Can a Senior Member NCO be a Squadron Commander?

[Critical AOA]

...because frankly the grade structure in CAP is about as effective as woodland camo is for ES.

For some reason, I love this.

[Woodsy]

I don't know much about the CG Aux's rank structure, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty effective.  Thoughts on that?

[RiverAux]

I don't know much about the CG Aux's rank structure, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty effective.  Thoughts on that?

Its better at indicating the highest office you've held in the Aux without the distractions of prior military service rank, advance promotions for professional or mission-based skills.  Has the disadvantage of not having any real professional development associated with it. 

While simpler to understand, I'm not sure it offers any significant advantage over CAP.  You will still have the situation of having people with lower apparent grade in charge of a unit made up of many people with higher apparent grade -- especially since you are still assigned to your flotilla no matter what higher offices you have.  For example, you might have the equivalent of a CAP region commander (except they will be wearing 1-star) in your flotilla and coming to your meetings while the flotilla commander has the equivalent of Captain's bars on.  (Real situation)

[MIKE]

I don't know much about the CG Aux's rank structure, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty effective.  Thoughts on that?

Not really in my experience... Couple of things:

• While the office insignia is position based, you can still keep it when you leave the office.  So there are plenty of people walking around with insignia from a past office.
• Someone can get pretty high up the chain as a staff officer without passing go and checking the boxes.  In CAP terms somebody goes from SM to Col because they get appointed to national staff as a brand new member.  Whereas the commander types move up the ladder. In CAP terms you have to have been a squadron commander to be either group commander or vice commander and so on.

So to me it is really no better than it was in CAP... I can't refer to myself as LT, USCGAUX as I am a Flotilla Commander... and we don't really do the C&C that CAP does amongst ourselves... and what we do does tend to be a bit odd compared to CAP.

Edited to add:

You will still have the situation of having people with lower apparent grade in charge of a unit made up of many people with higher apparent grade -- especially since you are still assigned to your flotilla no matter what higher offices you have.  For example, you might have the equivalent of a CAP region commander (except they will be wearing 1-star) in your flotilla and coming to your meetings while the flotilla commander has the equivalent of Captain's bars on.  (Real situation)

Have a past District Commodore (region 1 star) in my division (group) commanding a small flotilla (squadron).  My flotilla has three times the members, but I wear "rank" "equivalent to an O-3" as FC.

[Private Investigator]

I just have one thing to say about this, and CAP NCO's, please forgive me and take note:

You're not in the military anymore.  Forget the rank you had/earned/are proud of. 

Thank you for your service.  I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

The WORST type of CAP member is a former RM member who is living in the past.  We don't do it the way you did in the army/air force/whatever.

Welcome to Civil Air Patrol.  Now get with the program.  Thank you.

Thanks Woodsy....I feel so loved and appreciated.   You just characterized my 11 years of service to CAP as a pipe dream of living the glory days of my misspent youth.

Thank you for your service.

Why do you still wear your old rank?  Why not wear what the vast majority of senior members wear?  I can think of no reason why someone would join this organization and opt to wear what they wore in the military, instead of what is customary for the majority of members- other than living in the past and just being too darn stubborn to change. 

I'm asking this as a serious question, not stirring the pot.  I'd really like your thoughts on it.  Everything I've heard from other CAP NCO's had "living in the past" written all over it.

Woodsy, does it matter? Every Unit is different. Some Units everyone wears the polo shirt and go by Tom, Dick and Jesus. Other units fall out in USAF blues and it is, Colonel, Major and Captain. What you think is customary is just you being who you want everyone else to be. YMMV & YOLO 

[Shuman 14]

I don't know much about the CG Aux's rank structure, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty effective.  Thoughts on that?

Not really in my experience... Couple of things:

• While the office insignia is position based, you can still keep it when you leave the office.  So there are plenty of people walking around with insignia from a past office.
• Someone can get pretty high up the chain as a staff officer without passing go and checking the boxes.  In CAP terms somebody goes from SM to Col because they get appointed to national staff as a brand new member.  Whereas the commander types move up the ladder. In CAP terms you have to have been a squadron commander to be either group commander or vice commander and so on.

So to me it is really no better than it was in CAP... I can't refer to myself as LT, USCGAUX as I am a Flotilla Commander... and we don't really do the C&C that CAP does amongst ourselves... and what we do does tend to be a bit odd compared to CAP.

Edited to add:

You will still have the situation of having people with lower apparent grade in charge of a unit made up of many people with higher apparent grade -- especially since you are still assigned to your flotilla no matter what higher offices you have.  For example, you might have the equivalent of a CAP region commander (except they will be wearing 1-star) in your flotilla and coming to your meetings while the flotilla commander has the equivalent of Captain's bars on.  (Real situation)

Have a past District Commodore (region 1 star) in my division (group) commanding a small flotilla (squadron).  My flotilla has three times the members, but I wear "rank" "equivalent to an O-3" as FC.

Everyone seems to forget there is no "rank" in the USCGAux... you have elected and appointed offices. You have "Office Insignia" that resembles USCG rank.

Also in any operation in which the USCGAux is directly supporting the USCG (IE augmenting) all those Office Insignia come off and only the Member Device or blank shoulderboards are worn.

[PHall]

I don't know much about the CG Aux's rank structure, but from what I've heard it sounds pretty effective.  Thoughts on that?

Not really in my experience... Couple of things:

• While the office insignia is position based, you can still keep it when you leave the office.  So there are plenty of people walking around with insignia from a past office.
• Someone can get pretty high up the chain as a staff officer without passing go and checking the boxes.  In CAP terms somebody goes from SM to Col because they get appointed to national staff as a brand new member.  Whereas the commander types move up the ladder. In CAP terms you have to have been a squadron commander to be either group commander or vice commander and so on.

So to me it is really no better than it was in CAP... I can't refer to myself as LT, USCGAUX as I am a Flotilla Commander... and we don't really do the C&C that CAP does amongst ourselves... and what we do does tend to be a bit odd compared to CAP.

Edited to add:

You will still have the situation of having people with lower apparent grade in charge of a unit made up of many people with higher apparent grade -- especially since you are still assigned to your flotilla no matter what higher offices you have.  For example, you might have the equivalent of a CAP region commander (except they will be wearing 1-star) in your flotilla and coming to your meetings while the flotilla commander has the equivalent of Captain's bars on.  (Real situation)

Have a past District Commodore (region 1 star) in my division (group) commanding a small flotilla (squadron).  My flotilla has three times the members, but I wear "rank" "equivalent to an O-3" as FC.

Everyone seems to forget there is no "rank" in the USCGAux... you have elected and appointed offices. You have "Office Insignia" that resembles USCG rank.

Also in any operation in which the USCGAux is directly supporting the USCG (IE augmenting) all those Office Insignia come off and only the Member Device or blank shoulderboards are worn.

Comparing CAP with the USCGAux is pointless because of one minor difference between the organizations. The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have a cadet program...

The USCGAux pretty much has one "mission", assist the Coast Guard in performing their missions.

CAP has multiple "missions" with ES and the Cadet Program being the two major ones.

[RiverAux]

Thats right, there is absolutely no way to compare two uniform-wearing paramilitary organizations that support parts of our armed forces that are made up of volunteers of similar average age and with similar motivations.  What were we thinking?

I'm also not sure why whether CAP has a cadet program has any relevant bearing on a thread about Senior member NCOs commanding a squadron. 

The USCGAux pretty much has one "mission", assist the Coast Guard in performing their missions.

Well, actually the Auxiliary has many more actual "missions" than CAP does.  Big picture there isn't much difference in the number of "missions" of CAP and CG Aux (Big three of CAP and big two of CG Aux -- Recreational boating safety, and Coast Guard support). 

But, when you drill down a bit the Auxiliary has dozens of subsidiary missions that are actually pretty unique in their own right.  CAP, on the other hand, has the cadet program, a defunct external AE program, and an ES program that is generally made up of about half a dozen types of missions.  No matter how you try to slice it, the Aux is called on to do a lot more different types of things to support the CG than CAP does either in its own right or in support of the AF.  That isn't a put down on CAP and in some ways, the Aux is probably trying to do to much with what it has and might do well to focus a bit more. 

[Private Investigator]

Thats right, there is absolutely no way to compare two uniform-wearing paramilitary organizations that support parts of our armed forces that are made up of volunteers of similar average age and with similar motivations.  What were we thinking?

Exactly, for example a 14 year old boy is interested in the military and his high school does not have JROTC so I guess he can go to the local USCG Aux floatilla and learn how to march and wear a uniform, correctamundo? 

[RiverAux]

Thats right, there is absolutely no way to compare two uniform-wearing paramilitary organizations that support parts of our armed forces that are made up of volunteers of similar average age and with similar motivations.  What were we thinking?

Exactly, for example a 14 year old boy is interested in the military and his high school does not have JROTC so I guess he can go to the local USCG Aux floatilla and learn how to march and wear a uniform, correctamundo?

So what?  I could just as easily say that a 14 year old boy wants to drive his Dad's motorboat, so I guess he can go to his local CAP squadron and take the boating safety course that they teach? 

In fact, there is a good possibility that CG Aux comes close to having just as much direct contact with our nation's youths than CAP through boating safety courses, boating safety events at schools, events at boat shows, etc.  Its not sustained contact like CAP.  Heck, CG Aux is probably aimed just as much at doing more boating safety education for kids than CAP is in educating youths about AE. 

[Eclipse]

So what?  I could just as easily say that a 14 year old boy wants to drive his Dad's motorboat, so I guess he can go to his local CAP squadron and take the boating safety course that they teach?

You're really stretching. Taking a boating course from the CGAUX is the equivalent of an EAA pattern ride.  Neither is "joining".

As many of us have pointed out in detail, CAP and the CGAux are so different in mission, purpose, membership, and culture that
making any comparisons usually means the person doing so doesn't understand the question.

[RiverAux]

As many of us have pointed out in detail, CAP and the CGAux are so different in mission, purpose, membership, and culture that
making any comparisons usually means the person doing so doesn't understand the question.

The only people making those statements are those that really only have in-depth experience with CAP.  Those of us that are part of both see the validity.  Frankly, you (and they) just don't know what you're talking about.  Sure, they're not exactly the same, but no two fire departments are the same either.  But, there are WAY more similarities in terms of the things discussed here, than differences. 

[Eclipse]

With little variation, Fire departments have the same mission, same training, same uniforms, same culture.

There is so little baseline comparison between CAP and the CGAux that about the only thing similar is the word "auxiliary".

You can try to draw macro lines, I mean we both wear the same shirt, right?  At the micro, member level, there's nothing there to connect.

[Critical AOA]

Is learning to march and wearing a uniform really why kids join CAP? 

[SARDOC]

Is learning to march and wearing a uniform really why kids join CAP?

In my experience that seems to be the "cool" part of it.  Only after they mature a little do they see the Leadership and Community Service benefits.  There are exceptions to this of course but that seems to be a big part of it.

[Eclipse]

I'd have to agree for the most part, though it probably depends on their join age.   In the 12 year old range, the "cool" is likely
the attraction, move into 14-15 and life goals are probably a major part.

The CP itself, though, which shares the majority of personnel and resources, is a big chunk of the reason you can't compare CAP to the CGAux.

[PHall]

Is learning to march and wearing a uniform really why kids join CAP?

For some of them, yes. And some join to fly and some join to do ES and some join to learn leadership.
Different cadets have different interests just like seniors have different interests.

[Critical AOA]

Is learning to march and wearing a uniform really why kids join CAP?

In my experience that seems to be the "cool" part of it.  Only after they mature a little do they see the Leadership and Community Service benefits.  There are exceptions to this of course but that seems to be a big part of it.

Marching and wearing a uniform are cool?  Now that is funny!

I would think an interest in aviation or aerospace would be the driving force for most.  Next would be participating in outdoor activities such as those of a ground team. 

Just being a part of a group / membership or the desire to belong would also be very high for kids who might not be with the in-crowd at school.  This would even apply to those who want to learn to be a leader and haven't had a chance to develop that skill elsewhere.  Even the chance to do community work would rank higher than marching and uniforms for most, in my opinion.

[Private Investigator]

Is learning to march and wearing a uniform really why kids join CAP?

When I was a Squadron Commander in a Composite Squadron we had Cadets who was not interested in flying except maybe jumping out of a plane as a PJ. You ever wonder why after four years as a Cadet they join the Army or the Marines? Every Cadet does not want to be an astronaut when they grow up. 

[Eclipse]

All are true in the abstract, and part of the conversation, but I think you might be overestimating the timbre of the average 12-year old couch rider these days, or underestimating the appeal of a uniform and bling.

Ditto on the flying aspect.  To the horror of GA pilots, flying just doesn't excite young people like it did 20-30 years ago.  It's a victim of its own success.