Senior CAP Organizational Culture

[Private Investigator]

When I hear someone say that all units should do all the missions, I get a picture in my mind of that guy on the variety shows trying to ...

Well I can not see how a Squadron Commander can not include AE, CP and ES in his monthly agenda.

At least most Units have made significant improvements in their Safety Programs.

[lordmonar]

When I hear someone say that all units should do all the missions, I get a picture in my mind of that guy on the variety shows trying to ...

Well I can not see how a Squadron Commander can not include AE, CP and ES in his monthly agenda.

At least most Units have made significant improvements in their Safety Programs.

Easy.......if you are just a senior squadron.....you just don't do AE or CP. 
CP is a non-player....unless you have aircraft and support cadet and composite squadrons with O-rides.
AE is optional for the most part.  Getting the Yeager done is important if you want to be squadron of the year....but right now there is no requirement for any squadron to have X% of the members complete the SMAE program.   Same story for the AEX....looks good if you are interested in squadron of the year....but has not bearing on your operational mission.  As for external AE.....again....no requirments or standards set my higher head quarters means that most squadrons just don't bother with it.

For a CP squadron......of course cadet AE is manditory...but AEX, SMAE Program and external AE programs are all optional.  ES is not a required part of the CP program so pure cadet squadrons and CP heavy Comp Squadrons are not REQUIRED to particpate.  In the case of overseas squadrons....as it has already been pointed out...they can't do ES even if they wanted to.

That's the bottom line.  With out standards and goals set by wings....units are free to do as little or as much as they want to.

I agree that wings should be setting those goals.....and that taskings should be sent to the units....now exactly what mix each squadron is tasked with...should be driven by the situation.

We should not have to force some small units to do everything in the same numbers as big metropolitine squadrons have to do.  Likewise if you have multiple squadrons in a particular AOE.....there is no reason why you can't have some of the focus more or solely on only one or two of the missions.

[Eclipse]

Easy.......if you are just a senior squadron.....you just don't do AE or CP. 

Easier - there should not be Senior Squadrons, or Cadet Squadrons.

Both allow for a level of self-selection which is (assuming it ever was) no longer practical given our current level of man power.

Absent a mandate from wing, the national mandate of the charter and mission statements still exist.

[lordmonar]

I beleive that is what I said about 10 posts ago.

CAP has to the three missions.....but not each squadron has to do the three missions.

The logical place to make these decisions of what each squadron should be doing is at wing and/or group.  They have the best visibility on the communities the squadrons serve and they have the best idea of what their OPLAN should be (if they are doing their jobs).

A wing/group should be working with the units to help the commander do his job (train, man equip his squadron to perform assigned missions) and they should be makeing sure that the squadron IS doing their assigned missions......but that's the point......no one has explicity assigned any missions to the squadrons.

A squadron commander should know specifically:
How large his Cadet Program should be and what advancement standards he should be meeting.
How much internal and external AE goals he should be meeting.....i.e. number of external AE presentations, particapation in Fly-A-Teacher, AEX particpation, O-Rides (AFROTC and CAP), Yeager percentage, etc.
How much ES capablity he needs to have trained, equiped and read........not just "did you fly your plane 200 hours last year"? but specific taskings.  "you will have 3 trained aircrews (i.e. 3 pilots, 3 Observes and 3 Scanners), 2 MTPs, 2, AOBDs, 1 OSC, 1 PSC, 1 IC3, 2 CSL, 10 MROs, 2 GTL, 6 GTM3+, etc".   (and no double billetining!)

These tell the commander exactly how many people his squadron should have....which drives how large his squadron staff should be.  It drives his recruiting efforts, his training efforts, his exercise schedule........and......it is measureable at any time....not just during the SUI.  It allows group/wing to report the readiness states of the units to our customers and allows wing/group to more easilly incorporate CAP into their OPLAN (which our OPLANS should already be written to match!).

Yes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.

[Eclipse]

Yes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.

There's everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.

[lordmonar]

Yes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.

There's everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.

You keep saying that.....but why is it wrong?

We specialise all the time.  A school is there to teach the 3R's....but we don't always expect each teacher to teach all three subjects.
But sometimes.....when the situtaiton is right....we do.

Squadron X.......is a fairly new squadron in a small community.  We expect them to be able to field a full ground team and ES staff and do a cadet program AND do a full external AE program?  Really?   That is just not realistic.

By taking on too much you end up with three crappy programs. 

Now if the same squadron focuses on just ES or just CP or just AE......then they are able to use their talents and resouces to put on a better (if limited) program.

Remember......when I talk in these broad terms about how CAP should be run......If think about the small wings, and and small towns that are hundreds of miles away from the next unit.

Now....my unit is in a large Metro area.....we got the resources and population to support doing all three missions (although we don't do any external AE).  We share the city with seven other units....some try to do all three missions...some specialize.  But there is another squadron about 3 hours away (and we are the closest unit to them in the wing) and they bearly have enough people to just have a squadron......they do their best running their cadet program but they don't have the support to do an effective ES program.

So...that is all that I am saying......it is a GOOD thing that unit specialise based on their situation.  If (and I think we should) we want better coverage of our missions within our wings.....then it is WING'S/GROUP'S job to analyse each sublocation.....create the squadrons there, help them develope their program and to task them with specific goals so that the WING can fulfill the mission of doing all three missions.

This may still result in specialised units....depending on market penetration and operational realities.  Just because you assert that EACH SQUADRON MUST do all three does not make it so.

[Eclipse]

Yes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.

There's everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.

You keep saying that.....but why is it wrong?

Because we don't have the extra people or units to allow specialization.  The mandate doesn't change in a respective AOR just because the
local CC decides "I don't do that."  So that means that whatever is ignored is an automatic fail for whatever area that unit "owns".

[lordmonar]

Yes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.

There's everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.

You keep saying that.....but why is it wrong?

Because we don't have the extra people or units to allow specialization.  The mandate doesn't change in a respective AOR just because the
local CC decides "I don't do that."  So that means that whatever is ignored is an automatic fail for whatever area that unit "owns".

??
So you are quantity over quality guy?
And in my AOR we do have the manpower and units to support specialisation.  We got two purely Cadet Squadrons that do ES only as an extra-curricular activiity (i.e. they send those who want to do it to my squadron for training) we have three purely senior squadrons that only do ES and support the CP through O-rides....and we have have three Comp Squadrons that do both....ES and CP to a pretty fair degree....one is more ES slanted and the other two are more CP slanted.

Now the far away squadron in a tinely little town.....has the manpower to support a CP....if we made them do ES as well.....they would have to cut back on the CP......fact of the AOR that they live in.

If the wing has a objective and unified plan....I see no reason why Town X can't have a Cadet Squadron that serves all the towns in say a 20 mile radius while the Town 10 miles away has a Senior Squadron that serves all the towns in the 20 mile radius....and another neaby town that only does communications, or a town that has two squadrons one doing CP and one doing AE.......if the community supports it.

If the can only support one squadron....how big is the squadron?  That is the key.  Right now.....squadrons grow..because someone wants them to grow....not because wing/group has tasked them to do a specific mission.

Manageing the type and placement of units is a long over looked aspect of what wing/group should be doing.

[Eclipse]

So you are quantity over quality guy?

In the case of this discussion quantity and quality are mutually required.

And in my AOR we do have the manpower and units to support specialisation. 

No, you have some commanders who are self-actualizing their personal idea that they can.  There isn't a wing in this organization that is near the manpower to fulfill the mission mandates across the board, specialization or otherwise.  And if, by some miracle, your specialization is actually part of a larger plan, then good on your Wing CC, but it's by no means universal.

If the wing has a objective and unified plan....

Please provide the links to your objective, unified plan...

Right now.....squadrons grow..because someone wants them to grow....not because wing/group has tasked them to do a specific mission.

Thank you.

[RADIOMAN015]

So you are quantity over quality guy?

In the case of this discussion quantity and quality are mutually required.

And in my AOR we do have the manpower and units to support specialisation. 

No, you have some commanders who are self-actualizing their personal idea that they can.  There isn't a wing in this organization that is near the manpower to fulfill the mission mandates across the board, specialization or otherwise.  And if, by some miracle, your specialization is actually part of a larger plan, then good on your Wing CC, but it's by no means universal.

If the wing has a objective and unified plan....

Please provide the links to your objective, unified plan...

Right now.....squadrons grow..because someone wants them to grow....not because wing/group has tasked them to do a specific mission.

Thank you.

Hmm, so I've got wonder why we have so much problems recruiting and keeping motivated volunteers to even keep all of CAP's major objectives going strong at the unit level
RM

[Eclipse]

Hmm, so I've got wonder why we have so much problems recruiting and keeping motivated volunteers to even keep all of CAP's major objectives going strong at the unit level

My guess would be people who sit in the back of the room and make constant comments about the other members being wannabes is probably a big factor in some areas.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.....we are both seeing the same problem.....but are reacting to it differently.

I agree that we do not have enough market pentration.
We need more units, to cover our respective wings.

I can't give you a link to the unified plan....because it does not exist....at least not in my wing.

I am asserting that it should exist....that the regulations tell our wings and groups that they should be writing these plans....but I have never seen them......and I know my limitations, i.e. I don't have the time nor am I placed geographiclly to start writing them.

As it is....IMHO.....each commander needs to assess their unit and their understanding of what "needs" to be done and use his resources to meet those needs to the best of his ability.

Does that mean he is free to "shop the menu"?  You bet.

There is an old saying......There is on time, cheap, and quality.....pick two.

In a perfect world.....there would be a squadron every 50 miles.  Those squadrons would all be doing CP to a level that represents the CAP goal of cadet market penetration.  Each squadron would be doing internal and external AE again to a master plan based on CAP's market penetration goal.  Each squadron would be contributing to the overall ES plan based on the wings OPLANS to support our customers contingecy plans...covering everything to a single lost hiker, missing aircraft, forest fire, flood, tornado, hurricain, earthquake, industrial disaster, large gathering....and their day to day needs (CN, traffic congesstion surveys, forestry/wild life surveys, etc).

But we don't have those.  If we are lucky we have wing telling use "we need more FLMs or we need more ground teams"....but we don't have a plan that tells the Nellis Comp Squadron..."You will train, man and equip 2 full ground teams, 4 MRO's, 2 FLMs, 1 GOBD, 2 Full Air Crew and a PSC."

If we have people who are interested in that....they may choose to do so....but no one is telling us we got to.

Even when the USAF comes to do their graded SAR evaluation......there are no standards stateing how many sorties we must be able to generate.  That we MUST have every possition filled in the mission base filled.  That we have a depoyment time standard (i.e. first air sortie off the ground at Z+2:00).  They evaluate us on how well we follow the regs and how well we manage the mission.....if you don't field any ground teams.....as far as I know you don't fail the evaluation.

So....in the real world.....absent any mandate....squadrons who pick one mission and do it well.....are doing a good job.

Saying quality and quantity are mutually required is just BS.  If Quantity is required.....where are my numbers?  How many cadets should I have in my program?  How do you grade me in meeting CP objectives?  Is it just numbers or a do I need to show a certain progression within the program (i.e. 50% Wright, 20% Mitchell, 10%Earhart, 5%, Eaker, 1% Spaatz).  If Quanityt is require for AE.......again where are my numbers?  How many teachers do I have to fly?  How many AE presentations do I have do?  Do I have to AEX?  Do I have to have a certain percentage of my members with the Yeager award?  If Quantity is required for ES....where are my numbers?  How man MPs do I need, MOs, MSs, AOBSs?  How many GTLs, GTMs, GBDs?  How many ICs, OSCs, PSCs, LSCs, FSCs?  How many MROs, CULs?  How many FLMs, FLSs?  How many mission chaplains, MSA's PAO's?

I don't see any of those numbers......so if a commander decides to focus on just doing one part of the big picture....he is not wrong.

[BillB]

Back in the 60's all the figures Patrick mentions were available at Group and Wing level. The reson, monthly reports were required from all major Squadron staff positions. You could see how many groups teams there were and what training they recieved each month. The PAO had to report the number of news releases submitted to local media, and speaking engagements. But someone came up with the idea that the poor volunteers in CAP had to much paperwork to do so the reporting was dropped. From that point on, higher headquarters up to National had no concept of the capability of a squadron or it's problem areas.
Looking at one area squadron, rarely is a cadet ever involved in an ELT search. So cadets lose interest in ES training of any type. In another example, even through there is a corporate aircraft locally and qualified MP along with MO and MS, a squadron 125 miles away will be called for a missing aircraft search while the local unit sits on their thumbs. (the aircraft was located fairly close to the local area)
In another area there hasn't been a directed Wing, Group or Squadron recruiting effort in 12 years. This is a failure of the respective Commanders who more often than not just stick people in the Recruiting and Retention slot and forget about them. National does a fairly good job of producing recruiting material, but there is no leadership n what to do with it. And here again the lack of reports to higher headquarters on recruiting efforts leaves the Group and Wing Commanders in the blind.
CAP needs to go back to a monthly or bi-monthly reporting system for each major staff position. This would provide needed information for the higher headquarters.

[Eclipse]

The reason most of that reporting was dropped was because few, if anyone, were reading them, and even fewer viewed them as anything but anecdotal information.  With no specific goals, whether a unit publishes one press release or 40 basically equals the same thing in regards to executing the mission, and that doesn't even allow for the accounting of quality.

A unit recruiting 100 new members under false pretense who only last 1 month (or that keeps 50%+ empty shirts on their books) is basically equal to a unit doing no recruiting but maintaining status quo numbers.  Which one is failing?  Impossible to answer, because a real plan would encompass both quantity and quality of recruiting.

50 new GTM's looks good on paper, but is meaningless if they never show up to a mission after earning their badges.

Top-down management is impossible without statistical data to evaluate whether plans and programs are being executed and whether they are being effective, but statistical data, for it's own purpose, is a waste of everyone's time.

This issues is  likely one good reason why the more effective people in CAP gravitate towards individual activities (i.e. encampments, flight academies, NCSA's, etc.) or ES.  Both are objective situations with a beginning and an end, and are, for the most part, self-actualizing by design (with external framework or higher vetting).

Being a CC these days, at pretty much any level below NHQ, is basically just "do whatever you think is right, and let me know when you are done..."

[RADIOMAN015]

The reason most of that reporting was dropped was because few, if anyone, were reading them, and even fewer viewed them as anything but anecdotal information. 

Being a CC these days, at pretty much any level below NHQ, is basically just "do whatever you think is right, and let me know when you are done..."

Well the issue really gets down to the lack of development and communications to the membership of CAP's National Goals.    Who is responsible for determining these goals, is it the BOG, National Executive Committee, or the National Board (or a combination of these)  IF you don't have any overall organizational goals than basically the only goal is to comply with regulations/policies and do what you feel is best for your unit's volunteers.   Individual volunteer will do what they are comfortable with and enjoy doing. 

Perhaps when the new organization structure is announced in Baltimore this summer some National Goals will surface publicly       Frankly, in my opinion CAP as an organization seems to be like an aircraft that is constantly in the holding pattern away from the airport and has not been cleared to land at the airport.   

Regarding reports/statistics, probably the best idea is at every level, even if there's no reporting required (e.g. Public Affairs, Radio Comms, Emergency Services,  etc), is to just document the accomplishments every month/quarter using the same format (reporting categories) that were previously in the reports to higher headquarters.  Likely during the bi annual compliance inspections the respective functional area/section is going to have to provide some documentation anyways and this a good way to ensure you have everything in order.
RM



       

[Spaceman3750]

You know, I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough manpower to do all three missions" crap. Even the rebuilding squadron in my group that only has a handful of active seniors and maybe 10 active cadets manages to accomplish all three missions, or at least is working towards it. My unit of assignment has a total strength of ~35 and we still manage to do all three missions pretty well, and everyone gets to work in their areas of interest. We have two "full-time" CP folks, an AEO, a handful of support staff and a variety of cadets and seniors pitch in with ES. Better yet, nobody has to spin more than a couple of plates unless they want to.

[Private Investigator]

You know, I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough manpower to do all three missions" crap.

+1

No matter how small my Unit was; If I am the Commander I can do 20 minutes of AE on the 2nd Tuesday of the month and 30 minutes on GES on the 3rd Tuesday of the month. Rest of the time I can do my Cadet thing.

Similar if I was tasked with being CC of a Senior Squadron. If I was 100% retired and lived in my hangar. Then I would have the Seniors meet weekly and we'll fly Cadets every Saturday. Then we can justify our alledged 'flying club'. 

[RiverAux]

You guys' heads would explode trying to have this same discussion on about the CG Aux given that there are probably a dozen main programs and probably 3-4 dozen smaller programs that are potentially available.  Granted all of these fall under several overarching categories but still it allows for an almost unlimited variety in units and what they do.   

[Private Investigator]

You guys' heads would explode trying to have this same discussion on about the CG Aux given that there are probably a dozen main programs and probably 3-4 dozen smaller programs that are potentially available.     

Roger that. It is all about time management. As a Commander have your AE person, do AE, the CP guy do CP, the ES gal do ES.

Paraphasing Napoleon, there are no bad CAP Squadrons, only bad Commanders.

("There are no bad regiments, only bad colonels" -- attributed to both Napoleon and Ulysses S. Grant)

[bflynn]

You know, I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough manpower to do all three missions" crap.

I don't think it's about manpower, it's about desire.

Squadrons don't do just one or two missions because of time, they do it because of desire.  If a volunteer doesn't want to do X, then you can't force them to.  If a whole squadron of volunteers don't want to do X, then nothing happens with it.

If you only want volunteers that desire to participate in all the CAP missions equally then you should kick the rest of us out...we aren't good volunteers, so we should go find somewhere else to do what we want to do.

It would solve a "problem" with senior culture.  Personally, I don't see the desires of volunteers to be a source of problems, its a source of energy for the organization.