Civil Air Patrol Reserve

[RiverAux]

I've been trying to figure out if there is any way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system in which people could join and after some initial training would primarily be expected to be participate in emergency services when needed and would not participate in meetings, CAP professional development, etc. 

I imagine them as being limited to no more than 2nd Lt. rank no matter their prior service, pilot ratings, medical license, etc. since they would not be contributing those skills to the organization.  Perhaps they would have reduced dues as well and perhaps not get the Volunteer (so their actual cost to the organization isn't very high). 

I would expect them to maintain currency in their ES qualifications. 

Now, given these parameters, I don't see any way could use Reservists as Mission Pilots or even Transport Mission Pilots since that requires quite a bit of regular training, safety briefings, etc.  I really wish we could as I know there are a lot of pilots out there who would probably be interested in a low-commitment membership that would allow them to help. 

Mission Observer Reservists might be possible.  However, it does require a fair amount of training, especially of non-pilots to get initially qualified and if someone is going to all that trouble they may as well become a full member. 

What positions could they fill?  Scanner, Mission Radio Operator, Mission Staff Assistant would be the most likely.  Maybe Mission Chaplain.  Also, just general support around the base (drivers, cooks, gofers, etc.).  I could maybe see them doing GTM3 or UDF team member as both could be learned fairly quickly, but they do require some investment in equipment that Reservists may not be interested in. 

Basically, I'm trying to come up with a way to recruit people who might not be willing to go all the way, but who could come in handy when you're in a pinch for personnel.  Although I see it primarily as a way of possibly bringing in new people, it might be a good place to park some formerly active members who are beginning to cut back on their CAP commitments due to age or other reasons.  I'd rather have these old hands drop back to being reservists for a few years before having them quit entirely.   

This program might also be somewhat attractive to people such as the spouses of full members or parents of cadet members.  They may not want to participate all the time, but may want to when their loved ones are in the thick of it. 

I also see this as a way of getting people involved with CAP who live too far from a squadron to participate regularly, which probably represents a whole lot of people in each state.  Consider the number of people who would probably join if they only had to drive in a few times a year for training or SAREXs who would then be available in a pinch.  Think of all those towns that are really just too small to support a whole squadron.  (Yes, this is a slight homage to some of what is being tried in Iowa). 

How to manage them?  Well, you could do an all-state squadron like Iowa has for its cadets or you could assign the Reservists to the nearest squadron or you could even do both.  Hard to say what might work best.  Having a single unit oversee them would probably be better administratively and for training, but would probably leave them out of the loop when a mission came around (unless it was a very large one).  I guess I see reservists in the same town as a squadron being available for more routine local missions if a regular isn't available.  Perhaps those in the all-state squadron would be those too far from a unit to do regular missions but who would want to be available for the bigger missions. 

Now, just about any way you want to look at it, this would involve some work on the part of the Wing.  You would most likely need to set up special times for training them, requalifying them, etc.   I would probably suggest having a few Wings interested in the concept get NHQ approval to test it out to see what methods work best and to test the overall concept.  For example, if we were to find that 75% of the people who join and get scanner training drop out and don't recertify when their 101 expires, then that is probably a good sign that the initial effort wasn't worth it. 

Thoughts?

[lordmonar]

I've been trying to figure out if there is any way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system in which people could join and after some initial training would primarily be expected to be participate in emergency services when needed and would not participate in meetings, CAP professional development, etc. 

We got that system now.

After Level I training and monthy safety meetings there is NO requirment for senior members to attend any meetings.

On the other hand....if you don't attend meetings you are not going to become one of the boys and won't get called out on any operations.

[MIKE]

This assumes that Active members are actually Active... The reality is that many are Reservists already.  I would much rather have a quasi-patron status than to develop yet another membership category which if I read it correctly caters only to one mission.

[Flying Pig]

We are all "CAP Reservists".  We cant count on them to train, but we can count on them to show up for the "big one"?.....No thanks.

I really wish we could as I know there are a lot of pilots out there who would probably be interested in a low-commitment membership that would allow them to help. 


Yeah.....I want to fly with that guy in a high stress environment.

[Eclipse]

Sorry, you cannot be a "part-time, part-timer" and still be considered a ready asset.  As mentioned, we've got too many of those already.

These are the guys who think they have ES so knocked they can ignore it until the REDCAP pager goes off.

They are also the ones with expired quals, bad uniforms, no 101 card, incorrect equipment and out dated pubs.  They spend the whole day asking question answered over and over at meetings and training activities and begging people to sign off their SQTRs because they won't be around again for 6 months.

No thanks, if a couple hours a week and a few days a quarter are too much of a burden, look elsewhere for your service.

Note: This does not include people who encounter "life issues" and need to take a break, that happens in the real world and isn't any different in CAP

[RiverAux]

Folks, you missed the point here --- these folks would be required to maintain their ES qualifications to be "Reservists".  That would require at a minimum level of mission participation and training that would not change.  I would say that anyone who let their ES qual dropped would have a choice of either becoming a patron member or leave. 

This would give us the ability to clearly separate our most active members from those who are not (something that many on this board constantly harp on). 

Yeah.....I want to fly with that guy in a high stress environment.

Which is why I said that this category would not be appropriate to pilots. 

I'm not talking about lowering any standards or training requirements. 

As to uniforms, I would probably propose that they only wear corporate style or golf shirt uniforms.  With the minimum level of activity I also wouldn't trust them to have AF-style uniforms in proper shape to be worn.  In fact, getting to wear the AF-style might be a little bit of incentive to eventually get out of Reserve status. 

Yes, this would be geared towards one mission -- ES, but frankly we're not going to get people who want to only part time do cadet or AE work.  In any case, it doesn't hurt those programs if this is an extra option for those interested in ES work.  Not a zero-sum game. 

CAP has to realize that more and more people are not interested in participating in volunteer programs like ours.  They are more interested in periodic volunteering.  This proposal would allow us to take advantage of that without lowering our standards any. 

Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty.  Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area.  If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions, they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.  A scanner does not need 24 meetings. 

[Al Sayre]

Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty.  Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area.  If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions, they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.  A scanner does not need 24 meetings. 

True, you only need to showup for 1 SAREX every 3 years to keep your quals current (except MP's who have to requal every 2 years).  But that goes to the question of who wants to put their life or mission in the hands of a guy who did something twice at a SAREX 8 years 11 months ago ago and once every 3 years since?  As an IC, he's not going to be anywhere near the top of my call list... YMMV

[RiverAux]

And I wouldn't suggest that they be.  Heck, thats sort of what "reserve" means.  However, you ask that IC whether he would rather put a plane up with only a pilot and observer because all the regulars were unavailable or whether he would like the option of calling in a qualified, but not active scanner to look out the back window. 

I know what call I'd make. 

[Eclipse]

CAP has to realize that more and more people are not interested in participating in volunteer programs like ours. They are more interested in periodic volunteering.  This proposal would allow us to take advantage of that without lowering our standards any.

I partially agree with the periodic volunteerism, however frankly CAP is not for them, and all this would do is formalize a sub-class of members between active and patron for no particular reason. This gives people an excuse to not participate.  They don't need that and we don't need to encourage people to show up for the "fun stuff" and then leave before the clean up.

Every CC worth his pin knows exactly who is active and who isn't.  If they don't, they are too disconnected to be effective.  The only issue here is the reluctance of some CC's to pull the "000" lever because they think an inflated membership number has some kind of value.

Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty. 

Correct, 24 meetings is not enough, you also need SAREX's, non-mission training days and home study.

Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area. 

Then change the meetings to be appropriate for your people.

If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions,

They need to join CAP, not walk in like they are the god of radio.

they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.

Then we don't need them, and if all your meetings are about is flying safety, then either you need to adjust your meetings, or perhaps your unit's ability to operate safely.

A scanner does not need 24 meetings. 

See above.

This attitude of "my ticket's punched, so I don't need to be bothered.." along with "tonight's meeting is about "x" and I don't do "x" so I don't care..." is precisely the problem with CAP right now.

We need more people to treat this as a vocation, not a hobby.

[lordmonar]

Folks, you missed the point here --- these folks would be required to maintain their ES qualifications to be "Reservists".  That would require at a minimum level of mission participation and training that would not change.  I would say that anyone who let their ES qual dropped would have a choice of either becoming a patron member or leave. 

This would give us the ability to clearly separate our most active members from those who are not (something that many on this board constantly harp on). 

Yeah.....I want to fly with that guy in a high stress environment.

Which is why I said that this category would not be appropriate to pilots. 

I'm not talking about lowering any standards or training requirements. 

As to uniforms, I would probably propose that they only wear corporate style or golf shirt uniforms.  With the minimum level of activity I also wouldn't trust them to have AF-style uniforms in proper shape to be worn.  In fact, getting to wear the AF-style might be a little bit of incentive to eventually get out of Reserve status. 

Yes, this would be geared towards one mission -- ES, but frankly we're not going to get people who want to only part time do cadet or AE work.  In any case, it doesn't hurt those programs if this is an extra option for those interested in ES work.  Not a zero-sum game. 

CAP has to realize that more and more people are not interested in participating in volunteer programs like ours.  They are more interested in periodic volunteering.  This proposal would allow us to take advantage of that without lowering our standards any. 

Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty.  Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area.  If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions, they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.  A scanner does not need 24 meetings.

Again...I understand what you are saying....but you are just playing name games....an US vs Them sort of thing.

Right now...today.....everywhere in CAP....there is no, none, zilch, nada, requirement to attend any meetings.

So  SM X has his GTL rating....all he has to do is show up to at the mission base and he is in....even if he has not attend a single meeting in the last year.

Why create an administrative nightmare of keeping track of "active duty" and "Reservist" CAP members?  What would a reservist be able to do or not be able to do compared to an active member?

Too much hassle, little or no gain in efficiency.

[arajca]

Another point, most ground teams train together - that includes training at meetings. As a GTL (or any kind of supervisor) I would be hesitant to put the "reservist" in the field or to use without a known qualified person who is active to "guide" or "assist" them until I am confident they have a clue. When I was training officer on my haz mat team (all volunteer) I dismissed/retired/ fired/etc about 15% of the team who didn't come to training regularly and only showed up at enough incidents to indicate they were still alive. By the rules, they were considered qualified, but I wouldn't trust them to do more than watch the clock and certainly not with any offes\nsive tasks.

[Al Sayre]

And I wouldn't suggest that they be.  Heck, thats sort of what "reserve" means.  However, you ask that IC whether he would rather put a plane up with only a pilot and observer because all the regulars were unavailable or whether he would like the option of calling in a qualified, but not active scanner to look out the back window. 

I know what call I'd make. 

If it were a real mission, I'd probably send the guy home or put him to work as a staff assistant.  Sitting in the back seat of a hot airplane at 1000' AGL working a grid or expanding square is physically hard on an experienced scanner.  Putting someone in the airplane who is inexperienced, not used to the physical stress, and then adding the mental stress of a real mission is just asking for him/her to get nervous and sick, which means a likely aborted sortie which doesn't help the mission at all, not to mention embarassing the member, and probably losing them for good.  YMMV  

[RiverAux]

Speaking as someone who has flown a ton of flights as a scanner and taught scanner training classes multiple times, I'm calling BS on anyone that thinks that people fulfilling that position need much more than the required sorties in order to be pretty competent.  We're not talking about ARCHER or SDIS people here, but your basic Mark-1 eyeball scanner.  Basic radio operations also aren't that terribly  difficult and don't require much classroom or meeting time either. 

This stuff isn't rocket science.  I'm on the record in another thread as saying that our current sortie requirements for aircrews, including scanners, are probably low.  But you're not going to convince me that any squadron out there is spending much time on scanner-level training during regular meetings throughout the year.  We just have way too much stuff to cover to do more than skin-deep refresher training for most positions during regular meetings. 

As I indicated earlier, using them for GTM/UDF work is only probably marginally possible.  It will be even tougher when CAP is forced to start imposing physical requirements on GT members due to NIMS. 

The primary purpose of this membership category would be to attract people to CAP, especially those that face geographic challenges to regular squadron membership, that probably would never decided to go the full route.  This offers them a way to help, and gets us some additional qualified people that would be available to us when needed. 
 

[Eclipse]

Speaking as someone who has flown a ton of flights as a scanner and taught scanner training classes multiple times, I'm calling BS on anyone that thinks that people fulfilling that position need much more than the required sorties in order to be pretty competent.  We're not talking about ARCHER or SDIS people here, but your basic Mark-1 eyeball scanner.  Basic radio operations also aren't that terribly  difficult and don't require much classroom or meeting time either. 

Fine, then call BS, because I'm saying it.

The 2-ride guys will spend the whole time being excited / scared about the plane ride and looking for their house.

It takes more than the required sorties and training to do >ANY< >>>N-E<<< CAP ES job, from MSA to IC.

You want the badge?  2 missions. 

You want to be worth a crap in a real-world?  We need to see you a whole lot more.

[Major Carrales]

There was a Civil Air Patrol reserve during the 1940s.  I rememeber reading about it in FLYING magazine, back when they had a section a called "CAP WING TALK."

[LittleIronPilot]

Sorry, you cannot be a "part-time, part-timer" and still be considered a ready asset.  As mentioned, we've got too many of those already.

Thank you!

Look RiverAux...I know what you are trying to do, and while I applaud your heart, I rail against your reasoning.

Why?

Simple...we need to get away from the "body count" mentality. CAP IS different than handing out food to the homeless, or building a Habitat for Humanity home, or working a few days here and there are the local pound.

We may be volunteers, but we ARE a professional organization. Heck I want to go the OTHER direction. I want us to be up-front, and honest with new members. We want you, but we want you to understand that this is a SERIOUS business that requires dedication and time.

In the end lives can be at stake, this is about the downed plane, not making someone feel inclusive if they have four hours a month free time and want to "feel good".

We meet EVERY week, minus a few holidays, and we have 15-20 seniors show up at least 80% of the time, out of 60 on the roles! We do not need any more "part-time, part-timers" added to the mix. Heck we need more full-time, part-timers!

[RiverAux]

And I wouldn't disagree about needing more active members, but having an option to have some less active members who meet our standards is an entirely separate issue. 

As I envision it the Reserve would NOT be the place to park people who joined CAP and were never seen again.  This is not supposed to be the new ghost squadron, but for people who do maintain their ES qualifications as per CAP regulations.

I would not be opposed to having them be required to attend some sort of annual training weekend outside of what is necessary for ES qualifications. 

Just because someone can't devote their every waking hour to CAP doesn't mean that we can't find a useful role for them.     

And while I primarily see this as a way of attracting in new members, it could answer some of the issues revolving around those who aren't actually terribly active in the squadron.  Those who aren't meeting some specificied meeting attendence rate could be given the choice of going on Reserve status or being sent to the ghost squadron.  Those in Reserve status would know very clearly that they are not going to get mission calls on a regular basis and will not advance in CAP rank.  That cuts out all the complaining about "you never call me" from those who don't like the fact that those that come to the meetings usually get called first.  And if they don't continue to meet the standards to be in the Reserve, off they go to the ghost squadron where no one will call them.  It also gives squadron commanders a very firm and clear basis for not promoting people who aren't active in the unit. 

[Major Carrales]

Negative, I do not agree.  I have had my fill of "absentee CAP-ism."  This is where we never see "Capt Johnny Flyforcheap" until he is ready to milk the system.  The new safety culture of CAP is going to require regular attendance of safety, Stan-Eval and other meetings.  Having folks that are not attending meetings and keeping up, with policy and even with newer members of the unit, creates more harm than good.

Not being able to attend is one thing (arrangements can be made, and we all have times when we are "earning a living"), but having persons that never show but once a year is folly.

What am I supposed to tell those that show up religiously?  Why put someone on a rotation who is never around. 

Body Count mentality is not what is called for, active body mentality is what is needed.  We need to have units where members realize that one must "maintenance" and staff a unit as much as on would an aircraft.

[RiverAux]

I've already said several times that Reserve members would be IN RESERVE.  They would not generally be flying missions unless no other members could be found. 

Good thing you guys weren't around when they thought of having an Air Force Reserve.  Obviously those guys who just show up once a month can't ever be of any use to the organization like those out there working every day. 

[Flying Pig]

 

And while I primarily see this as a way of attracting in new members, it could answer some of the issues revolving around those who aren't actually terribly active in the squadron.  Those who aren't meeting some specificied meeting attendence rate could be given the choice of going on Reserve status or being sent to the ghost squadron.  Those in Reserve status would know very clearly that they are not going to get mission calls on a regular basis and will not advance in CAP rank.  That cuts out all the complaining about "you never call me" from those who don't like the fact that those that come to the meetings usually get called first.  And if they don't continue to meet the standards to be in the Reserve, off they go to the ghost squadron where no one will call them.  It also gives squadron commanders a very firm and clear basis for not promoting people who aren't active in the unit. 

I think your missing our point.  What "issues" are there in people that dont show up?  CAP is already set up that way.  People dont have to come, dont have to train.  CAP is designed to show up when you can.  If you dont train, you dont go on missions.  If you dont train or study, you dont advance in rank or hold staff positions.  There is nothing different in your plan except putting a new bureaucratic animal in place.  Who is going to manage or keep track of a Reserve unit of people who never show up.  I say "No." Keep them in active units.  My unit has several people on our roster whom Ive never met.  They dont even respond to my emails where Ive introduced myself to them as the new Deputy Commander for Seniors.  And you know what, it makes absolutely no difference to me.  Keep sending in your dues, and stay on the books.  They know we are here.  One day they will find the time, or they will just fade away.
Placing them in a "Reserve" capacity will not change anything about it.  Its makes much more sense to have each unit responsible for their handfull of no-shows than to make a giant pot of people that nobody knows, with a "commander" who doesnt know any of them.

Our standards are pretty much as minimum as it is, lets not degrade it anymore, then hope we can count on them when the big one hits.

Again, really, what is the "problem" with people on your roster who dont show up?  You not counting on them anyway, your not calling them for missions, they arent promoting, your not doing paperwork for them.