Hey look, CAPP 151 is finally getting an update!

[dwb]

Draft CAPP 151.

Looks like the NHQ Cadet Team is taking ownership of this oft-quoted, but very out-of-date pamphlet, and transforming it into something a little more useful.

The white paper with the rationale for updating the pamphlet is on the proving grounds page.

Thoughts?  I like it, assuming they can find good pictures for everything.

[CAP Producer]

I like it.   

[Pylon]

I like the draft!  It's a much more user-friendly manual. 

Generally speaking, a pamphlet like 151 is going to get the most use and need from people without military backgrounds who don't know a whole lot about the topic, and new cadets.  Framing the pamphlet more as an educational tool and user-friendly guide is a great idea.  The photos will help, too.

Hopefully it will serve a good reference.  I for one would love to include this in the welcome materials for new cadets without hesitation, and for new SMs as well.

[NIN]

New filename: http://www.cap.gov/documents/Respect_on_Display.pdf

[dwb]

Updated file name in my original post.  Curt must be messing with me. 

[NIN]

Updated file name in my original post.  Curt must be messing with me. 

Guaranteed

[MIKE]

One thing I noticed was the use of the term rank throughout, I dunno if this is one of the things they are planing to change when they update the leadership texts i.e. be like the military and stop being different/difficult... but it's just another one of those consistent inconsistencies.

Noticed the changes to a lot of the stuff we usually argue about... Mostly changed to annoy me.  

[mikeylikey]

I don't like the overuse of the phrase   "Air Force-Style customs and courtesies".  They are Air Force Customs and Courtesies, why couldn't they just say that.  Perhaps appeasing those that don't want the AF association with CAP??

[Briski]

I don't like the overuse of the phrase   "Air Force-Style customs and courtesies".  They are Air Force Customs and Courtesies, why couldn't they just say that.  Perhaps appeasing those that don't want the AF association with CAP??

Or perhaps to remind us that even though we get saluted and wear Air Force-style uniforms, we're still CAP.

Kinda like the MRE entree pasta with vegetables in alfredo-style sauce. It may look and feel like real alfredo sauce, but don't be surprised when it tastes like MRE.

Overall, I like the draft CAPP 151. And it's about time, too.

[Gunner C]

A fine point of tradition:  USAAF flight officers were addressed as "Mister" as were USAF warrant officers.  There is a LONG tradition behind this, dating back to the 18th century.  I would suppose that "Miss" would need to be added these days.

GC

[Matt]

Good reading, but it's too bubbly...  It's like the Windows Vista of Pamphlets (not in functionality then it wouldn't work, just in appearance)...

[pixelwonk]

Good reading, but it's too bubbly...  It's like the Windows Vista of Pamphlets (not in functionality then it wouldn't work, just in appearance)...

thank you, and I thought I was the only one to think so!

[mikeylikey]

^ Is it me or all of the new "releases" from NHQ looking somewhat "babbly" or should we say cartoonish?!?!

[captrncap]

I was looking through it and notice the interchangeable nature of grade vs. rank on page 5

For example, in CAP, a captain may command a squadron that includes majors and colonels as its members. An aircraft may be commanded by a captain, and crewed by two majors. Or perhaps a cadet NCO is leading a drill team that includes her cadet commander, a cadet major. Situations like these are common in CAP.

Still, the lower ranking officer should initiate the salute. And looking at the matter from the other side, the higher ranking officer should respect the junior officer's position.


Is this now stating that a Squadron CC (regardless of grade) is outranked by a Lt Col and should salute the Lt Col? 

Wouldn't this also be the case at encampments when the Encampment CC may be a 1st Lt and has Majors on staff?

[MIKE]

Is this now stating that a Squadron CC (regardless of grade) is outranked by a Lt Col and should salute the Lt Col? 

Wouldn't this also be the case at encampments when the Encampment CC may be a 1st Lt and has Majors on staff?

Absofrigginlutely!  Junior officers (1st Lt) initiate salutes to senior officers (Maj) regardless of position in the chain o' command.

[RiverAux]

Is this now stating that a Squadron CC (regardless of grade) is outranked by a Lt Col and should salute the Lt Col? 

Thats the way it has always been in CAP in regards to C&C.  Nothing new here. 

[captrncap]

Is this now stating that a Squadron CC (regardless of grade) is outranked by a Lt Col and should salute the Lt Col? 

Thats the way it has always been in CAP in regards to C&C.  Nothing new here. 

Sorry but RANK and GRADE are not the same - the Lt Col out Grades the Capt but the Sq CC out ranks the Lt Col

[MIKE]

You are misinformed on CAPs definition of rank.  From L2KAB: SE Chapter 1.  Rank is ones seniority within a given grade based on date of grade.

[Brad]

You are misinformed on CAPs definition of rank.  From L2KAB: SE Chapter 1.  Rank is ones seniority within a given grade based on date of grade.

Dittos from me on this one. I'm drawn back to the classic Navy example of how a ship might have a Commander Navigator, and a Lieutenant Commander as the Captain, but the Lieutenant Commander would still salute the Commander where the situation called for it, even though the Lieutenant Commander is the Old Man, and the Commander is just the Navigator

Interesting bit of trivia though, in the Navy, regardless of rank, a ship's CO is addressed as "Captain" in addition to his rank address. ex: "Captain Smith" is just as valid as "Commander Smith".

I'm also reminded of that line from Band of Brothers: "We salute the rank, not the man." Yea I know, if you take the time to analyze the quote, it's actually bad in a way, but it still explains my point.

[mikeylikey]

You are misinformed on CAPs definition of rank.  From L2KAB: SE Chapter 1.  Rank is ones seniority within a given grade based on date of grade.

They need to add that cadet cartoon picture.......the one where they are standing on the steps discussing Rank VS Grade.  That always made the subject clear to anyone wondering.

[mikeylikey]

"We salute the rank, not the man." Yea I know, if you take the time to analyze the quote, it's actually bad in a way, but it still explains my point.

Not a bad quote.  It is precisely correct.  Saluting rank is a military foundation.  "The people will change but Rank lasts forever".

^ How is that for a bad quote.  I just made it up.   

[captrncap]

You are misinformed on CAPs definition of rank.  From L2KAB: SE Chapter 1.  Rank is ones seniority within a given grade based on date of grade.

This is from TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > § 152

(c) Grade and Rank.— The Chairman [JSF], while so serving, holds the grade of general or, in the case of an officer of the Navy, admiral and outranks all other officers of the armed forces. However, he may not exercise military command over the Joint Chiefs of Staff or any of the armed forces.

So if your logic is the true then he really does outrank everyone since he may have others who made general before him...

CAP is a different animal since you can have a 1st Lt as Encampment Commander with Lt Col as staff. So by position he outranks them. The Real Military would never have that....

[AlphaSigOU]

Now if they'd add the time-honored bit of military etiquette:

"A senior calls attention to a problem; a junior only invites attention."

[jimmydeanno]

Perhaps appeasing those that don't want the AF association with CAP??

This is written for new people to CAP who don't understand military C&C or want a place to point people so they can say that C&C is a part of CAP culture.

AUDIENCE
1. New seniors who have limited military background, especially those who want to lead cadets (ie:
a mom drafted as unit commander, a School Program teacher)
2. Seasoned members looking for authoritative guidance on customs and courtesies-related topics
3. Cadets (but it's assumed that cadets will consult the cadet textbooks first)

It intentionally tries not to be authoritative, but rather a guide as a pamphlet should be and intentionally doesn't try to cover all possible situations some people look for; (ie: If I am standing on the border of the US and Canada but wearing the new corporate uniform in the back of a covered truck and the Mexican national anthem is played and I'm not wearing a cover, what do I do.)

LINKY

[EDIT]

I don't like the overuse of the phrase   "Air Force-Style customs and courtesies".  They are Air Force Customs and Courtesies, why couldn't they just say that.  Perhaps appeasing those that don't want the AF association with CAP??

Could also be interpreted as reminder that we don't follow Navy customs and courtesies...
[/edit]

[brenaud]

I like the fact that it defines military style uniforms (everything except blazer and polo shirt). 

The current guidance (as I interpret it) suggests "military style" does not include CAP distinctive uniforms (if this wasn't the case, why would the change letter requiring the flight cap for the white shirt/blue slacks specifically mention members should observe customs and courtesies in that uniform?).

As has been mentioned in other threads, the general rule is 'no hat, no salute'.  The change to 151 would extend saluting to some 'no hat' uniforms (white/gray and utility uniform, for example).  While this would appear a little out of the ordinary to some, I think it would provide a more uniform image to the public--members that are in uniforms with grade 'obviously' displayed are doing the same thing.  (I don't include the blazer nameplate as 'obviously displayed' since it's much more difficult to see due to its size and location.)  And, as others have said, I wouldn't mind appropriate headgear being required for those uniforms as well.

[mikeylikey]

^ I do believe I just saw on MSNBC that there is a new law being pushed through the house that would allow military members not in uniform to salute, return salutes, and veterans not in any uniform to do the same thing.  Did anyone else see or hear about this?

I was always the believer that even in civilian clothes you should still salute.  I salute Officers when walking into the PX/BX when not in uniform, or when I come across them at the gas station.  The AF SF's salute me when I drive through the gate not in uniform, and I return it.  Just because your not in uniform, common courtesy should not stop. 

The customs and courtesies should extend to all CAP uniforms, and civilian attire when doing anything CAP related.  As far as no hat, no salute......I don't think so.  Thats the lazy way out.

[brenaud]

^ I do believe I just saw on MSNBC that there is a new law being pushed through the house that would allow military members not in uniform to salute, return salutes, and veterans not in any uniform to do the same thing.  Did anyone else see or hear about this?

I was always the believer that even in civilian clothes you should still salute.  I salute Officers when walking into the PX/BX when not in uniform, or when I come across them at the gas station.  The AF SF's salute me when I drive through the gate not in uniform, and I return it.  Just because your not in uniform, common courtesy should not stop. 

The customs and courtesies should extend to all CAP uniforms, and civilian attire when doing anything CAP related.  As far as no hat, no salute......I don't think so.  Thats the lazy way out.

I seem to remember hearing about a law authorizing current military members and veterans to salute the Flag in civilian attire.  Not sure if it extends beyond that.  I'll see if I can find a link.

The current P151 summarizes your other comments...it is never inappropriate to salute another individual.  I agree.  The reason I like the new P151 is that it extends the expectation to members in non-USAF uniforms.  It's not authorizing anything new, it's simply adding the expectation for members in the CAP distinctive uniforms observe those customs & courtesies.  (As well as following C&Cs rendered to the Flag).

[mikeylikey]

Understood.  I misread the post Sorry!  It's getting way late 

[Dragoon]

Two kinda weird things

"For senior members, the rendering of customs and
courtesies is optional, but is expected when wearing a military-style
uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer). "

The way this is worded, I never have to salute, even in USAF style uniform.  It may be "expected" but it isn't required.

This may be what they mean.  But if they really mean

"For senior members the rendering of customs and courtesies is required when wearing military-style uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer).  They are optional in non-military style uniforms."

Also, mentioning the calling of the room to attention for a senior officer.  To begin with, I very seldom, if ever, see this done in a room full of officers in the real military.  You stand for a senior officer, of course, but I don't see officers calling officers to attention all that often.  That' s more of an NCO/EM thing. 

They then muddy the waters by discussing standing by announcing "Gentlemen, the Commander."  What if the commander isn't the ranking guy?  (common in CAP)

As worded right now, if I, a lowly squadron ES officer and CAP 05, am late to a squadron staff meeting, the entire room, including the squadron commander, gets called to attention when I enter (late).  I'm not sure this is what we want to have happen.  An ego boost for me, sure, but the attention needs to be on the commander, not on some flunky.

[mikeylikey]

Also, mentioning the calling of the room to attention for a senior officer.  To begin with, I very seldom, if ever, see this done in a room full of officers in the real military.  You stand for a senior officer, of course, but I don't see officers calling officers to attention all that often.  That' s more of an NCO/EM thing.

Really?  I see it all the time. 

They then muddy the waters by discussing standing by announcing "Gentlemen, the Commander."  What if the commander isn't the ranking guy?  (common in CAP)

I think they were trying to convey the respect shown to the position.  I doubt you would do this if the Commander is a 1st LT, and is walking into a room full of Lt Col's.  (however it can still be done, but those Lt Col's would not be required to stand)  In the Army (and AF I believe) When the Battalion Commander (SQD Commander?) walks into a room, the standard call would be "The Battalion Commander" and everyone would stand.  I know at the end of the duty day the informal practice of calling the departure of the Battalion or Company Commander by the First Sergent is commonly practiced as well.

[jimmydeanno]

Two kinda weird things

"For senior members, the rendering of customs and
courtesies is optional, but is expected when wearing a military-style
uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer). "

The way this is worded, I never have to salute, even in USAF style uniform.  It may be "expected" but it isn't required.

This may be what they mean.  But if they really mean

"For senior members the rendering of customs and courtesies is required when wearing military-style uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer).  They are optional in non-military style uniforms."

The pamphlet wasn't written to be regulatory, that's why it isn't a CAPR.  So the statement was written that way on purpose. 

I wouldn't even say that you were 'required' to do C&C in a military-style uniform, however tradition (custom) and common politeness(courtesy) dictate that you really should be (expected) executing these types of things.  The pamphlet just set the expectation that members practice C&C.  What you do/how you react to those who do not meet expectations is up to you.

The line about (except for polo and blazer) removes the confusion from the previous pamphlet as to what is considered a military-style uniform and clarifies if someone wearing the polo would typically salute or return salutes, etc.

[Dragoon]

Also, mentioning the calling of the room to attention for a senior officer.  To begin with, I very seldom, if ever, see this done in a room full of officers in the real military.  You stand for a senior officer, of course, but I don't see officers calling officers to attention all that often.  That' s more of an NCO/EM thing.

Really?  I see it all the time. 

I don't doubt you.  But in 22 years of active service, the only time I've seen an officer call a room of officers to attention was in a TOC.  And then only for the commander.  (and come to think of it, there were a couple of NCOs present.)

Now, in mixed company (EM and Officer), the NCOs do it all the time, because EMs are used to being called to attendion.    But not when it's purely officer.  We either just stand up, or someone announced the VIP entering and then we stand up.  No D&C commands.

As a former CAP cadet who didn't know better, I once made the mistake of calling the room to attention for the S3 (he outranked everyone in the room).  He looked at me real funny. 

[Dragoon]

I wouldn't even say that you were 'required' to do C&C in a military-style uniform, however tradition (custom) and common politeness(courtesy) dictate that you really should be (expected) executing these types of things.  The pamphlet just set the expectation that members practice C&C.  What you do/how you react to those who do not meet expectations is up to you.

I guess I rail against this "do it if you want to" culture. 

Effectively, this pamphlet, as writen, makes it clear that we can decide only to salute officers whom we respect, and ignore the rest.

I don't think that's a good underpinning for a supposed military culture.

[jimmydeanno]

I wouldn't even say that you were 'required' to do C&C in a military-style uniform, however tradition (custom) and common politeness(courtesy) dictate that you really should be (expected) executing these types of things.  The pamphlet just set the expectation that members practice C&C.  What you do/how you react to those who do not meet expectations is up to you.

I guess I rail against this "do it if you want to" culture. 

Effectively, this pamphlet, as writen, makes it clear that we can decide only to salute officers whom we respect, and ignore the rest.

I don't think that's a good underpinning for a supposed military culture.

If your boss tells you that it is 'expected' you to show up for work on time and you don't, what happens?  There are typically consequences. 

If you tell your child that you 'expect' that their room be clean by the time you get home and it isn't, don't they get punished?

If you tell your Cadet Commander that you 'expect' to have a meeting schedule on time - what do you do if they don't.

My point is that just because something doesn't say "You are required to..." doesn't mean people will say "well, I choose not to..."  What you do should someone not meet those 'expectations' is the same as what you do if someone doesn't do something they're 'required' to...

[Dragoon]

If your boss tells you that it is 'expected' you to show up for work on time and you don't, what happens?  There are typically consequences. 

Sure, you get fired.  Because showing up on time isn't an "expectation" it's a requirement. 

CAPP 151, with the new wording, makes it clear that customs and courtesies are not a requirement - merely an expectation.

If you tell your child that you 'expect' that their room be clean by the time you get home and it isn't, don't they get punished?

That's because you actually gave them an order. 

That's totally different from some nebulous "it is expected..."  the pamphlet doesn't doesn't even specify WHO expects it.  It's written in passive voice - which I learned as a 2LT is a really bad thing to do.  It gives people wiggle room to totally ignore you.

If you tell your Cadet Commander that you 'expect' to have a meeting schedule on time - what do you do if they don't.

Again, that's really an order, not an expectation, regardless of your word choice.

My point is that just because something doesn't say "You are required to..." doesn't mean people will say "well, I choose not to..."  What you do should someone not meet those 'expectations' is the same as what you do if someone doesn't do something they're 'required' to...

There's no doubt that the guy who chooses not to salute his Wing CC is unlikely to appointed to a Wing Director job, or have his promotion approved quickly.

But many of our members, frankly, don't care about that. They just wanna fly, or teach cadets, or be a PAO or whatever.   And now we've made it clear that as long as they understand they may lose out on Senior Member of the Year, they can totally ignore military customs and courtesies.  Because we've made it clear that these things are not a requirement.

I think this is a very bad call.  And could easily be corrected by changing the wording.  If it's a requirement, SAY SO.  No need to be mealy mouthed about it.

[SamFranklin]

I think this is a very bad call.  And could easily be corrected by changing the wording.  If it's a requirement, SAY SO.  No need to be mealy mouthed about it.

You're seeing the world too legalistically. They are "customs" and "courtesies," not "requirements."  If you buy-in to the Core Value of Respect, they'll come naturally.

[SarDragon]

Well, I kinda see his point. We have way too many folks who play the rules against each other, or to their own advantage, with little regard for the big picture.

[Gunner C]

I wouldn't even say that you were 'required' to do C&C in a military-style uniform, however tradition (custom) and common politeness(courtesy) dictate that you really should be (expected) executing these types of things.  The pamphlet just set the expectation that members practice C&C.  What you do/how you react to those who do not meet expectations is up to you.

I guess I rail against this "do it if you want to" culture. 

I completely agree.  We either have requirements or not.  Suggestions usually get ignored.

You're seeing the world too legalistically. They are "customs" and "courtesies," not "requirements."  If you buy-in to the Core Value of Respect, they'll come naturally.

Balderdash! If something isn't important enough to make a requirement, then it will never be done.  Are we or are we not a paramilitary organization?  If not, then let's get rid of all this uniform/rank/courtesies junk and just have Saturday weenie roasts!  For heavens sake, doesn't tradition mean anything to anyone?  Doesn't anyone want to be part of something that has high standards of integrity, etiquette, and service?

GC

[Dragoon]

I think you guys are getting it.

When you hang around CAP enough, you learn there are only two kinds of directives

1.  Mandatory ones, which about 70% of the active membership follows.

2.  Optional ones, which are pretty much blown off by 90% of our folks.

If we want it to happen, we need to mandate it.

[jimmydeanno]

Not to sound crass, but to this day I have yet to find any military publication that mandates saluting or other type of custom or courtesy.  The only reference I have ever found was in the AF Professional Development Guide (AFPAM 36-2241 Chapter 8).  It is essentially the old version of P151. 

Can ANYONE point me to a current military regulation that says: "saluting is required?"

[Dragoon]

For the Army, AR 600-25, para 1.5.b

1-5. Hand salutes and salutes with arms

a. For instructions on executing the hand salute, see FM 3-21.5, paragraph 4-4 .

b. All Army personnel in uniform are required to salute when they meet and recognize persons entitled to the salute. Salutes will be exchanged between officers (commissioned and warrant) and enlisted personnel, and with personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard), the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service entitled to the salute.

c. The junior person shall salute first. Accompanying the rendering of the hand salute with an appropriate greeting such as, "Good Morning, Sir" or "Good Morning, Ma'am" is encouraged. Personnel will not salute indoors except when reporting to a superior officer.

d. The practice of saluting officers in official vehicles (recognized individually by rank or identifying vehicle plates and/or flags) is considered an appropriate courtesy and will be observed. Salutes are not required to be rendered by or to personnel who are driving or riding in privately owned vehicles, except by gate guards who will render salutes to recognized officers in all vehicles unless duties are of such a nature as to make the salute impractical. When military personnel are acting as drivers of a moving vehicle, they should not initiate a salute.

e. It is customary to salute officers of friendly foreign nations when recognized as such. The commanding general, U.S. European Command; the commanding general, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh U.S. Army; commanding general, U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth U.S. Army; commanding general, U.S. Army, Pacific; and commanding general, U.S. Army, Southern Command, are delegated the authority to establish policies for recognition courtesies prevailing locally for foreign officials. Should inactivation eliminate any of these commands, the authority will pass down to the next level of command. This authority will not be delegated further.

f. The President of the United States, as the commander in chief, will be saluted by Army personnel in uniform.

g. Civilian personnel, to include civilian guards, are not required to render the hand salute to military personnel or other civilian personnel.

h. Military personnel under arms will render the salute prescribed for the weapon with which they are armed, whether or not that weapon ordinarily is prescribed as part of their equipment.

i. Salutes are not required to be rendered or returned when the senior or subordinate, or both are —

(1) In civilian attire.

(2) Engaged in routine work if the salute would interfere.

(3) Carrying articles with both hands so occupied as to make saluting impracticable.

(4) Working as a member of a detail, or engaged in sports or social functions where saluting would present a safety hazard.

(5) In public places such as theaters, churches, and in public conveyances.

(6) In the ranks of a formation.

To be honest, in 22 years of doing this for a living, I was unaware that this reg existed.  But in the Army, saluting is such a part of the culture that is ingrained in you from day one that everyone just accepts it.

CAP has no such indoctrination, and certainly no such all-pervasive culture to back up customs and courtesies.  If we want it to happen, we need to spell it out, explicitly and simply.

[MIKE]

AFMAN 36-2203?

[ddelaney103]

Looking at the paragraph:

Senior Members. For senior members, the rendering of customs and
courtesies is optional, but is expected when wearing a military-style
uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer).

Many people are never going to get past the word "optional" to the whole fuzzy "is expected" part.

Tags - MIKE

[Matt]

Looking at the paragraph:

Senior Members. For senior members, the rendering of customs and
courtesies is optional, but is expected when wearing a military-style
uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer).

Many people are never going to get past the word "optional" to the whole fuzzy "is expected" part.

Tags - MIKE

Concurred.

[jimmydeanno]

AFMAN 36-2203?

Not really.

[biZarre]

Oh my goodness!

Minnesota Wing is the poster child for the new CAPP151! 

It's not everyday you get to open a draft of a CAPP and see fellow members (and your's truly) on the cover. 

For the record, this photo dates from 2003, when wing patches were still all the rage on the blues uniform, lest we get too pickey.   Perhaps newer photo's will be used for the final edition. 

Other than that, the re-imaged pamphlet does help bring its points across in a more modern fashion, and in more of a handbook style.

[masamuel2]

AFMAN 36-2203?

Not really.

AFMAN 36-2203
3.6. Exchange of Salutes. The salute is a courteous exchange of greetings, with the junior member
always saluting first. When returning or rendering an individual salute, the head and eyes are turned
toward the Colors or person saluted. When in ranks, the position of attention is maintained unless otherwise
directed. Members of the Armed Forces in uniform exchange salutes under the following conditions:
3.6.1. Outdoors, salutes are exchanged upon recognition between officers and warrant officers and
between officers or warrant officers and cadets or enlisted members of the Armed Forces. Saluting
outdoors means salutes are exchanged when the persons involved are outside of a building. For example,
if a person is on a porch, a covered sidewalk, a bus stop, a covered or open entryway, or a reviewing
stand, the salute will be exchanged with a person on the sidewalk outside of the structure or with
a person approaching or in the same structure. This applies both on and off military installations. The
junior member should initiate the salute in time to allow the senior officer to return it. To prescribe an
exact distance for all circumstances is not practical, but good judgment indicates when salutes should
be exchanged. A superior carrying articles in both hands need not return the salute, but he or she
should nod in return or verbally acknowledge the salute. If the junior member is carrying articles in
both hands, verbal greetings should be exchanged. Also, use these procedures when greeting an
officer of a friendly foreign nation.
3.6.2. Indoors, except for formal reporting, salutes are not rendered.
...
3.6.6. Exchange of salutes between military pedestrians (including gate sentries) and officers in moving
military vehicles is not mandatory. However, when officer passengers are readily identifiable (for
example, officers in appropriately marked vehicles), the salute must be rendered.
3.6.7. Civilians may be saluted by persons in uniform. The President of the United States, as Commander
in Chief of the Armed Forces, is always accorded the honor of a salute. Also, if the exchange
of salutes is otherwise appropriate, it is customary for military members in civilian clothes to
exchange salutes upon recognition.
...
3.6.10. Any airman, NCO, or officer recognizing a need to salute or a need to return one may do so
anywhere at any time.

[jimmydeanno]

That's not really what I was looking for.

In the example that ddelaney gave - the Army is specifically stating "salutes are required..."

In the AFM it is explaining how to salute in certain situations.  It is explaining how the custom is executed.

But even if interpreted as a "saluting is required" section, it only covers the salute. 

My point being is that I think that the request to make the CAP pamphlet more authoritative in its wording is another case of trying to be more military than the military.  Even in the paragraphs above there are a lot of "should" and "is not mandatory" (which translates to 'optional'), and 'mays.'

I don't think that a failure in local leadership should require that we make every single thing in CAP 'illegal' should someone not fully understand.  CAP has plenty of places where C&C is part of the indoctrination.  Local leadership just chooses to ignore those areas (level 1 training has a specific section on C&C that is supposed to be conducted in a hands on method, the Cadet Great Start Program, TLC has C&C & D&C, etc).

IMO, those who join CAP choose to act as adults and WILL keep reading past the 'optional' part and read the expectation, those who don't soon find their way out of the organization anyway.  I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.

[ddelaney103]

That's not really what I was looking for.

In the example that ddelaney gave - the Army is specifically stating "salutes are required..."

In the AFM it is explaining how to salute in certain situations.  It is explaining how the custom is executed.

But even if interpreted as a "saluting is required" section, it only covers the salute. 

My point being is that I think that the request to make the CAP pamphlet more authoritative in its wording is another case of trying to be more military than the military.  Even in the paragraphs above there are a lot of "should" and "is not mandatory" (which translates to 'optional'), and 'mays.'

I don't think that a failure in local leadership should require that we make every single thing in CAP 'illegal' should someone not fully understand.  CAP has plenty of places where C&C is part of the indoctrination.  Local leadership just chooses to ignore those areas (level 1 training has a specific section on C&C that is supposed to be conducted in a hands on method, the Cadet Great Start Program, TLC has C&C & D&C, etc).

IMO, those who join CAP choose to act as adults and WILL keep reading past the 'optional' part and read the expectation, those who don't soon find their way out of the organization anyway.  I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.

You're confusing me with Dragoon, but I'll take a shot at this.

The AFMAN is pretty clear on the basics:

3.6.1. Outdoors, salutes are exchanged upon recognition between officers and warrant officers and between officers or warrant officers and cadets or enlisted members of the Armed Forces.

It's not "expected" or "optional" here.

[davedove]

You're confusing me with Dragoon, but I'll take a shot at this.

The AFMAN is pretty clear on the basics:

3.6.1. Outdoors, salutes are exchanged upon recognition between officers and warrant officers and between officers or warrant officers and cadets or enlisted members of the Armed Forces.

It's not "expected" or "optional" here.

Exactly, it does not say "Salutes should be" or "Salutes may be".  It says "Salutes ARE".

Just because the word "mandatory" is not there does not mean it is optional.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I don't understand why CAP is reinventing the wheel here.

There's AFMAN 36-2203, which outlines all this stuff with great detail and aplomb. (And with a different cover, a previous iteration of that manual was the CAP Leadership Laboratory Manual. What ever happened to that...?)

And the Air Force apparently has a "cheat-sheet" pamphlet outlining the stuff CAPP 151 purports to do.

Why does CAP have to duplicate efforts here?

It's a waste of money, of paper and of time that could be used for bigger, better things. Is it because we want to dumb it all down for the less military-inclined among us? Or to placate CPPT-paranoid seniors among us? Or is this a make-work assignment handed to someone at NHQ?

Military traditions are just that — and either we follow them, or we don't, period. We can't pick and choose ("The Air Force does it like this, but we don't do that in CAP" seldom makes sense in this context), lest we be unprofessional and the continued target of Air Force scorn.

[Dragoon]

I don't understand why CAP is reinventing the wheel here.

There's AFMAN 36-2203, which outlines all this stuff with great detail and aplomb. (And with a different cover, a previous iteration of that manual was the CAP Leadership Laboratory Manual. What ever happened to that...?)

And the Air Force apparently has a "cheat-sheet" pamphlet outlining the stuff CAPP 151 purports to do.

Why does CAP have to duplicate efforts here?

It's a waste of money, of paper and of time that could be used for bigger, better things. Is it because we want to dumb it all down for the less military-inclined among us? Or to placate CPPT-paranoid seniors among us? Or is this a make-work assignment handed to someone at NHQ?

Military traditions are just that — and either we follow them, or we don't, period. We can't pick and choose ("The Air Force does it like this, but we don't do that in CAP" seldom makes sense in this context), lest we be unprofessional and the continued target of Air Force scorn.

Well, at the very least we do need a supplement addressing CAP specific stuff like golf shirts (no visible rank), blazers and the like.  Also dealing with the fact that often "the Commander" is one of the lower ranked guys in the unit!

But it seems that CAP is going a bit further, and defining some customs as completely optional.  There is some precedent for this - CGAUX doesn't salute at all, last time I checked.

But it seems to be a big change of CAP. I hope it's on purpose, and not just poor word smithing.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

...Also dealing with the fact that often "the Commander" is one of the lower ranked guys in the unit!

Lower grade salutes higher grade, but higher grade defers to the lower grade's command authority. This situation exists in the Air Force, also -- when a base commander's a bird colonel and there are generals on base. It's covered in regs, just not with that specificity.

[Dragoon]

Not quite the same - the generals on a base don't work for the base commander.  He's just the manager of the hotel they stay in.

And if push comes to shove, my guess is that the general gets his way on base-related issues he really cares about.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

When authority is given to someone junior, deference for responsibility is given to the junior member but deference to rank and grade is always given to the senior.

For whatever reason, in CAP this gets twisted around because people recognize the position of authority and blow off the rank and grade -- possibly because in civilian life, we defer to people by their responsibility, and there's no rank/grade structure.

As Dragoon might say, a base commander may be the manager of the hotel, but he's in charge nonetheless. Just the same as a general's pilot is in charge of his passengers -- including the higher-ranking personnel -- he still salutes the general just the same. By that same logic, if I have a lieutenant colonel in my squadron who wants to throw weight around, I would defer to the person of higher grade, never mind that I'm on the hook for command decisions.

I salute a lieutenant colonel because he or she is a light colonel, regardless of whether that officer is in my unit. Period.

I'm sure there is deference to the generals, but the rules set by the base commander -- who has responsibility and authority -- still stick.

[Dragoon]

But the base commander has very limited authority.  He can decide on where to put parking spots, where to build the bolling alley, what kind of security goes around the base, etc.

But he cannot direct the operational employment or training of tenant units, simply because "it's his base".  Those Generals, or Colonels do whatever they want to do with their units.

I gar-un-tee that if the base commander is outranked by unit commanders on the base, that those unit commanders in no way, shape or form "work for him."  As long as they show their ID cards at the gate and don't park in the no-parking zones, they can do whatever the heck they like.


And therefore, the base commander analogy doesn't really match up to CAP.  Because in CAP, the squadron commander DOES direct the actions of his members.  Or at least his supposed to.  :-)


Is there any  organization in America, besides CAP where it is mandatory to render courtesies like saluting, priority seating, terms like "sir" etc.,  to folks who work FOR you.  I can't think of any.

In corporate boardrooms around American, I really doubt the CEO stands when the CFO enters the room.  It's most likely the other way round.  Regardless of the experience and training of the CFO.

It simply makes no sense to put a guy in charge and then force him to defer to his subordinates.   He's the man (or woman) - and he deserves the deference

[Ned]

OK, if you don't like the "base commander / tenant unit cc" analogy, how about this one:

Before Uncle Sam let me have my very own MP company, I spent a wonderful tour as an Army Headquarters Detachment (HHD) commander for the battalion.  I was a young captain, and of course the battalion cc was a LTC.  I had the full responsibilities of command (art 15 authority, property book responsibility, maintained a unitl METL, underwent an external ARTEP, OERs for junior officers, etc). but in my unit were also at least four officers who outranked me. (CC, XO, S3 were all field grades, and IIRC the S4 was a senior captain.)

Along with full command authority, the assignment also came with the kinds of conflicts and frustration you have described.  During unit training meetings, the crew stood up when I came into the room, but we all stood up if the BC came in. 


I'm not suggesting that the Army / CAP parallel is particularly close ; only that folks commanding units that have higher ranked personnel assigned happens every single day and is not all that unusual.

FWIW.

Ned Lee
Retired Army Guy

[JoeTomasone]

My read on this is that they are trying to nudge the Pamphlet closer to reality - that is, that many members don't care about the military affiliation and customs.   I get the sense that a large majority of our members would ditch the customs, courtesies, and uniform altogether as long as they got to fly/ground pound/etc.   

If you made jeans and t-shirts an optional uniform, I wonder how many members would have all their uniforms up on Ebay the next day - and how many buyers there would be.

Someone in another thread made a statement that is seemingly appropriate: 

"This isn't the CAP you grew up in as a Cadet". 

From my perspective, we should be as USAF-like as possible for a volunteer organization if we are to be its Auxiliary; and we should resist efforts to water this down.    Anyone who wants to be in a more informal organization can easily find a home in the Boy/Girl Scouts, Red Cross, or elsewhere; there's no need to informalize CAP.

[Dragoon]

OK, if you don't like the "base commander / tenant unit cc" analogy, how about this one:

Before Uncle Sam let me have my very own MP company, I spent a wonderful tour as an Army Headquarters Detachment (HHD) commander for the battalion.  I was a young captain, and of course the battalion cc was a LTC.  I had the full responsibilities of command (art 15 authority, property book responsibility, maintained a unitl METL, underwent an external ARTEP, OERs for junior officers, etc). but in my unit were also at least four officers who outranked me. (CC, XO, S3 were all field grades, and IIRC the S4 was a senior captain.)

Along with full command authority, the assignment also came with the kinds of conflicts and frustration you have described.  During unit training meetings, the crew stood up when I came into the room, but we all stood up if the BC came in. 


I'm not suggesting that the Army / CAP parallel is particularly close ; only that folks commanding units that have higher ranked personnel assigned happens every single day and is not all that unusual.

FWIW.

Ned Lee
Retired Army Guy

That's a much better analogy, Ned,  and I think it supports my point.  Because there's a big difference between having higher ranking guys in your unit, and actually commanding those guys.

Being an HHD/HHC/HHT( Headquarters and Headquarters Troop)  commander is a tough job for the all reasons you mention.  The "hotel manager" comment I used earlier was made by my first HHC commander to the battalion staff to describe his role.  He was responsible for the infrastructure of the HQ, but not for its real missions (planning and executing operations).  And every morning, 90% of his people went off to work for someone else (the S1 through S4) who didn't work for him.  (Given your demeanor, I'll bet you were pretty effective at handling this diplomatically - it would have torqued me off to no end).

For example:  As a 1st Lt, I was a squadron S-1 and even though he outranked me, the HHT commander couldn't touch me.  Sure, I was in his troop, but I worked for the Lt Col.  Now my troopers had to answer to two masters - they worked for me most days, and for him occasionally (like formations and the like).  But the one time the HHT commander tried to direct our actions as an S1 section, it only took a quick visit with the XO to squash it.  As long as I didn't violate UCMJ, that "commander" didn't "command" me.  And for the field grades, he didn't even have UCMJ authority!

I've never seen an HHD/HHC/HHT commander exert command authority over any field grade in his outfit.  The field grades most certainly weren't on his staff.  He did not evaluate, direct or discipline them.   He was not responsible for their job performance.   He DID try to get them to do PT tests on time and attend mandatory training, but his success in those endeavers depended on how much support the Bn Cdr gave him.  Effectively, he provided a home for higher ranking officers - but those officers don't work for him.  (it's not like you had a major as your support platoon leader).

But a squadron commander in CAP would have Lt Cols on his personal staff working for him.  He needs to direct, council and perhaps discipline them, not just "host" them like an HHC commander does.    That's an entirely different kettle o'fish.  And one with little parallel in the real world.


I met the man with the hardest job in the Army - Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrisson

[BuckeyeDEJ]

OK, the base commander analogy didn't work, you're right, Dragoon. But maybe the pilot-in-command analogy works. The PIC's in charge, no matter who's aboard. The PIC will still render proper courtesy to, say, a general or the President, but the senior official will defer authority to the PIC because it's his plane.

In CAP, it's my unit, but if I have a light colonel in it, he gets a salute from me and he'd better understand it's my squadron and he follows policy I set down.

From my perspective, we should be as USAF-like as possible for a volunteer organization if we are to be its Auxiliary; and we should resist efforts to water this down.    Anyone who wants to be in a more informal organization can easily find a home in the Boy/Girl Scouts, Red Cross, or elsewhere; there's no need to informalize CAP.

AMEN! If you wear the Air Force's uniform, you conduct yourself accordingly. Rank and grade stand for something, as well as position of authority. Let common sense dictate, but within that framework. Period. End of message.

[Dragoon]

My read on this is that they are trying to nudge the Pamphlet closer to reality - that is, that many members don't care about the military affiliation and customs.   I get the sense that a large majority of our members would ditch the customs, courtesies, and uniform altogether as long as they got to fly/ground pound/etc.   

If you made jeans and t-shirts an optional uniform, I wonder how many members would have all their uniforms up on Ebay the next day - and how many buyers there would be.

Someone in another thread made a statement that is seemingly appropriate: 

"This isn't the CAP you grew up in as a Cadet". 

From my perspective, we should be as USAF-like as possible for a volunteer organization if we are to be its Auxiliary; and we should resist efforts to water this down.    Anyone who wants to be in a more informal organization can easily find a home in the Boy/Girl Scouts, Red Cross, or elsewhere; there's no need to informalize CAP. 

I think you're right in your observations - WIWAC, most seniors had been through the draft and had at least SOME military service.  Not true anymore. And frankly, we're not likely to make things more military because

1.  We like lots of members (and their dues money).  So we accomodate oodles of golf shirted civilians with little interest in military trappings in order to keep our numbers up and keep the dues money pouring in.  This "civilianizes" the culture.

2.  We have a grade structure that is decidedly "un military" by decoupling rank from authority and responsiblity.  So effectively, we are showing our members that the most critical part of a military culture - rank - doesn't matter here.

3.  We need pilots.  We can't train our own.   Many pilots are individualists, and aren't all that interested in formations, uniforms, snapping to attention, etc.   If we demand too much "military BS" (their term, not mine)  - we'll lose 'em.

4.  We simply don't have enough traning time to teach seniors with no military background how to be very military.  A few hours of Level 1 won't cut it.


You're right, this ain't the CAP I joined as a cadet. And part of me mourns that loss.   But given the constraints above, I'm not sure there's any other way.

[Dragoon]

OK, the base commander analogy didn't work, you're right, Dragoon. But maybe the pilot-in-command analogy works. The PIC's in charge, no matter who's aboard. The PIC will still render proper courtesy to, say, a general or the President, but the senior official will defer authority to the PIC because it's his plane.

It's still not very close.  The Pilot of Air Force One doesn't tell the President how to do his job.   The Pilot of Air Force One doesn't evaluate, counsel or discipline the President.  He just lets him know when to buckle his seat belt.

But a squadron commander DOES tell his staff how to do their job.  He does evalute, counsel or discipline his staff.  It's very different.

In CAP, it's my unit, but if I have a light colonel in it, he gets a salute from me and he'd better understand it's my squadron and he follows policy I set down.

Your job would be easier if he saluted you.  One more tool in the 'ol tool box.  And that's how it works in the USAF we're supposed to be emulating.

In USAF you will not see a Lt Col working on a day-to-day basis as a staff officer for a Captain.  Ever.  If anyone knows of an exception to this, please post the unit, the names of the individuals and the address so we can call and confirm.

It just doesn't happen.

(Incidentally, I currently outrank my squadron CC.  And I used to be his boss.  But I'd be much happer now if we could trade grade.  He needs it - I don't.  I could always take a harder job if I want it back.)

[BuckeyeDEJ]

In CAP, it's my unit, but if I have a light colonel in it, he gets a salute from me and he'd better understand it's my squadron and he follows policy I set down.

Your job would be easier if he saluted you.  One more tool in the 'ol tool box.  And that's how it works in the USAF we're supposed to be emulating.

In USAF you will not see a Lt Col working on a day-to-day basis as a staff officer for a Captain.  Ever.  If anyone knows of an exception to this, please post the unit, the names of the individuals and the address so we can call and confirm.

In the Air Force, a lieutenant colonel doesn't ever salute a major.

In CAP, it should follow the same way, except that rank and authority get convoluted, so there's a extreme disconnect. Still, the answer -- and the safe bet -- is that rank dictates customs and courtesies, though authority may follow different lines. So in CAP, a lieutenant colonel doesn't ever salute a major. The junior always salutes the senior, and the senior returns the salute.

From CAP's Senior Member Development Course:

Salutes are rendered as a courtesy and are required between those officers junior and those senior in rank. If individuals are equal in rank, salutes may be exchanged. There are no set rules regarding how close or how far away a junior must be in order to render a salute. When a junior recognizes a senior, the junior will initiate a salute. There will usually be a verbal greeting exchanged by both members and the senior member will return the salute. This action occurs very quickly, usually within a distance of six paces.

...While CAP members are required to salute military officers of higher rank, military members are not required to salute CAP members, although it is often done as a courtesy.

The salute is based on rank and grade, not position. If a senior initiates a salute with a junior, it's out of respect or congeniality with the junior, and is not to be expected.

[ddelaney103]

In CAP, it's my unit, but if I have a light colonel in it, he gets a salute from me and he'd better understand it's my squadron and he follows policy I set down.

Your job would be easier if he saluted you.  One more tool in the 'ol tool box.  And that's how it works in the USAF we're supposed to be emulating.

In USAF you will not see a Lt Col working on a day-to-day basis as a staff officer for a Captain.  Ever.  If anyone knows of an exception to this, please post the unit, the names of the individuals and the address so we can call and confirm.

In the Air Force, a lieutenant colonel doesn't ever salute a major.

In CAP, it should follow the same way, except that rank and authority get convoluted, so there's a extreme disconnect. Still, the answer -- and the safe bet -- is that rank dictates customs and courtesies, though authority may follow different lines. So in CAP, a lieutenant colonel doesn't ever salute a major. The junior always salutes the senior, and the senior returns the salute.

From CAP's Senior Member Development Course:

Salutes are rendered as a courtesy and are required between those officers junior and those senior in rank. If individuals are equal in rank, salutes may be exchanged. There are no set rules regarding how close or how far away a junior must be in order to render a salute. When a junior recognizes a senior, the junior will initiate a salute. There will usually be a verbal greeting exchanged by both members and the senior member will return the salute. This action occurs very quickly, usually within a distance of six paces.

...While CAP members are required to salute military officers of higher rank, military members are not required to salute CAP members, although it is often done as a courtesy.

The salute is based on rank and grade, not position. If a senior initiates a salute with a junior, it's out of respect or congeniality with the junior, and is not to be expected.

But what Dragoon was trying to say was in the RM, you wouldn't be a Major with a Lt Col answering to you.  Either you would be promoted when you assumed command or he would be separated from the service when he decided not to do O-5 level work anymore.

In CAP, we could tie grade to position and you would be a Major because you were Sqdn cc and he wouldn't be a Lt Col because he wasn't holding a Lt Col position.  If we treated grade like a symbol of authority and responsibility (which it is in the military) we would have fewer problems than if we treat grade like an award/merit badge, which is the current CAP system.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

But what Dragoon was trying to say was in the RM, you wouldn't be a Major with a Lt Col answering to you.  Either you would be promoted when you assumed command or he would be separated from the service when he decided not to do O-5 level work anymore.

In CAP, we could tie grade to position and you would be a Major because you were Sqdn cc and he wouldn't be a Lt Col because he wasn't holding a Lt Col position.  If we treated grade like a symbol of authority and responsibility (which it is in the military) we would have fewer problems than if we treat grade like an award/merit badge, which is the current CAP system.

True, that. And there was a time in CAP when it wasn't like that, and grade was given along with authority. But even with the current situation, it doesn't mean a colonel salutes a lieutenant. Dragoon's right that the seniority problem is endemic only to CAP.

Grade IS somewhat a symbol of authority and responsibility in CAP -- you have to have time in grade and position before you can be promoted. Unfortunately, there's no Pearly Gates like there are in the RM to which to send the O-5s past their prime... or O-6s....

[ddelaney103]

But what Dragoon was trying to say was in the RM, you wouldn't be a Major with a Lt Col answering to you.  Either you would be promoted when you assumed command or he would be separated from the service when he decided not to do O-5 level work anymore.

In CAP, we could tie grade to position and you would be a Major because you were Sqdn cc and he wouldn't be a Lt Col because he wasn't holding a Lt Col position.  If we treated grade like a symbol of authority and responsibility (which it is in the military) we would have fewer problems than if we treat grade like an award/merit badge, which is the current CAP system.

True, that. And there was a time in CAP when it wasn't like that, and grade was given along with authority. But even with the current situation, it doesn't mean a colonel salutes a lieutenant. Dragoon's right that the seniority problem is endemic only to CAP.

Grade IS somewhat a symbol of authority and responsibility in CAP -- you have to have time in grade and position before you can be promoted. Unfortunately, there's no Pearly Gates like there are in the RM to which to send the O-5s past their prime... or O-6s....

Grade IS somewhat a symbol of authority and responsibility in CAP -- you have to have time in grade and position before you can be promoted.

No, it is not.  CAP grade is strictly a measure of your perceived worth to CAP.  Do some time in CAP and get training? Here's some bars.  Prior service?  Have some bars.  AE/chaplain/CPA/pilot? have some bars.  Worst case scenario:  you have an in with the state house?  Congratulations!  You're now a one ribbon Lt Col.

Mind you, none of this comes with anything but saluting and "walking on the right side" privileges.  There is no inhereant authority in CAP grade, only in position.  If Brig Gen Anderson joins a sqdn where I'm the cc, I'm driving the circus train - stars or no stars.

[JoeTomasone]

Mind you, none of this comes with anything but saluting and "walking on the right side" privileges.  There is no inhereant authority in CAP grade, only in position.  If Brig Gen Anderson joins a sqdn where I'm the cc, I'm driving the circus train - stars or no stars.

True enough, but CAP grade in most cases is a valuable barometer by which you can consider who WOULD be appropriate for a given position - or whom to lean on for the benefit of their experience.  Of course, this varies because everyone is an individual, but you generally won't see the Region Commander looking through his pool of Lieutenants for a viable Wing Commander candidate.  Why?  Lack of experience.   You can bet he's willing to look at the Majors, though.

[mikeylikey]

Of course, this varies because everyone is an individual, but you generally won't see the Region Commander looking through his pool of Lieutenants for a viable Wing Commander candidate.  Why?  Lack of experience.   You can bet he's willing to look at the Majors, though.

Thats where it is jacked up.  Don't forget you can come into CAP as a Captain if you are airframe rated.  I know 1st Lt's with over 12 years of total CAP time who would make far better Region Commanders than some of the ones we have. 

This whole debate is so old now.  CAP either needs to get rid of rank altogether or change the program so that it means something.

To get back on topic.......Is there any mention anywhere of when this 151 will eventually go out in the new binders to Cadets and Officers?  Are we still in the comment phase?  If so, I have a few comments I will get to the creators.

Overall, they should have stressed military customs/courtesies more.  Also, when did this new layout that seems to be appearing in every new publication come about?  I can't stand it!

[dwb]

Also, when did this new layout that seems to be appearing in every new publication come about?  I can't stand it!

um... because they're all authored by the same person?

Personally, I like the format.  I see nothing wrong with making these publications more accessible, and not just for the 12-year-olds.  I can hand this pub to the quintessential "SM Soccer Mom" and she'll be able to understand 1. what to do when a cadet cracks a salute, and 2. why the cadet is doing it.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

But what Dragoon was trying to say was in the RM, you wouldn't be a Major with a Lt Col answering to you.  Either you would be promoted when you assumed command or he would be separated from the service when he decided not to do O-5 level work anymore.

In CAP, we could tie grade to position and you would be a Major because you were Sqdn cc and he wouldn't be a Lt Col because he wasn't holding a Lt Col position.  If we treated grade like a symbol of authority and responsibility (which it is in the military) we would have fewer problems than if we treat grade like an award/merit badge, which is the current CAP system.

True, that. And there was a time in CAP when it wasn't like that, and grade was given along with authority. But even with the current situation, it doesn't mean a colonel salutes a lieutenant. Dragoon's right that the seniority problem is endemic only to CAP.

Grade IS somewhat a symbol of authority and responsibility in CAP -- you have to have time in grade and position before you can be promoted. Unfortunately, there's no Pearly Gates like there are in the RM to which to send the O-5s past their prime... or O-6s....

Grade IS somewhat a symbol of authority and responsibility in CAP -- you have to have time in grade and position before you can be promoted.

No, it is not.  CAP grade is strictly a measure of your perceived worth to CAP.  Do some time in CAP and get training? Here's some bars.  Prior service?  Have some bars.  AE/chaplain/CPA/pilot? have some bars.  Worst case scenario:  you have an in with the state house?  Congratulations!  You're now a one ribbon Lt Col.

Mind you, none of this comes with anything but saluting and "walking on the right side" privileges.  There is no inhereant authority in CAP grade, only in position.  If Brig Gen Anderson joins a sqdn where I'm the cc, I'm driving the circus train - stars or no stars.

Disagree. You have to have time served in command or staff positions to be promoted. There are some handout promotions, to be sure -- professional promotions, command positions and Level I butterbars among them -- but for most all the others, there is some obligation involved.

Outside of a snowbird lieutenant colonel who never wears a uniform, I'm the ranking member of my squadron, and I'm the commander. So in my unit, the subordinate-as-commander issue is moot. But if it weren't, the customs and courtesies go with rank and grade, and authority with position.

At some point, we either agree that rank and grade is attached to saluting, or that rank needs to go away or be rejiggered to match responsibilities. Outside of that, it's all hot air in cyberspace.

[Dragoon]

In CAP, it's my unit, but if I have a light colonel in it, he gets a salute from me and he'd better understand it's my squadron and he follows policy I set down.

Your job would be easier if he saluted you.  One more tool in the 'ol tool box.  And that's how it works in the USAF we're supposed to be emulating.

In USAF you will not see a Lt Col working on a day-to-day basis as a staff officer for a Captain.  Ever.  If anyone knows of an exception to this, please post the unit, the names of the individuals and the address so we can call and confirm.

In the Air Force, a lieutenant colonel doesn't ever salute a major.

And there's a reason for that.

Note that I didn't say "salute"  I said "work for."  Big difference.  In USAF it doesn't happen. In CAP, which claims to use a USAF grade structure, it does.  We're doing it wrong.

In USAF, the customs and courtesies follow responsibilty and authority. In CAP, which claims to use USAF customs and courtesies, they don't.  We're doin git wrong.

[dwb]

I think we're making something very big out of something not very big here.

Salute by rank, and work within the established command structure.

99% of the time, that rule works just fine.  So it looks a little hokey that a Lt Col is on the staff of a squadron commanded by a 1st Lt.  It also doesn't cause enough problems to get worked up about.

When I do a new member orientation (cadets and seniors), it takes me less than a minute to explain this particular peculiarity, and everyone always gets it right away.  So why the fuss?

[Hawk200]

When I do a new member orientation (cadets and seniors), it takes me less than a minute to explain this particular peculiarity, and everyone always gets it right away.  So why the fuss?

There are various reasons.

Some have some issues with another member outranking them when they're the commander. Could be self esteem problems, don't know.

Some think that our squadrons need to have the highest ranking person in command, just like the Air Force usually does. They don't take account the fact that we don't have a mandatory retirement and that such a concept is not workable. Or else, they want to gain a false credibility by mirroring AF appearance.

Others want to push for positional rank because they don't consider positional authority enough, even though it's been working for years.

There are numerous other reasons, as well. I just don't know them right off the bat.

In our unit, anyone that tries to pull rank on the commander would probably find their name on a 2B real quick, and gone shortly after. Anyone that thinks that the commander needs to outrank his entire staff probably isn't considering the fact that a commander can do such a thing. A unit commander is the absolute authority and has absolute responsibility for the unit.

Is it a real issue? Maybe, maybe not. But there are people that just love to make the argument, even though there's probably a snowballs chance in the underworld of such a re-org actually happening right now, or even in the near future.

[Dragoon]

Disagree. You have to have time served in command or staff positions to be promoted. There are some handout promotions, to be sure -- professional promotions, command positions and Level I butterbars among them -- but for most all the others, there is some obligation involved.

Of course, since we haven't defined what "command or staff" means.....it tends to mean very little.

You can make Lt Col in CAP while serving no higher position than assistant squadron historian.


I get the basic concept - rank may not reflect job, but at least it reflects past job.  That's not a bad compromise position.  But CAP doesn't implement that really well.

As a military guy, I see how correct use of grade could really help CAP.  It could reinforce the chain of command's authority (that's why customs and courtesies exist).  It could motivate folks to apply for (and perform in) the tough jobs.  It could make senior officers accountable for ensuring CAP operations run correctly - even when they aren't the guy in charge.

Instead, CAP takes these cherished traditional symbols of authority and responsiblity, and uses them as basically training awards.

[mikeylikey]

There is no logical reason to wear rank insignia in CAP.  Why am I saluting a guy who is a Lt Col in CAP, and got there because he attended two more classes than me.  I see the whole Officer thing in CAP to mean, "Salute me because I took AFIADL 13, SLS, CLC, and SOS". 

The whole thing is silly.  I wish they would either get rid of rank altogether, or adjust it to mean something.  If they adjust it and we lose say....7,000 members because they don't like the system, well guess what.  Who cares.  We will just recruit more to fill in in the following years.

Rank in CAP does not equal serving Command or Staff time.  It only shows what level of Professional Development you are at.  It does not even do that very well to begin with.  You can make CAPT because you Fly, with no other prerequisites.  While I have a guy who slaves for 3 years to make CAPT because AFIADL 13 was late, no SLS or CLC was offered that was closer than 400 miles to his home, and he still shows up at every metting and does his job better than anyone else I know.

I am so frustrated by the whole culture in CAP.

I hate to say this, but NHQ needs a kick in its pants this year.  A real good wake-up call.

[RiverAux]

The call they answer won't be the one you're pushing.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

As a military guy, I see how correct use of grade could really help CAP.  It could reinforce the chain of command's authority (that's why customs and courtesies exist).  It could motivate folks to apply for (and perform in) the tough jobs.  It could make senior officers accountable for ensuring CAP operations run correctly - even when they aren't the guy in charge.

Instead, CAP takes these cherished traditional symbols of authority and responsiblity, and uses them as basically training awards.

Agreed.

[JayT]

There is no logical reason to wear rank insignia in CAP.  Why am I saluting a guy who is a Lt Col in CAP, and got there because he attended two more classes than me.  I see the whole Officer thing in CAP to mean, "Salute me because I took AFIADL 13, SLS, CLC, and SOS". 

The whole thing is silly.  I wish they would either get rid of rank altogether, or adjust it to mean something.  If they adjust it and we lose say....7,000 members because they don't like the system, well guess what.  Who cares.  We will just recruit more to fill in in the following years.

Rank in CAP does not equal serving Command or Staff time.  It only shows what level of Professional Development you are at.  It does not even do that very well to begin with.  You can make CAPT because you Fly, with no other prerequisites.  While I have a guy who slaves for 3 years to make CAPT because AFIADL 13 was late, no SLS or CLC was offered that was closer than 400 miles to his home, and he still shows up at every metting and does his job better than anyone else I know.

I am so frustrated by the whole culture in CAP.

I hate to say this, but NHQ needs a kick in its pants this year.  A real good wake-up call.

I just love how you guys are willing to throw away a good chuck of our membership just so you can play Air Force a little better.

That 'kick in the pants' you so speak of, might result in fewer aircrews, ground teams, less experienced pilots in our birds, less CFI's, less etc etc etc.

You may night care, but when I crawl into the back of a 182, I do.

[mikeylikey]

^ Your right I take it back, a kick in a certain Flight Officers pants would better serve everyone. 

[arajca]

The whole thing is silly.  I wish they would either get rid of rank altogether, or adjust it to mean something.  If they adjust it and we lose say....7,000 members because they don't like the system, well guess what.  Who cares.  We will just recruit more to fill in in the following years.

You say 7000 members. I think it would higher, so let's use 7K-10K members. You're talking about 20-30% of our senior membership. I don't see many cadets leaving directly because of this, but some parents may leave and take their cadets with them, say 500 cadets. Now, this departure probably wouldn't be your 1 and 2 year members. This would be your 10, 15+ year members. The ones who know how things work and have established the connections. The ones who make your experienced aircrews and ground teams. The ones who understand that the back-of-the-house work is equally as important than the front-of-the-house work. You say we'll replace them in a few years, but without experienced crews, will CAP be able to perform during those few years? Also remember, the ones who leave will not be happy and will probably make their unhappiness know to everyone they know, reducing your pool of potential members. And these ex-members still live in the communities where the units are located. Now, consider the effect of this wholesale exodus to some churches and agencies who donate space to CAP. Are they going to continue donating the space, especially if some of the ex-members are on the boards? True, this is an internal issue that shouldn't affect said boards, but reality is that it will.

Your initial 7K would probably grow to 15K-20K when you factor in the cascade of related problems. Can CAP stand such an exodus? Can CAP withstand the ill-feelings generated by it?

[JayT]

^ Your right I take it back, a kick in a certain Flight Officers pants would better serve everyone. 

Maybe a certain Captain needs something similar. You might be willing to loss a number of our most experienced members, who do a good chuck of our work (ie, a number of our pilots,) but for the sake of the Air Force, the program, myself, my fellow officers and cadets, my community, and my country, I'm not.

Let me state this very, very clearly. I agree with you. A more military program would be nice. But that's not, and can't, come from writing off a number of our members. That's gonna come from better enforcement of our current regulations, a shift in the basic training of new senior members, more military oversight of our cadet program, etc etc.

[Dragoon]

There are two groups of folks that CAP desperately needs.

Pilots
Parents


Pilots have thousands of dollars tied up in their training.  We need them.  They don't really need us.  (sure, our flying is cheaper, but you can't take your friends up in our birds).  And many of them aren't the least bit interested in grade, customs, or calling anyone "sir."  In fact, I've seen a very strong "independant" streak amongst GA pilots - flying is a pretty individualistic hobby.  Many of our crusty old CFIs, with thousands of hours and a willingess to train pilots for free, have zero interest in what they call "playing soldier."  But we need 'em.  We can't make 'em.

Parents put in all kinds of time supporting their kid's squadron doing the "scut work" that no one wants to do - filing stuff, driving vans, chaperoning, etc.  They aren't driven by a love of things military - they are driven by a love of their children.  We need 'em.  Otherwise, we'd have to do all that stuff ourselves.


WIWAC, many pilots and parents had prior military experience through the draft-era military - so it wasn't such a stretch for them to put a uniform on again.


But today....it ain't so. These critical CAP assets are our "golf shirt brigade" - essential, but unwilling to "play the game."

This is how we got into the dual-personality CAP of today.  And it's hard to get any folks to get in line with the military stuff when they notice that a third of the membership could care less about it.

How to fix this? I dunno.  Perhaps establish a class of membership for golf shirt folks that takes them out of the grade structure entirely.  Perhaps requiring military uniforms and courtesies in order to get promoted.  Perhaps eliminating grade from the senior program outside of CP - accept our true "civilian" status.

Or just keep letting those that want to "play soldier" have at it, and those that don't, ignore it.

As it stands, the only real benefit I think we're getting from our military side is as a recruiting tool for those who like to wear uniforms and earn grade.  There's so much more we could do with a military system if only we could fully implement it.

But we need those pilots and parents.

[mikeylikey]

^ We already have enough pilots that consider CAP to be their own private pilots club.  We need everyone (and anyone) to be interested in Cap's three missions, not just one.  Yes, yes....you may concentrate on just one, but at least know about and be able to do all three!

We also have enough parents that sit at my meetings and well, just sit there waiting for little Johny to finish up.  They consider it like waiting for their kid to finish soccer or karate class.  Then when Little Johny fails PT and doesn't promote I have to get verbally biatched at.  I am almost to the point of making that one of the reasons I may not renew.

[Dragoon]

^ We already have enough pilots that consider CAP to be their own private pilots club.  We need everyone (and anyone) to be interested in Cap's three missions, not just one.  Yes, yes....you may concentrate on just one, but at least know about and be able to do all three!

We also have enough parents that sit at my meetings and well, just sit there waiting for little Johny to finish up.  They consider it like waiting for their kid to finish soccer or karate class.  Then when Little Johny fails PT and doesn't promote I have to get verbally biatched at.  I am almost to the point of making that one of the reasons I may not renew.

Don't assume that the only "non-military" pilots are the Form 5 only, C-17 flying dudes.  I'm talking mission pilots and CFIs here, who contribute to the mission, but aren't the least bit interested in playing soldier.   As for parents, they are an excellent resource, if you can convince them to stop just sitting around and helping out.  And you can...but they'll probably do it in a golf shirt.  You get the help, but you pay a price in "military-ness."