Main Menu

Civil Air Patrol Reserve

Started by RiverAux, December 22, 2007, 12:27:45 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

The folks you are talking about wouldn't be in the Reserve.  They're not active by any definition and obviously are not keeping up with their ES qualificiations.  Thats a whole different group of people and we're not talking about them.

Inactive does not equal Reserve.  Reserve = lower activity level than regular members, but still active. 

Major Carrales

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
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. 

Apples and oranges, this is CAP they are the USAF.  You join a Reserve unit and are obligated to maintain your functions as a paid member of the USAF structure.

Also, the USAF Reserve is well trained and can be activated.

CAP is locally driven and requires that the local unit be more than "in name only."  I can't see why you don't have a problem handing the keys to a CAP aircraft to a person who be virtually unknown to the regulars.   

I can see it now...at a REDCAP, some Capt in an obsolete flight flight suit of whom no one knows walks up and wants to fly a mission.  While the other five aircrew members and pilots, who have been building the unit and attending weekly and monthly activities to maintain proficiency, look on in distain and disbelief.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Major Carrales

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 10:05:25 PM
The folks you are talking about wouldn't be in the Reserve.  They're not active by any definition and obviously are not keeping up with their ES qualificiations.  Thats a whole different group of people and we're not talking about them.

Inactive does not equal Reserve.  Reserve = lower activity level than regular members, but still active. 

We are already part timers.  SARexs are not weekly activities and meetings are not daily. This plan of yours is moot.  The only levels down from us are the PATRON SQUADRON and INACTIVITY!
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
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. 

And how is that different that what we have today?  No really....how is it different than what happens today?  A mission call goes out.....the A team. (the more active, current, and known members) get called out.  When they are not available you start calling everyone else...including that guy who showed up six months ago and you have not seen him since. 

We are already what you want us to be......but now you want to add a new administrative level to the mix.

Again.......zero gain in efficiency and an increase in administrative overhead.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PMGood 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.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

#24
It would be different because this membership option would be presented to potential members up front when they join and may attract new people who would never have considered CAP.  It has the potential to increase the total number of trained personnel available to us. 

Another way this could help:
I know the cadet programs guys are not going to like this, but this membership category would also probably be of great interest to seniors in communities that only have cadet squadrons.  I have the greatest respect and admiration for the seniors who run cadet squadrons or cadets sides of composite squadrons because this represents a major time committment and I'm very appreciative of them doing it. 

However, if a potential senior member comes in who is primarily interested in ES, they are generally going to be turned off by the implication that they're going to have to attend weekly cadet meetings to do it.  These meetings will almost never be of much use to seniors, especially those interested in aircrew roles.  Not everyone is willing to do weekly meetings, especially cadet meetings,  but if that is their only option at that unit they will probably never join and we will never get the benefit of having them on board for what they can do. 

QuoteI can't see why you don't have a problem handing the keys to a CAP aircraft to a person who be virtually unknown to the regulars.   
Because never said that we should do that.  I said that this would not be an appropriate status for CAP Pilots, only for the more basic ES positions. 

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:01:00 PMthey are generally going to be turned off by the implication that they're going to have to attend weekly cadet meetings to do it. 

SAYS WHO!?!?!?

Who is "making" these people attend weekly meetings?  I'm not.  If you are my MLO....guess what....you only have to show up on MLO night.  If you are a pilot you only have to show up for the month safety meeting.  If you a GTL the only meeting I need you to show up for is when I want you to teach an GT class.

If you are going out there trying to recruit SM...and telling them they have to attend every meeting.....then there is your problem.

But look at from the squadron ADMIN side of it.......What are the different benefits vs costs of reserve/Active status?

Sure you can "sell" the more limited commitment up front.....but why can't you do that for regular SM membership?

We already have a problem getting people to meetings to check up on things like professional development, uniform wear, training status, health status.  Now you want to make a class of member who can look the commander in the face and say "you can't make come to a meeting.....I'm a reservist!".


I say again.....you get zero real benefit and an increase in administrative overhead.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

#26
QuoteSure you can "sell" the more limited commitment up front.....but why can't you do that for regular SM membership?
So, you're going out there telling potential recruits that they don't have to have regular meeting attendence and they'll just be hunky dory with you?  Doesn't seem to be the standard approach.   I think we all tell people that they don't have to make every one (life happens), but we all expect people to attend on a fairly regular basis. 

Once people stop attending regularly (less than 25% of the time) they are usually on the slide towards total inactivity or disenrollment in the current system because we don't really have a formal way of dealing with that.  Not many people start out and stay at that level that I've ever seen.  Once they stop showing up regularly they are usually totally ignored and forgotten about unless your unit happens to have an unusually aggressive retention program which is not the norm. This option could be used as a way to combat that issue.

Okay, but lets address this "administative burden" argument.  As I have proposed you would not need to worry about their professional development, promotions, etc. because I would limit people joining CAP as a Reservist to 2nd Lt.  I'd even take it a bit farther and say that people transferring from active to reserve would not have time spent in Reserve count towards promotions.  So, you can concentrate your efforts on the professional development of the active members and not have to worry about them at all. 

Also, for those in your unit who are already in an informal version of Reserve status, having them transferred to this wouldn't make a huge difference either positively or negatively in terms of admin time for you.  However, since I envision putting the burden on the wing to provide annual training for these folks it would actually reduce the squadron's responsibility to try to keep them up to date on everything. 

Perhaps the implementation of this system we could do away with the Patron membership category.  My wing has less than a handful of patrons and this category seems to be a waste of time.  Further reduces "burden" in favor of a membership class that can actually be of some use. 

How would this empower people to tell off their squadron commander any more than the current situation?  We're already civilians with no contractual obligations. 

Regarding uniforms I have already said that I would probably limit their uniform wear to the golf shirt or corporate uniforms which severely reduces the potential for them to be wearing something so messed up that its an embarrasment.     

flyguy06

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 10:27:59 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
I can't see why you don't have a problem handing the keys to a CAP aircraft to a person who be virtually unknown to the regulars.   


I have to call you out on this one Major. I often fly an airplane where another Squadron is incharge of it. They dont know me and sometimes I wonder if they want to give me flak. Its not their airplane. Anyone in the Wing can use it

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PM
QuoteSure you can "sell" the more limited commitment up front.....but why can't you do that for regular SM membership?
So, you're going out there telling potential recruits that they don't have to have regular meeting attendance and they'll just be hunky dory with you?  Doesn't seem to be the standard approach.   I think we all tell people that they don't have to make every one (life happens), but we all expect people to attend on a fairly regular basis.

Sure...I tell them the truth.  I tell them exactly what we need and I tell them that what they get out of CAP is directly proportional to what they put it.  But I certainly don't tell them they have to attend every meeting....nor is there a "minimum" number or frequency.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMOnce people stop attending regularly (less than 25% of the time) they are usually on the slide toward total inactivity or disenrollment in the current system because we don't really have a formal way of dealing with that.  Not many people start out and stay at that level that I've ever seen.  Once they stop showing up regularly they are usually totally ignored and forgotten about unless your unit happens to have an unusually aggressive retention program which is not the norm. This option could be used as a way to combat that issue.

And you want to make this a normal membership status?  I though you wanted this to happen?

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMOkay, but lets address this "administrative burden" argument.  As I have proposed you would not need to worry about their professional development, promotions, etc. because I would limit people joining CAP as a Reservist to 2nd Lt.  I'd even take it a bit farther and say that people transferring from active to reserve would not have time spent in Reserve count toward promotions.  So, you can concentrate your efforts on the professional development of the active members and not have to worry about them at all.

Yes...but the fact that we now have a new class of membership we have an increase in admin work.  We now have to process active to reserve request, requests to go to reserve status.  We have to be more proactive in making contact with the reservists to make sure they are still "active reservists" and have not quit.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PM
Also, for those in your unit who are already in an informal version of Reserve status, having them transferred to this wouldn't make a huge difference either positively or negatively in terms of admin time for you.  However, since I envision putting the burden on the wing to provide annual training for these folks it would actually reduce the squadron's responsibility to try to keep them up to date on everything. 

Oh right....like the wing wants that job, and some boy-o who lives 300 miles away is going to care about any of these names on a roster.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMPerhaps the implementation of this system we could do away with the Patron membership category.  My wing has less than a handful of patrons and this category seems to be a waste of time.  Further reduces "burden" in favor of a membership class that can actually be of some use. 

Patron status works very well for some units.  The good thing about patron status is that don't have to be "professional" they just have to be there to do what any parent can do.  They don't need qualifications, ratings, license or any thing that your reservists are going to need.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMHow would this empower people to tell off their squadron commander any more than the current situation?  We're already civilians with no contractual obligations. 

No...but we are under a moral obligation to do what we need to do.  If you give someone a "legal loop hole" you are stealing what little authority our commanders have now.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMRegarding uniforms I have already said that I would probably limit their uniform wear to the golf shirt or corporate uniforms which severely reduces the potential for them to be wearing something so messed up that its an embarrassment. 

So your idea is to have a bunch of ES rated guys who you never see, who don't know anything about CAP, who don't really want walking about in "our"uniform, all so that you can recruit more people to do ES work.

I don't know....is this really a problem?  

Are there really units out there that are having trouble meeting their ES requirments....but darn it.....if we only had a part time position we could really fill in those missing mission base slots!

River....you usually have some good ideas....but this one is just silly.

If a member says he can't make every meeting but can make the SAREXs and can swing getting off work for a real mission......you say "Okay, see you at next month's SAREX".  

No extra work, no special status, no fancy titles.

K.I.S.S.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 08:29:01 PM
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.

Gotta go with the Major on this one. There are a few pilots that come for the cheap flying, but when it comes to missions, they're not around. Before someone gets in a huff, they're not all like that. To those that fly their proficiency so that they are an asset during missions, I gotta give props.

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 10:27:59 PMI can see it now...at a REDCAP, some Capt in an obsolete flight flight suit of whom no one knows walks up and wants to fly a mission.  While the other five aircrew members and pilots, who have been building the unit and attending weekly and monthly activities to maintain proficiency, look on in distain and disbelief.

A valid point, but to carry it a little further, do you want to work with someone you don't or barely know? I wouldn't. It's different with my flying on the military side, I'm trained, and I have proficiency requirements to meet. Any aircrew I "drop" into is going to ask me three things: One, how long have I been flying? Two, am I current? Three, how many hours do I have? All three are documented, and fairly easy to obtain.

Not so with a guy that walks in off the street in our uniform. Not all his flying is with CAP, so the 2000 hours he's telling you he has could be the absolute truth, or a complete whitewash. You can't take those risks when it comes to flying, be it military or general aviation.

RiverAux

#30
Let me address a little further the idea that we currently have an unofficial "reserve" system.  We do have a certain percentage of folks in every squadron who have obtained some ES qualifications, but for whatever reason are no longer attending meetings on a regular basis. 

Generally these are either CAP veterans who are starting to get a little too old for active service or relatively new people with 1-2 years under their belt who are starting to question their membership in the organization-- perhaps they aren't getting a lot of what they want from the meetings and aren't going any more. 

Yes, these people are still on your alert roster in case you need them just like Reservists under my proposal.  However, what you don't have with them is any sort of planned system for keeping them current and up-to-date.  Yeah, they may attend a meeting every other month, but the chances are that the particular meeting they attend won't have anything applicable to their ES specialty, so it won't be of much use for keeping them current.  So, what you end up with is a qualified scanner who maybe gets 6-8 meetings a year that probably weren't of much use in keeping up his skills. 

Compare that with someone in a reserve who also has to keep up his ES qualifications but has to attend an annual training day or weekend in which he is getting 8-16 hours of concentrated refresher training in techniques, regulations, etc. 

Which person is more likely to be of use to you on a mission?  The Reservist or the guy who has gotten a hodgepodge of random meeting-level training, if anything? 

That is where I see the difference.

On a related note, I do not see the Reserves being used as a place to plant people who are cluttering up your roster and who aren't attending meetings.  I'm not one of those who thinks a "clean, active" roster is important.  Becoming a Reservist should be a voluntary decision on the part of the member in full recognition of what their status would be.  I would not be in favor of involuntary transfers to the Reserves like some squadrons send "inactive" members to their Wing's ghost squadron. 

Incidentally, it is the norm for my Wing to use crews combined from different squadrons on major missions.  It isn't ideal, but that is what you sometimes end up with and sticking a Reservist in the mix wouldn't be any different. 

Hawk200

All in all, why create a new member status for people like that? You can do that now, just track their progress. You would have to anyway, an additional member status is adding more steps to a process that wouldn't be too complex in the first place.

lordmonar

Well there you go....you see we don't do much training at all during our regular meetings.  It is more like a staff meeting where each department head gives a little report of what is going on and what the issues are.

ES training takes place at.....ES training events like our monthly SAREXs.  We sometimes hold specific classes during the month for specific skills, such as charting, comm, Flight Release, using the computers at mission base, etc.

If you can set up a specific plan to train all your inactive members.....why not just do it....instead of mandating another personnel program to it?

Again.....I understand where you are coming from....but when you do the cost/benefit analysis I'm sure that you will find that it is just not worth the hassle
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

If your squadron is having monthly SAREXs, I'd say that you are far outside the norm and maybe this wouldn't be of much help to you.  Hey one size doesn't fit all.  Yes, if a squadron has the resources to reel back in their inactive members, that would be vastly preferable to having them in Reserve status.  Keep in mind that that isn't the main point of this proposal. 

LittleIronPilot

I still do not get what you are trying to do?

Look....the CAP requires a good time commitment. If you cannot do it, then you cannot do it, period.

Why have "barely there" guys and gals?

O-Rex

Great: join CAP, and we'll promise you only get to come out when something REAL and IMPORTANT happens, as opposed to the rest of us who work their butts off the rest of the year to keep the wheels of the CAP machine working AND maintain proficiency in various ES specialties.

when the stuff hits the fan, I wouldn't give up MY seat to some tire-kicker that I only see when the balloon goes up. . . .






RiverAux

Quotewhen the stuff hits the fan, I wouldn't give up MY seat to some tire-kicker that I only see when the balloon goes up. . . .
and you wouldn't.  They would be in the seat while you were at work and couldn't get away...

jeders

As I shake my head while reading this I have to say that this is definately a solution looking for a problem. Even our most active members are still comparable to a reserve component for the RealMilitary. We just don't put in as much time and don't need a whole class of members that area only there for a fraction of the fraction of time we spend with CAP. If you have people that just don't want to be active, fine. But we don't need a whole new membership class.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Major Carrales

Quote from: RiverAux on December 24, 2007, 11:21:56 PM
Quotewhen the stuff hits the fan, I wouldn't give up MY seat to some tire-kicker that I only see when the balloon goes up. . . .
and you wouldn't.  They would be in the seat while you were at work and couldn't get away...

Great, large amounts of less than proficient people operating CAP equipment.  Can we say safety issues.

I think this idea is officially unpopular and likely unworkable.  I've looked at it from all the angles I could possibily see objectively, and each time it comes up negative.

Back in WWII, when CAP oeprated 24/7 coastal patrols the idea of a CAP Reservce was necessary.  However, Modern CAP is not 24/7 and filled the spot of a RESERVE.  Now, if you were on the other end of the coin pressing for FULL TIME CAP for retirees as sentinals of a RESERVE with the rest of CAP as a reserve, then I could entertain the idea you mention.  (I told you I looked at it from ALL angles to try to make it workable)
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

RiverAux

QuoteI think this idea is officially unpopular and likely unworkable. 
I get that there isn't a lot of support from those willing to post.  I don't mind.  Just because its unpopular doesn't necessarily mean that its a bad idea...