Suspending quals of those in XX-000

[Ed Bos]

That's the issue, a wing CC doesn't have the authority to suspend ES quals on arbitrary grounds, especially the flight quals - we beat this up pretty hard in my wing with staff motivated to remove 000 members from flight status and the end of the conversation was "we can't".  60-1 is very specific about the reasons you can ground someone, and don't currently include "active unit participation".  The savior is that F5's and 91'shave to be CC approved, but of course anything can be "done" in an organization where people participate at 4 different levels.

I've been doing a poor job of keeping track of this thread, my apologies.

It occurred to me that I've only thought about the suspension of Mission quals, not Form-5 pilot qualifications. My interpretation of the 60-3 and the training materials is that a commander has more discretion with these than with grounding a pilot.


I agree with everyone else's thoughts about what to do with dead weight or problem members... Patron status or other appropriate action at the local commander's discretion is the way to go.

[lordmonar]

Well.....isn't the problem kind of moot?

If the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

If said person were then to try to show up at a mission base.....well they would have to go home as they would be locked out of IMU due to being NON SAFETY CURRENT....and at that point only the squadron commander can get them un-locked.   So....even if their ES and Pilot quals were still up to date....they would not be able to participated.

So.....the argument is circular.  You can't revolk the qualifications simply because they don't participate.  but if they don't participate they don't need their qualifications.  If you pull their qualifications for non particpation....but then they show up to use them....then they are in fact particapting and should have the quals un-frozen.

So.....long and short of it.

Move your inactive members to patrol status or the 000 squadron.  ignore their ES and Pilot quals as it is a non player at this point.  If they decide that they want to particpate in ES....well they have get someone to switch them back to active members or transfer them to a real squadron.  Either way they will have to become current on all reqirements before they can participate in ANY CAP activitiy.

[Eclipse]

If the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

Not necessarily - I am personally aware of a number of members who were basically a huge PITA and were 000'ed
to make them go away.  We all know one or two of these guys - once a year pilots who can't be bothered, blow-hard
GOB's who always "know better", or people who are borderline insubordinate in ways that are difficult to prove in a complaint
but just as divisive.

They are capable of completing a Form 5, but not capable of working and playing well with others, so 000 they went
until they could find a home, which was generally "never".

000 has the advantage of being indisputable because a unit CC still has the right of refusal of any members, but the
disadvantage that the existing system does not automatically disqualify a member from participation or ES activity.
Anything in that direction is a Wing policy, not a national reg.

Patron status has the advantage that the minute is place, the member loses all quals and can't even wear a uniform,
but as a member action it can be appealed.

The empty shirts don't normally care or notice, it's the PITA's that are the issue.

[Ed Bos]

I agree 100%, however during my wing's last SUI, the inspectors made a fair deal about the fact that 000 was the second largest unit
in the wing.  Apparently they would prefer these members be "patroned" instead of sit in 000, because some loopholes in the 60-series and other regs basically allow for these members to be ES and pilot aircraft active without any command supervision or responsibility.

If the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

Not necessarily - I am personally aware of a number of members who were basically a huge PITA and were 000'ed
to make them go away.  We all know one or two of these guys - once a year pilots who can't be bothered, blow-hard
GOB's who always "know better", or people who are borderline insubordinate in ways that are difficult to prove in a complaint
but just as divisive.

They are capable of completing a Form 5, but not capable of working and playing well with others, so 000 they went
until they could find a home, which was generally "never".

000 has the advantage of being indisputable because a unit CC still has the right of refusal of any members, but the
disadvantage that the existing system does not automatically disqualify a member from participation or ES activity.
Anything in that direction is a Wing policy, not a national reg.

Patron status has the advantage that the minute is place, the member loses all quals and can't even wear a uniform,
but as a member action it can be appealed.

The empty shirts don't normally care or notice, it's the PITA's that are the issue.

So was the concern brought forward at the SUI that members of -000 should not be participating in ES, since there's no "unit commander" responsible for them (despite the fact that the Wing, Region, or Nat'l Commander is still in their chain), or that these specific individuals were PITA's that should not be participating at all?

[Eclipse]

So was the concern brought forward at the SUI that members of -000 should not be participating in ES, since there's no "unit commander" responsible for them (despite the fact that the Wing, Region, or Nat'l Commander is still in their chain), or that these specific individuals were PITA's that should not be participating at all?

The concern in my particular wing was during the CI and that the 000 unit was the second largest unit in the state.

The concern on the ES side was raised by myself and others that these individuals who can't work and play well with others were still allowed to
fly and otherwise participate even though they now had no commander at all.  I don't know about other states, but in mine 000 had no CC of record
(unlike the legit "holding squadron" of days gone by), however what was happening was that some staffers with golden pens were allowing
"certain" members in 000 to do F5's or other ES qualifications "until they found a new home", and of course within our regs and program
a member in 000 could go 1-3 years on existing quals before needing anyone's pen, depending on which qual we're talking about.

After the CI, those in 000 were told "find new homes or you will go patron", and then they followed through and did just that, which is why they will be getting the nice holiday cards from me this year.

[RiverAux]

I'd say that its a pretty wussy move on the part of a squadron commander to involuntarily transfer people to the ghost squadron just because they are a PITA.  Inactive members, sure.  But, if the person is active and they are transferred to the ghost squadron and they automatically lose CAP quals, I would think they would have some standing to make some complaints about adverse membership actions. 

Its just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job. 

[Eclipse]

Its just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job.

How, exactly?  Considering the limited avenues we have, and further that it is impossible to curtail a member's participation
outside the unit, even though the "stink" ultimately gets back to you.

"I only want to fly at the downstate academy each year and do not care a lick about your little 'unit'.  I'll get my safety briefing when I show
up to the activity, and will do my Form 5 the first day.  Otherwise, I could care less about monthly currency, ORM, EO, or anything else
you think I have to do. There's nothing that requires it in the regs."

Suggestions?

[RiverAux]

If they aren't doing what they need to do to stay current with their qualifications, of course you yank them.   You implied that you were talking about active members that just had bad attitudes. 

In the situation you discuss the simple solution is to not give Form 5s at the event they want to participate in.  You can also allocate spots in the activity based on recent participation in CAP activities and currency in CAP planes and if they're that out of it, they'd be at the bottom of the list.   Or quite simply, just tell them, I'm not giving you a slot because you're not active enough in the program. 

No different than how you pick pilots for missions all the time.  I could have called the same mission pilot for every single mission that came up and been perfectly within my rights as squadron commander.  Certainly not a good idea to do things that way, but it could be done.  Members don't have a right to participate in every activity in the role they want. 

[Eclipse]

If they aren't doing what they need to do to stay current with their qualifications, of course you yank them.   You implied that you were talking about active members that just had bad attitudes. 

In the situation you discuss the simple solution is to not give Form 5s at the event they want to participate in.  You can also allocate spots in the activity based on recent participation in CAP activities and currency in CAP planes and if they're that out of it, they'd be at the bottom of the list.   Or quite simply, just tell them, I'm not giving you a slot because you're not active enough in the program. 

No different than how you pick pilots for missions all the time.  I could have called the same mission pilot for every single mission that came up and been perfectly within my rights as squadron commander.  Certainly not a good idea to do things that way, but it could be done.  Members don't have a right to participate in every activity in the role they want.

How would a unit commander, not affiliated with the activity, control that?  Especially in light of the fact that staff of that activity have the access rights for the approvals?

The activity commander could care less if he is a generally-useful member, he just needs pilots that day, the rest is "your" problem.

[lordmonar]

If the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

Not necessarily - I am personally aware of a number of members who were basically a huge PITA and were 000'ed
to make them go away.  We all know one or two of these guys - once a year pilots who can't be bothered, blow-hard
GOB's who always "know better", or people who are borderline insubordinate in ways that are difficult to prove in a complaint
but just as divisive.

They are capable of completing a Form 5, but not capable of working and playing well with others, so 000 they went
until they could find a home, which was generally "never".

000 has the advantage of being indisputable because a unit CC still has the right of refusal of any members, but the
disadvantage that the existing system does not automatically disqualify a member from participation or ES activity.
Anything in that direction is a Wing policy, not a national reg.

Patron status has the advantage that the minute is place, the member loses all quals and can't even wear a uniform,
but as a member action it can be appealed.

The empty shirts don't normally care or notice, it's the PITA's that are the issue.

Again.....what's the problem?

If these guys are in the 000 squadron or once a year pilots.....again they are probably not safety current and could not sign into the mission base if they wanted to.

So...why go the extra distance to take away their ES qualifications?  It would just open up the squadorn commander who 000'ed them up to a retaliation or failure of due process charge.

[lordmonar]

Its just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job.

How, exactly?  Considering the limited avenues we have, and further that it is impossible to curtail a member's participation
outside the unit, even though the "stink" ultimately gets back to you.

"I only want to fly at the downstate academy each year and do not care a lick about your little 'unit'.  I'll get my safety briefing when I show
up to the activity, and will do my Form 5 the first day.  Otherwise, I could care less about monthly currency, ORM, EO, or anything else
you think I have to do. There's nothing that requires it in the regs."

Suggestions?

BS.

As a commander...you can say...."you are not to particpate in any CAP activity with out may permission."  That is a legal order.  I tell it to my cadets all the time.  We just demoted a cadet two achievements for blantantly disobaying such and order.  No one has a right to particpate.  If a SM is a PITA....then he can't play.  Transfering him to the leper colony is just bad leadership.  It is NOT doing the job of a commander.  If the person is a PITA...the 2b him for being a PITA.  It is within our perview as commanders (former on my part) to make judgement calls like this all the time.  It takes time, it take patients and it take a little CYA to make sure your ducks are in a row....but if the guy is a PITA....the get rid of him....don't just palm him off to someone else.

[Larry Mangum]

If they aren't doing what they need to do to stay current with their qualifications, of course you yank them.   You implied that you were talking about active members that just had bad attitudes. 

In the situation you discuss the simple solution is to not give Form 5s at the event they want to participate in.  You can also allocate spots in the activity based on recent participation in CAP activities and currency in CAP planes and if they're that out of it, they'd be at the bottom of the list.   Or quite simply, just tell them, I'm not giving you a slot because you're not active enough in the program. 

No different than how you pick pilots for missions all the time.  I could have called the same mission pilot for every single mission that came up and been perfectly within my rights as squadron commander.  Certainly not a good idea to do things that way, but it could be done.  Members don't have a right to participate in every activity in the role they want.

How would a unit commander, not affiliated with the activity, control that?  Especially in light of the fact that staff of that activity have the access rights for the approvals?

The activity commander could care less if he is a generally-useful member, he just needs pilots that day, the rest is "your" problem.

Well normally a unit CC must sign off on a member participating in a non unit activity (with the exception of ES).

[Eclipse]

Its just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job.

How, exactly?  Considering the limited avenues we have, and further that it is impossible to curtail a member's participation
outside the unit, even though the "stink" ultimately gets back to you.

"I only want to fly at the downstate academy each year and do not care a lick about your little 'unit'.  I'll get my safety briefing when I show
up to the activity, and will do my Form 5 the first day.  Otherwise, I could care less about monthly currency, ORM, EO, or anything else
you think I have to do. There's nothing that requires it in the regs."

Suggestions?

BS.

As a commander...you can say...."you are not to particpate in any CAP activity with out may permission."  That is a legal order.  I tell it to my cadets all the time.  We just demoted a cadet two achievements for blantantly disobaying such and order.  No one has a right to particpate.  If a SM is a PITA....then he can't play.  Transfering him to the leper colony is just bad leadership.  It is NOT doing the job of a commander.  If the person is a PITA...the 2b him for being a PITA.  It is within our perview as commanders (former on my part) to make judgement calls like this all the time.  It takes time, it take patients and it take a little CYA to make sure your ducks are in a row....but if the guy is a PITA....the get rid of him....don't just palm him off to someone else.

What you and Larry are saying is correct, on paper, and we all know that is not how it actually works in CAP.  Members self deploy, "just show up", and/or "do what they will", and if they were inclined to actually obey superiors, they wouldn't be on the PITA list to start with.

And that also presupposes that someone higher than the unit CC at Group, Wing, Region, or National doesn't approve their participation because "he's a good guy", or "we needed the help".  Someone with no knowledge or care about the members home behavior or level of participation - he's active on eservices, so "welcome aboard".

[a2capt]

Plus on more than one occasion, we've had ICs operating out of 000 in the past. Before the Wing came and said "you can't use 000 anymore", though they still do.

[lordmonar]

That's why we say it is poor leadership to 000 these PITA members.  If you as a commander don't want to deal with him, you should also not want anyone else to deal with him.....so 2b him.

000 for inactivity is one thing.  It gets them off your books with out giving them the black mark of a 2b allowing them to come back into CAP later when they can/are willing to be active.

But anyone who is simply transfering their PITAs....is a poor leader IMHO.

[Eclipse]

2b on what grounds?

[Spaceman3750]

2b on what grounds?

"Failure to obey rules, regulations, and orders of higher authority" and "Insubordination" might be two candidates depending on the situation.

[Eclipse]

For inactivity, disinterest in the CC's plans, or attending an activity with the full authorization of higher HQ?

How about tap-dancing on the commander's head with higher HQ every time they don't like the direction the unit takes, especially when higher HQ
encourages that behavior?

There's all sorts of ways to be a uncooperative PITA that would never stand a MARB termination challenge.

[FW]

There is a subjective component to judging someone a PITA.  However, there is a process called "progressive discipline" which must be used to either change the behavior or, remove the "privilege" of membership.   There should be objective standards to prohibit a member from participation and, lack of activity is one.   It takes time to remove "dead weight" from a unit however, unless it is done properly, you will end up with an even bigger headache. 

If there is a weakness in the system, we need to correct it. 
So, what would be a solution to this, if you could rewrite the process?

[lordmonar]

For inactivity, disinterest in the CC's plans, or attending an activity with the full authorization of higher HQ?

How about tap-dancing on the commander's head with higher HQ every time they don't like the direction the unit takes, especially when higher HQ
encourages that behavior?

There's all sorts of ways to be a uncooperative PITA that would never stand a MARB termination challenge.

Like I said, poor leadership.  Either take the stand that Member X should not be in CAP or let it go.  If you transfer him....then it is someone else's problem by definition.  Later trying to reach back and control it from outside the squadron is not the answer.