentality is the root cause of many of our operational challenges.

That's because we aren't lucky if they show up at all. If that's their attitude, cut 'em loose and recruit people who want to work.

[Rotorhead]

Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I.  I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.

Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance).  What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.

And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.

I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES). 

You can't have ES missions if there's no one running the squadron, so the PD "stuff" is critical.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

No offense but I think the "bravo sierra" talk is that in and of itself.

You have the right to think so.  Nonetheless, I stand by what I said - the gist of which is that Captain Epp's attitude seems to maximise aerial ES at the expense of all else - which is not CAP policy.

you quoted Epp's thread in a mannar to suit your own biased argument and lost sight of the fact that he was presenting both sides unbiasedly and brought up some good points.

Unbiasedly?  It seemed to me that Captain Epp paid cursory lip service to AE/CP but exalted aerial ES.

I would suggest you have some bias yourself, perhaps based on the postulation that you know Captain Epp personally?  That's not a knock.  No human being has the ability to be completely unbiased and objective, myself included.

Flying is an important part of CAP's identity and it is that capability that sets us apart from other organizations, however as he was trying to point out that it is a tool of our larger and more important ES mission.

And the ES mission is one of three, along with AE and CP.

But speaking of context you talk a lot about experience but I notice the absence of any ES related ribbons on your signature.  Don't argue modesty, as displaying bling on line negates that anyways.

I have been in CAP since 1993, and have been a member of composite, cadet and senior squadrons.

In that time I have been a Safety Officer, Administrative Officer, Personnel Officer, Aerospace Education Officer, Drug Demand Reduction Officer, Deputy Commander, and whatever else has needed to be done.

I have never been in the sort of ES-dedicated environment you seem to be emphasising is necessary to have an opinion on the subject.  I have only been in one unit that had an airplane.

My ribbon rack as you see it is exactly as worn.

Go ahead and ask our intrepid lawyer friend what him or myself has been doing this last week or so. Believe me, we have no illusions where ES fits into our organization...Also, no need to lecture him on the history of the organization, instead, ask him what other CAP websites he authors, or better yet, read his signature.

First off, I don't answer loaded questions nor allow myself to be baited when I can help it.

If your interests/duties, as well as Captain Epp's, are primarily ES-flying-orientated, your opinion, and it is only an opinion, are likely to be similar that ES, especially Air Ops is paramount.  You would not be the only one to hold such an opinion.

Nonetheless, opinion, whether mine, yours, Captain Epp's or anyone else's, is not policy.

My opinion may well be Bravo Sierra in your estimation.  Nonetheless, it is mine and I do not expect anyone else to agree with me.

This will be my sole reply and rebuttal to you, or to Captain Epp.  If you wish further, PM me, please.

[tsrup]

Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I.  I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.

Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance).  What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.

And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.

I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES). 

You can't have ES missions if there's no one running the squadron, so the PD "stuff" is critical.

And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..

And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...

[flyboy53]

Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, which made CAP the auxiliary of the new US Air Force. CAP was charged with three primary missions: Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Emergency Services. Those are three federlly charged equal-in-priority missions and "flying" is an essential part of all three.

I usually let the talk of "three missions" slide, but since you explicitly brought federal law into the equation, here are the SIX missions that Congress envisions for CAP:

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.
2.  Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
4.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
5.  To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
6.  To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.

OK, got me. Where is this stuff? I'd like to read more. You've succeeded in opening my eyes.

[davidsinn]

Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I.  I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.

Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance).  What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.

And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.

I would make a distinction between ES training (very important) and PD (like how to be a PAO) (important, but less important than ES). 

You can't have ES missions if there's no one running the squadron, so the PD "stuff" is critical.

And a squadron is completely useless ES wise if no one is GES, regardless of their Gill Robb's..

And last I check it was IC's that ran ES stuff...

Wrong and wrong. They will have no problem conducting the other two missions without GES.

Without the squadrons there is no organization for the ICs to be members of. All qualifications are approved at the local level and then at higher levels. All ICs do is run missions. All of the background stuff is done by staffers.