I have 16 years of USAF active duty and reserve service. I recently joined a CAP squadron with 20 seniors and 20 cadets. I am trying to understand the culture. I'm used to being the new guy in USAF units. The "new guy" protocol in the CAP seem different from that of the USAF and industry. I go to meetings and sit around. There may be small talk but the seniors all seem to keep to themselves and work on laptops. I have heard the same thing from other senior applicants at other squadrons like a CFII who was ignored for several meetings and left the program. It would appear that the new senior member needs to be proactive and overcome the "inertia" or "exclusiveness" among the seniors. My question is how best to proactively get active and progressing without threatening or irritating the "old guard." For example how do I politely request a mentor so I can move beyond Level I? I'm not shy but I understand that organizations have a "culture" and expectations. Any suggestions? Thanks, Birdman.
Quote from: quietbirdman on February 21, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
I have 16 years of USAF active duty and reserve service. I recently joined a CAP squadron with 20 seniors and 20 cadets. I am trying to understand the culture. I'm used to being the new guy in USAF units. The "new guy" protocol in the CAP seem different from that of the USAF and industry. I go to meetings and sit around. There may be small talk but the seniors all seem to keep to themselves and work on laptops. I have heard the same thing from other senior applicants at other squadrons like a CFII who was ignored for several meetings and left the program. It would appear that the new senior member needs to be proactive and overcome the "inertia" or "exclusiveness" among the seniors. My question is how best to proactively get active and progressing without threatening or irritating the "old guard." For example how do I politely request a mentor so I can move beyond Level I? I'm not shy but I understand that organizations have a "culture" and expectations. Any suggestions? Thanks, Birdman.
The "senior culture" varies drastically between units. I would recommend asking "Hey squadron commander, what do you guys need me to do?". If they don't have anything for you to do, find another squadron.
If all that's true, your squadron is doing you a major disservice and is flagrantly ineffective. They ought to be re-examining their very way of operating if that's how they greet and incorporate new volunteers.
Unfortunately, poorly operating units like that do exist -- after all CAP is simply a sum of its human members -- and some initiative on your part may be needed to get past Level I and involved in what CAP has to offer. Not saying it's right (it's not), but if that's the existing situation at your home unit you may have to be more driven to get involved.
For example, now that you've completed Level I, you should really think about what it is you want to do in Civil Air Patrol. Are you up to volunteer to help in any way, from keeping financial or aircraft maintenance records? Or are you interested in teaching aviation to teens? Or flying SAR missions? Take a look at the variety of "specialty tracks" (career fields or AFSC's in the closest Air Force terms I can think of) available and what are the next recommended steps for your professional development (Level II) here: http://capmembers.com/cap_university/ (http://capmembers.com/cap_university/)
If you select a specialty track, and say to the commander: "Hey, I'm interested in being a [Communications/Finance/Public Affairs/Cadet Programs/Flight Operations/etc.] Officer. I've downloaded the materials, and started the specialty track training. Is there currently a [Specialty Track] Officer in the squadron I can work with?"
Accept my apologies for your unit, as I don't believe they represent Civil Air Patrol well. And thanks for joining both CAP and CAPTalk!
The continued number 1 and 2 reasons for leaving CAP are: poor squadron leadership and, nothing productive to do. These reasons haven't changed in years decades. Is there somehting we can do about it? Of course. Is there any motivation to change? In most cases, it appears not. The few individuals in many units who really care about changing this "culture" are, IMHO, vastly outnumbered by those who favor the status quo.
However, as Michael has said above, there are units which are highly successful. Maybe you can make a difference by just talking with the squadron commander about what you would like to accomplish in the squadron. Ask to be pointed in the right direction and for some advice and help. Ask him to reccomend someone to mentor you in obtaining your goals and objectives. The commander usually is the key player and, should assit you in this. Good luck.
Engage with the CC and look around at other units. Once my paperwork has been processed I know its going to he a lil bit before i do much of anything. But it'll allow me to dive into learning apecialty track and such.
Birdman: in my 18 years in CAP, I mentored more than one new member. In your case, it looks like a quiet chat with the Sq CC, pointing out that you need and want a mentor to get through the morass that typifies a CAP Sq. The "culture" is nothing like what you have experienced in the AF, so move past that. Some of the advice from others on CT hits the nail on the head.
Be aggressive: sitting and waiting will get you headed out the door in frustration. With 16 years of AF experience, you obviously have talents that the Sq can use: finding out what they need is your job right now. In a meeting or two, you should be able to find one or two seniors who seem to be approachable: have at it. If they rebuff you, move. As someone pointed out, this may not be the unit for you.
Good luck. If I can be of more help, PM me. I am simply not active in CAP anymore, but I do have an interest.
Pylon is right -- some units stupidly think that its a waste to devote any time to new members until they've been around a while and seem like they will stay. Obviously overlooking the fact that ignoring new members is likely to drive them away.
It doesn't necessarily mean they're a bad unit, but if there are some others nearby you might want to check them out.
If there aren't any alternatives, as they've said you may need to push things along yourself a bit.
Every unit is different and I do not believe that unit represents all units you will find, but I don't know what area you are in etc to really comment.
I know from where I am the reception you would get would be vastly different.
Birdman welcome aboard.
I always try to look at the three closest Units and see what fits. Unfortunately sometimes the next nearest Unit is 2 hours away so you really are stuck with whatever Unit is there.
The old saying, the squeeky wheel gets the grease is true. Just hang in there and it will be rewarding eventually.
Birdman,
If you were in Central Alabama, I would invite you to visit our Squadron (Birmingham Senior Sqdn 34). As soon as you walked in you would be greeted and introduced to the room, and the magic question, What do you want to do, and When do you want to start? As soon as your application was accepted you would be provided a mentor to get you thru level 1, and help you decide on a Specialty Track if you have not already picked one.
Welcome aboard.
I've been in, and seen, similar (but not quite as bad) situations for new members. This can also happen when a current member moves to a new unit. What I've noticed is that it sometimes doesn't take much of a spark to get things going. I've personally seen how a few new, fired-up people in a squadron can create amazing momentum and change for the better.
Quote from: quietbirdman on February 21, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
I have 16 years of USAF active duty and reserve service. I recently joined a CAP squadron with 20 seniors and 20 cadets. I am trying to understand the culture. I'm used to being the new guy in USAF units. The "new guy" protocol in the CAP seem different from that of the USAF and industry. I go to meetings and sit around. There may be small talk but the seniors all seem to keep to themselves and work on laptops. I have heard the same thing from other senior applicants at other squadrons like a CFII who was ignored for several meetings and left the program. It would appear that the new senior member needs to be proactive and overcome the "inertia" or "exclusiveness" among the seniors. My question is how best to proactively get active and progressing without threatening or irritating the "old guard." For example how do I politely request a mentor so I can move beyond Level I? I'm not shy but I understand that organizations have a "culture" and expectations. Any suggestions? Thanks, Birdman.
The biggest and most important difference between an Air Force unit and a CAP unit is that everybody in the Air Force unit has an assigned job.
Otherwise you wouldn't be there.
A CAP unit is pretty much a direct opposite, anybody can join and you need to find a job,
if you want one.
Yes, they should welcome you, but the Senior Member Program is pretty much a self-directed program.
I know when I transferred as a cadet I went and checked out the local unit first and I spent a lot of time with the cadet staff and the SM as well. It was a good fit for a little bit, and then went down hill. The unit I applied with here is always looking for members but more importantly members who want to actively participate with the program. BTW any updates on the situation? Have you scoped out anywhere else or bounced all together?
Here's the straight answer:
Dont' be too tied up in walking on egg shells about your wants, needs, and even dissatisfactions about how things are going. CAP squadron commanders (usually) aren't like USAF squadron+ commanders (for better and worse), and you (usually, at the unit level) don't need to worry about career protection or preservation by making all the right appearances in front of 'the important people'. The only bad or dumb questions are the ones that go un-asked. If you are dissatisfied with how things are going, mention it directly and openly to your commander (in private anyway) and suggest a course of action that would make you happier (bring him a solution, not a problem). This shouldn't be news to you, based on your prior stated experience. Leave the ball in the commander's court, frame the discussion so the next move or the next decision is his, and clearly not yours.
There is a certain amount of allowable "forgiveness vs permission" involved as well. CERTAINLY you should not violate the law, or CAP rules and regs, but if you are waiting around for an embossed invitation to get involved and start doing something, or for someone to notice your quiet dissatisfaction and proactively make it all right, you're probably going to wait forever. That shouldn't be news to you either, based on your prior stated experience. Nobody cares about your career more than you. I'm SURE you've heard that before.
Of course there's such a thing as being too pushy, but man in the years i've been around it's pretty rare. Most often people just sit there quietly and eventually just fade away.
MORE often than that, commanders ask their people to do stuff, and the people just aren't interested in doing it, or don't come through. If you are in a unit full of adults who just sit around and talk and don't actually do much, it might just be that group of people is doing exactly what they want to do in CAP. You don't have to fall in league with that, if you don't want to. Sometimes the commander is one of the guys who just wants to sit around and talk about airplanes... It does happen. The good news is this guy (probably) won't impede you much in pursuing what you want to do, particularly if it's no skin off his back.
I've also been witness to the "wait and see" attitude regarding new members. The commander might not want to be too pushy, and scare you off by dropping a ton of junk on you in your first few months in the door. Quite often we'll get people come in the door and make a lot of noise about wanting to do some cool stuff, but when it comes time to put out, they were all talk. I've been party to "hey go for it" with a cautiously skeptical eye toward whether there is some substance behind the talk. Too often, there isn't.
There IS often an organizational (stagnant) inertia that has to be overcome, to get things moving. But as others have pointed out, once things DO get moving, great things can start to happen in a pretty quick hurry.
CAP is a cool organization and it provides opportunities to serve that are probably unique to it. But it isn't perfect. Get your dues worth (at least) out of your membership in terms of personal satisfaction from service; or else, frankly, spend your time and money on something where you DO get that satisfaction. Life is too short to be one of the bitter people who just gripe (don't go down that path).
The various responses have been most informative and helpful. In particular the comment about one needs to "find a job" in the CAP. That distinction explains the situation that I have observed. Thanks to everyone that provided a response.
@ quietbirdman
Welcome to CAP! I hope your experience becomes very enjoyable.
Everything said so far is great advice. When I first joined, twice actually...separated by almost 20 years, I sat around for a while absorbing the goings on. The initial experience was a little disappointing. My squadron was very pilot oriented and I suspected non-pilots were viewed as non-useful load. However, I stayed in there. Once I took on a squadron job I was suddenly "Mr. Popular." There were things that needed to be done but existing members were already committed to other things. Once I was identified as the go-to guy for _____ the pent up requests started flowing and I was "adopted" quickly. In fact, at that point I had to quickly learn when to protect my non-CAP time!
Once you earn a reputation as a good resource you may find that people from other squadrons, groups, and wing seek you out. In less than 4 years I went from a squadron newbie who barely knew what CAP stood for, to a complex wing level job. Who knows, your interests may fit what someone else is looking to let go of. If you have the time and interest you'll likely find yourself very involved.
The same seemed to be true for Emergency Services ratings. A few recommendations were thrown my way, beyond that a spirited pursuit of my desired ratings was required.
This doesn't sound extremely different from what I experienced. It seems like most senior people are tired and waiting for juniors to ask about what they want to do while many junior people are just trying to figure out what the organization is. Yes there are things that can be done and are done that help.
My personal experience - I was walked through level 1 and ESO qualifications for MS. And now what?
I took a course for airborne photography and qualified SET. Ok, so now I could technically teach MS, but to be honest, the last time I flew as a scanner was when I qualified 18 months ago. There have been very few missions since I joined. We have a sarex this weekend, so that's a good thing.
what's next? I'll keep going to meetings, keep trying to get bcut/acut/mo. I'll probably teach AP this summer.
Beyond that - I'm also a private pilot. I'll probably start flying again in June (maybe?), I've been off due to personal finances. Hopefully finally make the transition from Pipers to Cessnas and get a form 5 done. I don't have the PIC hours to be MTP yet, so that's a matter of treading water too.
It's a matter of stumbling along...I like my squadron, they help me handle the culture and bureaucracy.
What else is there? I've had ideas, but I don't have the time or energy to follow through on them effectively.
Excellent inputs so far.
My 2 cents below.
I'm a Pvt Pilot, An Aviation crazy guy, have been in many volunteer organizations for more than 10 years.
I was in the same situation.This is what I did.I waited and waited for someone to guide me. Nothing happened.
well here is the best resource for all your questions. www.capmembers.com (http://www.capmembers.com)
This website is an encyclopedia of everything CAP.
I read every page, every regulation, spent countless hours on this and learned everything myself.
I took a print out of Level 1 quizzes and completed them and applied for my level 1.
It took me 5 months.
Later on a New Senior Member came to join, I introduced myself and guided him to complete level 1 in 3 weeks.
Now I have kept a set of quizzes with me so that i can give them to any New SM who joins.
also I noticed that there are some Senior Members in my squadron for more than 6 years, but never completed the OFFICER BASIC COURSE.
I completed my OBC in a jiffy.
I Spoke to the Education office in NHQ and requested them to allocate slots for all our senior members to take the exam online.They obliged my request.
Now Im giving them guidance and classes to pass the exam. It took me countless efforts to convince them to join to take them exam.
CAP program is active as the Senior Members involved.
I did my Technical rating in Aerospace , Cadet Programs, Safety , Information Technology.
I finished my Chuck Yeager Award for Seniors.
I'm enrolled for Squadron Leadership school next month.
I also did ICS 100, 700, 800 , GES, 116, 117 etc etc
If you start the proactive process, atleast some will follow what you are doing and will be active.
This may will be an year in the program for me.
Dont give up.
by they way, I found this site a few days ago, and the people here are GREAT.
Excuse me if there are any spelling or grammer mistakes.
The unit I am apart of has been great, I was welcomed with open arms and I had members following up with me throughout the process. Finished level 1 on Mon and waiting for it to clear to start level 2 and I plan to have it done as much as possible by end of Aug if not done.
Quote from: smile on March 09, 2012, 07:25:11 PMalso I noticed that there are some Senior Members in my squadron for more than 6 years, but never completed the OFFICER BASIC COURSE.
I completed my OBC in a jiffy.
OBC is miles ahead of its predecessor - ECI 13. That was a 4 volume correspondence course know for its insomnia curative abilities. Many members, including myself, decided that the gain was not enough to offset the annoyance of doing the course. I made Captain through other means, and was comfortable there. Eventually, I did the course, to get my commander off my back, but it was not willingly.
I think that if these members you speak of were informed about the new course, and its ease of completion, they might be more willing to move ahead.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 09, 2012, 10:12:57 PM
I think that if these members you speak of were informed about the new course, and its ease of completion, they might be more willing to move ahead.
I came in as ECI 13 was being phased out, so I don't have any experience with it. But, I enjoyed OBC. I thought there was a lot of good info in there. One thing that would make it better (and I don't know if this is on the horizon or not) would be some sort of interactive element. I would have liked to have gone into a chat or forum to discuss some thoughts on different subjects with my peers.
To be honest, I wished I had gone through OBC as Level 1.
Quote from: Walkman on March 09, 2012, 10:36:51 PM
One thing that would make it better (and I don't know if this is on the horizon or not) would be some sort of interactive element. I would have liked to have gone into a chat or forum to discuss some thoughts on different subjects with my peers. To be honest, I wished I had gone through OBC as Level 1.
I think most of us would agree that much of the online course and testing material has made it easier for members to complete and to be accredited for completion. But I've always believed that, while it's easier to pound away on your keyboard in the privacy of your own home (or wherever), members lose the interaction with other members in a classroom environment such as the old Level One course offered. I also went through the old ECI-13 course along with classroom instruction in Level One, SLS, CLC and RSC. The interaction with other CAP members was priceless. And, of course, the opportunity to make friends - well, one can't put a value on that.
The problem I have with the OBC is that it is an open book exam and not a closed book proctored exam. I think that it should also be taken prior to pinning on 2nd Lt, but I guess thats another discussion.
The old ECI-13 was good for college credit, 5 or 6 hours if I recall correctly. not a bad deal. It also cured insomnia very well, just thinking of it makes me sleepy!
Quote from: DrJbdm on March 12, 2012, 09:19:40 AM
The problem I have with the OBC is that it is an open book exam and not a closed book proctored exam. I think that it should also be taken prior to pinning on 2nd Lt, but I guess thats another discussion.
The old ECI-13 was good for college credit, 5 or 6 hours if I recall correctly. not a bad deal. It also cured insomnia very well, just thinking of it makes me sleepy!
The problem I had with OBC was that while it was an open-book test, you had to install this buggy lock-down software on your computer in order to take the test...what it was locking you down to prevent, I don't know...someone doesn't understand the concept of "open book"
I would be kind of interested to see OBC as a two-weekend in-residence course.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 12, 2012, 07:16:26 PM
I would be kind of interested to see OBC as a two-weekend in-residence course.
That would be a great option. If it had been available, I'd would have liked to gone in that direction.
That being said, I think one of the reasons for the online courses is plain old time & logistic roadblocks. My unit hosted an SLS late last year and seeing how much effort it was to put together, a two weekend event could be difficult.
Really good thread, guys. Honestly, I am/have been in a similar spot as some of the posters in this thread.
I'm currently inactive in CAP, having not paid my member dues last year. While I did have the money to pay them off, school and some other priorities were taking precedence over how that money would be spent. However, the biggest thing holding me back from immediately renewing my membership was that kind of "senior culture." When I'd visited my squadron early last summer, I don't think I'd seen so many senior members in attendance before. Which would be great, if they were doing something other than shooting the breeze, kind of like every other time I went to squadron meetings. :|
I plan on doing this when I rejoin, and while I know this might not be easy, the best plan really is to become the go-getter yourself. In between SMs having lives of their own (careers, families, etc.) and general complacency, it's easy for a squadron to become lazy or to "rest on the laurels" of other accomplishments (i.e., I felt that our senior side was neglected because of our phenomenal cadet program). Think of things that you want to see changed (methods and frequency of trainings, recruitment, etc.), and find ways that you would like to change them and will benefit the squadron - and the organization - on the whole. It's bad to spend $60 a year and get little for it; but it's worse to spend countless hours of your life and get even less.
CAP politics, an issue which hopefully won't get this thread closed, might factor into some of the gridlock, but you'll have to find a way to break those, too.
Hope my two cents are worth it to the OP, and to anyone else.
I know I am late to this thread but I just want to add my two cents.
I was a cadet back in the 1970s and at least in my squadron back then there was plenty of guidance and support at least on the cadet side. I was out of CAP for 30+ years and joined as a Senior Member about 2.5 years ago while I was living in Southern California. I was quite appalled at the lack of support or welcoming attitude from the membership. Practically the only ones that were helpful were a couple others who joined just prior to me. The squadron commander seemed like he could care less. Every time that I approached him about getting started, what steps I needed to take, what capacity he wanted me to serve in, etc. he would just brush me off. I am a private pilot, A&P and IA. I thought I could be of help with the aircraft maintenance operation. He said that he already had two people working on it. Later I found out that neither of these individuals had a maintenance background of any kind.
I was able to get through level one, go to SLC and do a few other things completely on my own. I practically had to push any paperwork and a pen into the commander's hands to do all of this. It was ridiculous. Later, I tried to have someone guide me through the Form 5 process and WMIRS but no one ever had the time. It was as if I was not welcome into the "flying club".
A little over a year ago, I moved from CA to Memphis, TN for a job and joined a squadron in the area. Here I found things to be markedly better though I believe there is still room for improvement. At least I have been able to make some rank, get my Form 5 done and become a TMP. All things that I tried to do in SoCal but was put off from doing. I am also finally involved with the acft mx & ops a little.
It seems like CAP is ultra self-service. I can understand that to a degree since if you volunteer and want to participate you need to show some initiative. I personally do not expect things to be handed to me nor do I feel the need to be spoon fed but I believe that it is only right that someone who has been in the organization long enough to either know the answers or where to go to get the answers be assigned to new members to guide them through the process and help them find their place in the organization. I know that there is a specialty track for professional development officers. It seems that this position is frequently empty. Why is that?
No one should be spoon fed but please show newbies the menu and explain it a bit.
A lot of commanders don't "get" the fact that their job is to put their own CAP experience on the back-burner and
concentrate on the experience of their membership. I've met far too many who get to the chair and then just use their
access and privilege to their own end.
This is human nature, though, and not necessarily specific to CAP. The biggest factor in this, IMHO, is the lack of top-down expectations
beyond the bare minimums, which can generally be accomplished by a single person. With no expectations or goals, and being fully-self actualizing,
there's no pressure to do anything you don't feel like.
Again, human nature, but the fix is visible with command imperative.
I have a staff for a reason. My job as squadron commander doesn't revolve around running level 1, or introducing every person that walks through the door to CAP. it might work that way in tiny squadrons, where the commander and two other seniors are present, but my role is a bit more strategic than that.
My DCS works the "where people fit" issue, my DCC handles the cadet things and personnel. I focus on unit metrics and whether or not we are meeting our program goals, outside relationships, positive public image, etc.
Having 30 seniors and just as many cadets I just don't have the time to spend every meeting chit-chatting with every new guy. Unapproachable? Might seem that way, but my guidance is a little higher on the food chain than "what specialty track pamphlet do I use?" Or "how do I fill out a CAPF 15."
YMMV
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 30, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
I have a staff for a reason. My job as squadron commander doesn't revolve around running level 1, or introducing every person that walks through the door to CAP. it might work that way in tiny squadrons, where the commander and two other seniors are present, but my role is a bit more strategic than that.
As it should be. My point was that it has to be getting done as the priority, and having a good, large staff is the proper way to get there.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 29, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
The biggest factor in this, IMHO, is the lack of top-down expectations
beyond the bare minimums, which can generally be accomplished by a single person. With no expectations or goals, and being fully-self actualizing,
there's no pressure to do anything you don't feel like.
Again, human nature, but the fix is visible with command imperative.
Surely from time to time there's going to be some problems in the organization, because one is dealing with people not robots. HOWEVER, at least where I sit I think we do a pretty good job of meeting the organization's three core missions. Most people volunteer their time to do things that they want to do and the challenge at every level is to find the right person that wants to and has the appropriate skills to perform satisfactorily in managing/administering our various major/minor functional areas. IMHO, IF CAP as an organization makes it too difficult for volunteers, they will look elsewhere to spend their discretionary time.
RM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 30, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
I have a staff for a reason. My job as squadron commander doesn't revolve around running level 1, or introducing every person that walks through the door to CAP. it might work that way in tiny squadrons, where the commander and two other seniors are present, but my role is a bit more strategic than that.
My DCS works the "where people fit" issue, my DCC handles the cadet things and personnel. I focus on unit metrics and whether or not we are meeting our program goals, outside relationships, positive public image, etc.
Having 30 seniors and just as many cadets I just don't have the time to spend every meeting chit-chatting with every new guy. Unapproachable? Might seem that way, but my guidance is a little higher on the food chain than "what specialty track pamphlet do I use?" Or "how do I fill out a CAPF 15."
YMMV
Really? You don't have time to meet briefly with every new guy and see if his needs are being met? You don't have time to ensure that a new guy has been assigned to a more tenured member to ensure that he is being provided some guidance so that he wants to stay.
You don't think this nonchalant attitude towards new members has an impact on retention?
While you and others with similar attitudes are being "strategic" and living high on the food chain, us lesser beings are being discouraged and wondering if CAP really wants its membership ranks to increase or if the "flying club" wants to remain small so less people are available for perks such as funded flying, missions, etc.
BTW, my experience in CA was with a senior only squadron and at most meetings there were maybe a dozen members present and looking at the way things were, no one was being strategic. So, the man had the time.
I think you misread the intent of what he was saying.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 30, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
My DCS works the "where people fit" issue, my DCC handles the cadet things and personnel. I focus on unit metrics and whether or not we are meeting our program goals, outside relationships, positive public image, etc.
"My" this and "my" that. BTW, it is not DCS or DCC the correct alphabet is CDS and CDC. I bet you are one of them 'pompus' Squadron Commanders. ::)
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on June 30, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 30, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
I have a staff for a reason. My job as squadron commander doesn't revolve around running level 1, or introducing every person that walks through the door to CAP. it might work that way in tiny squadrons, where the commander and two other seniors are present, but my role is a bit more strategic than that.
My DCS works the "where people fit" issue, my DCC handles the cadet things and personnel. I focus on unit metrics and whether or not we are meeting our program goals, outside relationships, positive public image, etc.
Having 30 seniors and just as many cadets I just don't have the time to spend every meeting chit-chatting with every new guy. Unapproachable? Might seem that way, but my guidance is a little higher on the food chain than "what specialty track pamphlet do I use?" Or "how do I fill out a CAPF 15."
YMMV
Really? You don't have time to meet briefly with every new guy and see if his needs are being met? You don't have time to ensure that a new guy has been assigned to a more tenured member to ensure that he is being provided some guidance so that he wants to stay.
You don't think this nonchalant attitude towards new members has an impact on retention?
While you and others with similar attitudes are being "strategic" and living high on the food chain, us lesser beings are being discouraged and wondering if CAP really wants its membership ranks to increase or if the "flying club" wants to remain small so less people are available for perks such as funded flying, missions, etc.
BTW, my experience in CA was with a senior only squadron and at most meetings there were maybe a dozen members present and looking at the way things were, no one was being strategic. So, the man had the time.
I agree with Vandy 100%. Squadron Commanders and their Staff should see how other Units operate. I have been to Units that is really out of touch. Like somebody who bought the whole set of encyclopedia britannica and stopped after "A" because they knew everything already so why bother reading to "Z". ???
Sigh...
"Back in the day", I commanded one of the most succesful squadrons in my wing. We had over 80 cadet and senior members all working as a team. What was great? I had plenty of spare time to greet new members because everyone was doing their job and, doing it well. I just got my "updates" before the formal start of the meeting and, went over the month's progress at our monthly staff meeting. My "formal" time spent at a meeting was no more than an hour. Paperwork could be signed anytime. A new or prospective member's questions always took a priority. I was there for the squadron to function and thrive (take that to mean whatever you wish). For some reason things worked out... ;D
Quote from: FW on June 30, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
Sigh...
"Back in the day", I commanded one of the most succesful squadrons in my wing. We had over 80 cadet and senior members all working as a team. What was great? I had plenty of spare time to greet new members because everyone was doing their job and, doing it well. I just got my "updates" before the formal start of the meeting and, went over the month's progress at our monthly staff meeting. My "formal" time spent at a meeting was no more than an hour. Paperwork could be signed anytime. A new or prospective member's questions always took a priority. I was there for the squadron to function and thrive (take that to mean whatever you wish). For some reason things worked out... ;D
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
That is how I believe it should be. Well done sir!
I like it. You're describing my unit now, pretty much, too. :)
Quote from: Private Investigator on June 30, 2012, 07:21:47 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 30, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
My DCS works the "where people fit" issue, my DCC handles the cadet things and personnel. I focus on unit metrics and whether or not we are meeting our program goals, outside relationships, positive public image, etc.
"My" this and "my" that. BTW, it is not DCS or DCC the correct alphabet is CDS and CDC. I bet you are one of them 'pompus' Squadron Commanders. ::)
Whatever you want to believe, since you apparently didn't read a single thing I wrote.
I don't have the time to run Level 1 for new members. I don't have the time to spend my entire night telling people about our three missions. That's why I have a staff. This doesn't mean that I don't introduce myself to new people, or get to know them. It means that my staff handles the administrivia associated with new people coming in the door. Nobody is left waiting, everyone is greeted, everyone seems to be taken care of. Nobody has left yet.
My JOB is to make sure that our programs goals are being met, not help the person fill out the CAPF 15. It has nothing to do with being pompous, or devaluing those below me in the chain of command.
Most people tend to hate micro-managing leaders. Me empowering my deputies and their staffs to do their jobs seems to be a good thing to me. My methods seem to work pretty well, considering that I've brought numerous squadrons from the brink of extinction to being the largest, most successful units in the wings within a few years.
Like I said before. Squadron Commanders who have 10 members probably have more time to spend personally walking people through each aspect of CAP. When you have 60+ folks at your meetings, you can't devote your attention to each one. I thought we all understood span of control.
You guys are trying to tell me that the way that I treat people doesn't work, when in reality, I've helped recruit and retain more people to CAP than some wings have. But whatever, people see things how they want to and not how they are.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on July 01, 2012, 06:46:02 PM
My JOB is to make sure that our programs goals are being met...
That sums it up nicely.
Being an inexperienced SM, wouldn't the Recruiting Officer deal with new members, and then Personnel / Administrative? I don't get this need for the Squadron Commanded to do all of these as some expect.
There is quite a differance between being available for advice and "doing all of these"... the "job" of unit commander is, as jimmydeanno says, "to make sure that our program goals are being met". That includes mentoring inexperienced members or, at least pointing them in the right direction for assistance. It is a component of good leadership.
The recruiting and retention officer has the authority to help the newbie. It is the admin/personnel officer who can rattle off requirements for advancement. It is the responsibilty of the commander to insure this happens and, keeps the members working together for all to benefit.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 01, 2012, 07:42:58 PM
Being an inexperienced SM, wouldn't the Recruiting Officer deal with new members, and then Personnel / Administrative? I don't get this need for the Squadron Commanded to do all of these as some expect.
If the commander has a good working staff then IMHO it should go like this. (Hand shake) "Hi my name is Maj. Anyone I am the commander. My staff will be helping you out and answering any questions. This is Capt. Somehombra and he is the recruiting officer. He will guide you through the application process and some steps after. Thanks for stopping by and enjoy the meeting" (walks away)
Of course some people believe they are god's gift to everything and want someone in COMMAND to give them answers and hold their hand so...
Quote from: FW on July 01, 2012, 07:59:19 PM
The recruiting and retention officer has the authority to help the newbie. It is the admin/personnel officer who can rattle off requirements for advancement. It is the responsibilty of the commander to insure this happens and, keeps the members working together for all to benefit.
What happened to delegation? As a cadet I was told to use my staff Officers and NCOs to run the unit. If there were problems, I was supposed to mentor my staff, not do their job for them...
Quote from: FW on June 30, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
Sigh...
"Back in the day", I commanded one of the most succesful squadrons in my wing. We had over 80 cadet and senior members all working as a team. What was great? I had plenty of spare time to greet new members because everyone was doing their job and, doing it well. I just got my "updates" before the formal start of the meeting and, went over the month's progress at our monthly staff meeting. My "formal" time spent at a meeting was no more than an hour. Paperwork could be signed anytime. A new or prospective member's questions always took a priority. I was there for the squadron to function and thrive (take that to mean whatever you wish). For some reason things worked out... ;D
Thank you Colonel :clap:
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 01, 2012, 07:42:58 PM
Being an inexperienced SM, wouldn't the Recruiting Officer deal with new members, and then Personnel / Administrative? I don't get this need for the Squadron Commanded to do all of these as some expect.
The Recruiter recruits, the Personnel Officer does personnel matters, etc, etc. The inexperience SM should have a staff job, lets say Assistant Safety Officer so his mentor and OJT supervisor is the Safety Officer. The inexperience SM does not have to go to the Squadron Commander for everything in a well oiled unit.
Now the problem is the unit that is not well oiled and has a Squadron Commander that thinks he is God's gift to CAP. We should conduct a poll on CT, "My Squadron Commander is the greatest in CAP". 1) Yes 2) YES 3) Of course 4) All of the above!
Squadron Commander's all think they are the greatest on their first time. Do a second, a third , a fourth tour. You'll have a different insight.
Quote from: FW on July 01, 2012, 07:59:19 PM
There is quite a differance between being available for advice and "doing all of these"... the "job" of unit commander is, as jimmydeanno says, "to make sure that our program goals are being met". That includes mentoring inexperienced members or, at least pointing them in the right direction for assistance. It is a component of good leadership.
The recruiting and retention officer has the authority to help the newbie. It is the admin/personnel officer who can rattle off requirements for advancement. It is the responsibilty of the commander to insure this happens and, keeps the members working together for all to benefit.
It is everyone's job to "mentor the inexperinced" and yes commanders should be avialable....but it is a matter of delegation.
NOW...I will agree.....that we all agree that those squadrons where potential or new members left because they had no guidance, or felt they were intruding into some sort of private club.....are failing.....and since they are failing it it ultimately the commander's fault.
But let's not scare our newer leaders into thinking that the commander has to do it all. Somewhere in IN PROCESSING process the commander should meet with all new members to get a feel for them and to find out where they are going to fit in the squadron. But this could be the first night they come to visit, just after they finish level one....or maybe just before their first promotion.
There is a difference between authority and resposibility. The commander delegates authority; not responsibility...
Guys, this is leadership 101... I didn't make this up.
We're all on the same page here.. However, if you wish to argue the fine points, I'll go get a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. :angel:
I agree....so let's not make it sound like those commanders who do delegate the recruiting job to subordinant and don't get personally involved in each and every new member is somehow not a good commander.
It is leadership 101 and the way you do it is not the way that I do it. Nor should they be. Bottom line of any commander is.....DO THEY GET THE MISSION DONE. Plain and simple.
I am not even arguing the fine points....I am just suggesting that we not suggest that because someone else does it differently....that they are somehow failing.
Patrick, I don't think anyone is suggesting that difference in method is a failure. I'm just stating the commander is responsible for the success of the unit ...
IMHO, a good commander should maintain a strategic vision of hos unit and be able to delegate well. But he should also manage his time well enough that he can have some face time with hos seniors on a frequent if not weekly basis. While each new member may have an assigned mentor,in a unit the size of the average CAP squadron there is no reason a commander cannot check on the status of new members as often as possible. Throwing out excuses like "I handle the bigpicture." or "I delegate that to others" is not the practice Iwould associate with a good leader.
All right. Let me toss out a few other questions. Is everyone here in a unit that has a recruiting officer? A professional development officer? If yes, are these folks actively engaged in their position? Are they effective? If there is not someone holding these positions or if they are not at meetings, doesn't the commander either need to delegate these duties to someone or man-up and shoulder the responsibility himself? I have no doubts that many if not most units are fulfilling these duties and doing so admirably however I do not believe that the cases where this is not happening is all that rare.
My advice to the OP: Develop the situation (http://in.askmen.com/entertainment/austin_500/531_ithe-mission-the-man-and-mei-what-you-should-be-reading-this-week.html).
There is no "standard," "uniform" or " the norm" "Squadron Culture" in CAP nor any place to see such a model. Most units operate in a vacuum either emulating the old days, being on a cutting edge or based on how someone from another Wing who moved in said it would work better.
Some unit's are "flying clubs" for pilots, others are JROTC light, some are DAY CARE for KIDS... :(
Mine is none of these things, but I cannot say that our unit is "standard," "uniform" or "the norm." I'll bet that no people are even trying to address that issue at upper levels.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 03, 2012, 05:55:27 AM
Some unit's are "flying clubs" for pilots, others are JROTC light, some are DAY CARE for KIDS...
Sparky is spot on 100%.
The sad thing is some Commanders think they are doing a great job with a "flying club" and lost focus on what is the CAP mission(s). 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on July 04, 2012, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 03, 2012, 05:55:27 AM
Some unit's are "flying clubs" for pilots, others are JROTC light, some are DAY CARE for KIDS...
Sparky is spot on 100%.
The sad thing is some Commanders think they are doing a great job with a "flying club" and lost focus on what is the CAP mission(s). 8)
:( No more so then those commanders who think they are JROTC Light.
It is nearly impossible to do all three "missions" out of a single unit.....that's why we have wings. There is nothing wrong for units to specialize. So long as the support the other specialized units when they need their support.
Accomplishing the three missions is a simple matter of will, but some CC's see the mission as a menu, not a mandate, and without command imperative, nothing will change.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2012, 01:04:42 PM
Accomplishing the three missions is a simple matter of will, but some CC's see the mission as a menu, not a mandate, and without command imperative, nothing will change.
I agree and disagree.
I agree with out a command imperative......no squadron is currently required to do any of the missions. No where are squadrons graded on their mission readiness, mission accomplishments.
I disagree that we MUST do all three missions. I think it is a good thing that unit specialise.
As I said before....just look at an active duty wing...and see how they are organise. You have squadrons that provide security, some that do comm, squadrons that do personnel, finance, logistics, maintenance, roads/power/sewer/building maintenance, feed and house the troops, medical.....oh and we have squadrons that fly and fight.
Now the USAF's big mission is fly and flight....but we don't make those flying squadrons do all the rest of the stuff....why should we do the same with our units?
Now...granted we are talking about geographically seperated units.......and if the wing was doing it's job doing the three big missions....the would make sure that their AOR's were properly served.
Now that could be done by putting two/three/four squadrons in one general location. It could be served by having just a single squadron do all the missions.
But like you said....until the wing and national pushes the mandate to wings to come up with OPLANS that cover all the missions it will not happen. And it is NOT a fault on any individual squadron for not doing all three.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2012, 06:26:10 PMAs I said before....just look at an active duty wing...and see how they are organise. You have squadrons that provide security, some that do comm, squadrons that do personnel, finance, logistics, maintenance, roads/power/sewer/building maintenance, feed and house the troops, medical.....oh and we have squadrons that fly and fight.
Not really the same thing. Those people are assigned duties, and then deploy wherever they need to go.
Basically the exact opposite of CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2012, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2012, 06:26:10 PMAs I said before....just look at an active duty wing...and see how they are organise. You have squadrons that provide security, some that do comm, squadrons that do personnel, finance, logistics, maintenance, roads/power/sewer/building maintenance, feed and house the troops, medical.....oh and we have squadrons that fly and fight.
Not really the same thing. Those people are assigned duties, and then deploy wherever they need to go.
Basically the exact opposite of CAP.
I understand.
My point was that it is the WING's mission to fly and fight......just as it is OUR WING's mission to do CP, ES, AE.
Not all the USAF squadrons fly and fight....but they do their part to get the pilots on target......just as in CAP each squadron should be doing their piece of the pie to get all the missions done. Just because CAP is made up of volunteers who can't be moved around....does not negate the value of unit specialization......nor does it negate my primary point that units who do specialize are not failing.
How do you specialize when you can't force anyone to do anything except what they want, and you are not offering multiple units in
each members proximity?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2012, 08:41:24 PM
How do you specialize when you can't force anyone to do anything except what they want, and you are not offering multiple units in
each members proximity?
The unit commander sets the goals and objectives of the unit.....you either contribute to those goals and objectives...or you go away.
In my squardron...we are a Cadet Heavy composite squadron....everyone works on a CP rateing....in addition to what they want and what their job assignment requires.
It's that simple.
Now...I can't make someone go out and do external AE events.....just like I can't make anyone do personnel, supply, trans....what ever. But I can make their CAP experince unenjoyable if they don't do their bit.
Same goes from the wing/group level. They should be tasking units with specific goals...based on the wings OPLANS. Unit X will have 10 qualified aircrew, they will have 5 AOBDs, 2 PSCs, 1 IC, 5 MROs......they WILL conduct and/or patricpate in 4 exercises per year. They will report monthy on their readiness stats (i.e. how close they are getting to the ES goals). There...that unit has specialised in ES flight ops. The unit in the next town may have similar requirments but a Ground Ops focus. Another squadron my be tasked with Comms functions.
The same thing can happen on the CP side. Squadron Y will have a cadet corps strenth of 30. They will produce X number of WB, Y number of Mithcells, Z number of Earharts.
Squadron Z may have a AE focus....you will conduct a fly-a-teacher program....flying 10 sorties. you will conduct X number external AE presentations per quarter.
All of this is predicated on whether wing has a any idea of what an OPLAN is and how to communicate that down to the squadron. Which I don't see very much.
As it is now......A squadron does not have to do anything other than keep their paperwork in order. No ES, no CP, no AE....they really can be a club.
Your heart burn with the "menu shopping" squadrons is directed at the wrong people. It is not the Homer J. Simpson's Senior Squadrons fault that they have not Cadet Program....no one told them they had to.
Same story for the Fred Rodgers Cadet Squadron who does not do ES. No one told them they had to.
Like a gig line, those things should be self-evident.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2012, 01:46:11 AM
Like a gig line, those things should be self-evident.
No they are not.
Not all squadrons have the man power to do all three missions.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2012, 01:51:12 AM
Not all squadrons have the man power to do all three missions.
Thank you! I see we agree.
Then they need to
get the manpower.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2012, 04:04:36 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2012, 01:51:12 AM
Not all squadrons have the man power to do all three missions.
Thank you! I see we agree.
Then they need to get the manpower.
No....they don't....that's my point.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2012, 01:51:12 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2012, 01:46:11 AM
Like a gig line, those things should be self-evident.
No they are not.
Not all squadrons have the man power to do all three missions.
If they are a Composite SQ they should. A Senior SQ should provide O-rides to Cadets. A Cadet SQ should have at least a working knowledge or at least knowledge of the ES and/or SAR side too.
AE from my experiences is really weak in 90% of the Units I have visited.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2012, 01:04:42 PMsome CC's see the mission as a menu, not a mandate, and without command imperative, nothing will change.
....
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2012, 08:41:24 PMHow do you specialize when you can't force anyone to do anything except what they want, and you are not offering multiple units in each members proximity?
Ok, I'm confused again by what you're trying to say - do you think Squadron Commanders pick the missions or do individual members choose what they want to do?
As I see it, individuals choose what they're interested in...for example, I have a strong interest in the service aspects of aviation based Emergency Services, but not so much on Aerospace Education or Cadet programs.
If others in my squadron have similar interests, is that because the individuals are choosing to specialize in ES or because our commander is picking and choosing what the squadron will do?
It seems to me that the purpose of the cadet squadron is quite simple -- implement the cadet program (which includes a lot of AE). The purpose of the senior squadron isn't quite as obvious (since we don't really have a senior program), but the "default" setting of a senior squadron is to do ES.
It is really in the composite squadron that you seem to get the wild variation in squadron focus. You get some composite squadrons that are really cadet or really senior squadrons in everything but name. Then you have others which are actually fairly balanced and do everything.
Commander's don't get to pick the mission, they are responsible for them by virtue of being commanders in CAP.
Locally, it is most important for units to not be specialized, unless there is an abundance of units within a close proximity to each other. Our job is to provide the three mission of CAP to our communities. Our individual members may like certain missions better, but our commanders don't have that choice, it is their job to ensure that our missions are being met.
I have a senior program despite having a senior squadron 5 minutes down the road. We conduct ES training, we reach out and do AE with the local community, and we have a cadet program as well. As the unit commander, it is my responsibility to ensure that we offer those missions, despite what my personal preferences are.
I agree in theory.
But......where is the guidance for that?
Where does it say YOU MUST have an ES program?
Where does it say YOU MUST have a CP program?
Where does it say YOU MUST have an AE program?
The Senior Program exists solely to train and prepare your officers to do your missions....but what missions?
Now...I understand...and agree with the concept that the mandate is there in the spirit of our regulations. But that is a far cry from accusing those units that don't have a CP or don't have an ES and all of us that put AE on the back burner.....are some how failing or are just being lazy.
That is my point.
You can be like me, I recognise that CAP is not really meeting the spirit of the organisation. That wings and groups should be actively working with the units to get all three missions done.
There need to be real OPLANS....with real tasking to the units in how they are supposed to be trained, equiped and manned to meet those OPLAN requirments.
There needs to be real community assessments on CP needs/pentration to task units with specific CP goals....i.e. number of cadets, and clear progression goals.
AE needs to be moved off the back burner and real goals set for units and follow up to meeting those goals.
How those goals are met.....from a wing perspective....should be up to the wing and to the situation.
If a community can support more then one unit.....then there is no reason why we can't have a ES squadron and a CP squadron.....and an AE squadron.
If the community does not have a lot of population AND IT MAKES sense to consolidate the taskings into one unit...then we should.
But with out this guidance.....a squadron is simply 15 people who have paid thier dues. No one has ever told me what my squadron's mission should be. No one has ever told me how many GTM I need to have trained and equiped. No one has ever tasked my squadron to train MROs, or any other specialty. No one has ever told me how many cadets I should have. How many of them are expected to get thier Wright Brothers, Mitchell or Earhart each year. The Quality Unit program went a long way is giving us some idea of what NHQ wants....but not real tasking numbers.
That is all that I am saying......My unit does all three missions....because we beleive we are supposed to......but I don't say the senior squadron down the road is failing because they don't have a cadet program. Nor is the other cadet squadron down the road who does not have any ES program failing. They are simply focusing their attentions on one aspect of CAP's big picture mission.
If the units are not meetings CAP's or more specfically Wing's expectations.....it is incumbant on WING to make those expectations know and to support the units in acheiving them.
Let's not forget as well there are some units due to their location can not have an ES program.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 05, 2012, 09:40:36 PM
Let's not forget as well there are some units due to their location can not have an ES program.
Any unit can have an ES program, it just depends on what your definition is. Sure, there are locales that prohibit CAP from participating in SAR, but that doesn't mean that they can't do something else.
The Red Cross offers training in shelter management and disaster relief. HLS offers CERT training, etc. In fact, I think that CERT is probably a more useful skillset for our membership with the decline in SAR missions and increase in DR stuff, at least here locally. Emergency Services is a broad scope, it just takes some focus to figure out what your local community needs or wants.
I believe he meant the overseas units which are strictly forbidden from doing ES.
Quote from: jeders on July 05, 2012, 10:08:23 PM
I believe he meant the overseas units which are strictly forbidden from doing ES.
Yup
That is like 3 units... Not a lot in the grand schema.
Quote from: jeders on July 05, 2012, 10:08:23 PM
I believe he meant the overseas units which are strictly forbidden from doing ES.
Well, Pat and I were both in the same OS unit, at different times, and while I was there, we did as much of the GT training as we could get away with in our AOR. The curriculum was significantly different back then, but to carry it into today's training, we did about half of the GTM3 tasks, and most of the GTM2 tasks. Anything to do with radios and airplanes was not done.
Our trainer was an AF Security Forces guy with significant Scout experience, and we had a blast. We did summer and winter camp outs, and whatever else we could cook up that fit into the existing curriculum. No one got any certifications, but there was good training, and a lot of fun.
Something else we did was act as victims for AF exercises, with the moulage kits. The cadets loved that.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on July 05, 2012, 11:24:42 PM
That is like 3 units... Not a lot in the grand schema.
Numbers are not the point. Due to certain legalities some units can not have an ES mission and focus more on the other two.
When I hear someone say that all units should do all the missions, I get a picture in my mind of that guy on the variety shows trying to keep 20 plates spinning on top of 20 poles. He's running from one to another as they start to wobble and threaten to fall. OTOH, when someone says that a unit should focus on just one thing, I remember how I joined to do one thing(fly) and ended up embracing and enjoying the GT aspect of the ES mission.
I think that units that have enough members who have diverse interests will find a way to accomplish all three of our core missions. One may get more attention than another at times but if it's done right all members will get to do the activities that they enjoy. Unit's tend to "specialize" or not depending on tradition, intra-unit dynamics, and the interests of the individual members. I don't think that a wing or group OPLAN is going to change that. You can't tell a unit whose members are committed to the ES mission that they are now the AE unit because "we've" decided that that's what you will be. "But we're focused on ES?" "Too bad. Unit XX down the road is the ES unit for your area." If you do that, the members of that unit that are in the program for ES will either go down the road to Unit XX or hit the door.
It's situations like this, I believe, that are exemplars of why you can't write regs to the point of micromanagement. Units in CAP are just too diverse in makeup and personality. And yes, units do have personality. To try and make a unit a cookie cutter copy of the one down the road takes something away from the program that makes it special to a lot of people.
Quote from: ol'fido on July 05, 2012, 11:46:50 PM
When I hear someone say that all units should do all the missions, I get a picture in my mind of that guy on the variety shows trying to ...
Well I can not see how a Squadron Commander can not include AE, CP and ES in his monthly agenda.
At least most Units have made significant improvements in their Safety Programs.
Quote from: Private Investigator on July 07, 2012, 05:00:14 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on July 05, 2012, 11:46:50 PM
When I hear someone say that all units should do all the missions, I get a picture in my mind of that guy on the variety shows trying to ...
Well I can not see how a Squadron Commander can not include AE, CP and ES in his monthly agenda.
At least most Units have made significant improvements in their Safety Programs.
Easy.......if you are just a senior squadron.....you just don't do AE or CP.
CP is a non-player....unless you have aircraft and support cadet and composite squadrons with O-rides.
AE is optional for the most part. Getting the Yeager done is important if you want to be squadron of the year....but right now there is no requirement for any squadron to have X% of the members complete the SMAE program. Same story for the AEX....looks good if you are interested in squadron of the year....but has not bearing on your operational mission. As for external AE.....again....no requirments or standards set my higher head quarters means that most squadrons just don't bother with it.
For a CP squadron......of course cadet AE is manditory...but AEX, SMAE Program and external AE programs are all optional. ES is not a required part of the CP program so pure cadet squadrons and CP heavy Comp Squadrons are not REQUIRED to particpate. In the case of overseas squadrons....as it has already been pointed out...they can't do ES even if they wanted to.
That's the bottom line. With out standards and goals set by wings....units are free to do as little or as much as they want to.
I agree that wings should be setting those goals.....and that taskings should be sent to the units....now exactly what mix each squadron is tasked with...should be driven by the situation.
We should not have to force some small units to do everything in the same numbers as big metropolitine squadrons have to do. Likewise if you have multiple squadrons in a particular AOE.....there is no reason why you can't have some of the focus more or solely on only one or two of the missions.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:20:41 PM
Easy.......if you are just a senior squadron.....you just don't do AE or CP.
Eas
ier - there should not be Senior Squadrons, or Cadet Squadrons.
Both allow for a level of self-selection which is (assuming it ever was) no longer practical given our current level of man power.
Absent a mandate from wing, the national mandate of the charter and mission statements still exist.
I beleive that is what I said about 10 posts ago.
CAP has to the three missions.....but not each squadron has to do the three missions.
The logical place to make these decisions of what each squadron should be doing is at wing and/or group. They have the best visibility on the communities the squadrons serve and they have the best idea of what their OPLAN should be (if they are doing their jobs).
A wing/group should be working with the units to help the commander do his job (train, man equip his squadron to perform assigned missions) and they should be makeing sure that the squadron IS doing their assigned missions......but that's the point......no one has explicity assigned any missions to the squadrons.
A squadron commander should know specifically:
How large his Cadet Program should be and what advancement standards he should be meeting.
How much internal and external AE goals he should be meeting.....i.e. number of external AE presentations, particapation in Fly-A-Teacher, AEX particpation, O-Rides (AFROTC and CAP), Yeager percentage, etc.
How much ES capablity he needs to have trained, equiped and read........not just "did you fly your plane 200 hours last year"? but specific taskings. "you will have 3 trained aircrews (i.e. 3 pilots, 3 Observes and 3 Scanners), 2 MTPs, 2, AOBDs, 1 OSC, 1 PSC, 1 IC3, 2 CSL, 10 MROs, 2 GTL, 6 GTM3+, etc". (and no double billetining!)
These tell the commander exactly how many people his squadron should have....which drives how large his squadron staff should be. It drives his recruiting efforts, his training efforts, his exercise schedule........and......it is measureable at any time....not just during the SUI. It allows group/wing to report the readiness states of the units to our customers and allows wing/group to more easilly incorporate CAP into their OPLAN (which our OPLANS should already be written to match!).
Yes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:42:57 PMYes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.
There's
everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 05:55:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:42:57 PMYes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.
There's everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.
You keep saying that.....but why is it wrong?
We specialise all the time. A school is there to teach the 3R's....but we don't always expect each teacher to teach all three subjects.
But sometimes.....when the situtaiton is right....we do.
Squadron X.......is a fairly new squadron in a small community. We expect them to be able to field a full ground team and ES staff and do a cadet program AND do a full external AE program? Really? That is just not realistic.
By taking on too much you end up with three crappy programs.
Now if the same squadron focuses on just ES or just CP or just AE......then they are able to use their talents and resouces to put on a better (if limited) program.
Remember......when I talk in these broad terms about how CAP should be run......If think about the small wings, and and small towns that are hundreds of miles away from the next unit.
Now....my unit is in a large Metro area.....we got the resources and population to support doing all three missions (although we don't do any external AE). We share the city with seven other units....some try to do all three missions...some specialize. But there is another squadron about 3 hours away (and we are the closest unit to them in the wing) and they bearly have enough people to just have a squadron......they do their best running their cadet program but they don't have the support to do an effective ES program.
So...that is all that I am saying......it is a GOOD thing that unit specialise based on their situation. If (and I think we should) we want better coverage of our missions within our wings.....then it is WING'S/GROUP'S job to analyse each sublocation.....create the squadrons there, help them develope their program and to task them with specific goals so that the WING can fulfill the mission of doing all three missions.
This may still result in specialised units....depending on market penetration and operational realities. Just because you assert that EACH SQUADRON MUST do all three does not make it so.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 05:55:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:42:57 PMYes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.
There's everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.
You keep saying that.....but why is it wrong?
Because we don't have the extra people or units to allow specialization. The mandate doesn't change in a respective AOR just because the
local CC decides "I don't do that." So that means that whatever is ignored is an automatic fail for whatever area that unit "owns".
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 06:14:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 05:55:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:42:57 PMYes....each squadron should not be able to opt out.......i.e. pick and choose.....but until wing/group stands up and mandates particaption.....there is not at thing wrong with a squadron choosing to focus on just mission.
There's everything wrong with it, just no practical means to change it.
You keep saying that.....but why is it wrong?
Because we don't have the extra people or units to allow specialization. The mandate doesn't change in a respective AOR just because the
local CC decides "I don't do that." So that means that whatever is ignored is an automatic fail for whatever area that unit "owns".
??
So you are quantity over quality guy?
And in my AOR we do have the manpower and units to support specialisation. We got two purely Cadet Squadrons that do ES only as an extra-curricular activiity (i.e. they send those who want to do it to my squadron for training) we have three purely senior squadrons that only do ES and support the CP through O-rides....and we have have three Comp Squadrons that do both....ES and CP to a pretty fair degree....one is more ES slanted and the other two are more CP slanted.
Now the far away squadron in a tinely little town.....has the manpower to support a CP....if we made them do ES as well.....they would have to cut back on the CP......fact of the AOR that they live in.
If the wing has a objective and unified plan....I see no reason why Town X can't have a Cadet Squadron that serves all the towns in say a 20 mile radius while the Town 10 miles away has a Senior Squadron that serves all the towns in the 20 mile radius....and another neaby town that only does communications, or a town that has two squadrons one doing CP and one doing AE.......if the community supports it.
If the can only support one squadron....how big is the squadron? That is the key. Right now.....squadrons grow..because someone wants them to grow....not because wing/group has tasked them to do a specific mission.
Manageing the type and placement of units is a long over looked aspect of what wing/group should be doing.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
So you are quantity over quality guy?
In the case of this discussion quantity and quality are mutually required.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
And in my AOR we do have the manpower and units to support specialisation.
No, you have some commanders who are self-actualizing their personal idea that they can. There isn't a wing in this organization that is near the manpower to fulfill the mission mandates across the board, specialization or otherwise. And if, by some miracle, your specialization is actually part of a larger plan, then good on your Wing CC, but it's by no means universal.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
If the wing has a objective and unified plan....
Please provide the links to your objective, unified plan...
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PMRight now.....squadrons grow..because someone wants them to grow....not because wing/group has tasked them to do a specific mission.
Thank you.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 06:59:08 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
So you are quantity over quality guy?
In the case of this discussion quantity and quality are mutually required.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
And in my AOR we do have the manpower and units to support specialisation.
No, you have some commanders who are self-actualizing their personal idea that they can. There isn't a wing in this organization that is near the manpower to fulfill the mission mandates across the board, specialization or otherwise. And if, by some miracle, your specialization is actually part of a larger plan, then good on your Wing CC, but it's by no means universal.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
If the wing has a objective and unified plan....
Please provide the links to your objective, unified plan...
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:35:10 PMRight now.....squadrons grow..because someone wants them to grow....not because wing/group has tasked them to do a specific mission.
Thank you.
Hmm, so I've got wonder why we have so much problems recruiting and keeping motivated volunteers to even keep all of CAP's major objectives going strong at the unit level ??? :(
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 07, 2012, 07:29:55 PMHmm, so I've got wonder why we have so much problems recruiting and keeping motivated volunteers to even keep all of CAP's major objectives going strong at the unit level
My guess would be people who sit in the back of the room and make constant comments about the other members being wannabes is probably a big factor in some areas.
Eclipse.....we are both seeing the same problem.....but are reacting to it differently.
I agree that we do not have enough market pentration.
We need more units, to cover our respective wings.
I can't give you a link to the unified plan....because it does not exist....at least not in my wing.
I am asserting that it should exist....that the regulations tell our wings and groups that they should be writing these plans....but I have never seen them......and I know my limitations, i.e. I don't have the time nor am I placed geographiclly to start writing them.
As it is....IMHO.....each commander needs to assess their unit and their understanding of what "needs" to be done and use his resources to meet those needs to the best of his ability.
Does that mean he is free to "shop the menu"? You bet.
There is an old saying......There is on time, cheap, and quality.....pick two.
In a perfect world.....there would be a squadron every 50 miles. Those squadrons would all be doing CP to a level that represents the CAP goal of cadet market penetration. Each squadron would be doing internal and external AE again to a master plan based on CAP's market penetration goal. Each squadron would be contributing to the overall ES plan based on the wings OPLANS to support our customers contingecy plans...covering everything to a single lost hiker, missing aircraft, forest fire, flood, tornado, hurricain, earthquake, industrial disaster, large gathering....and their day to day needs (CN, traffic congesstion surveys, forestry/wild life surveys, etc).
But we don't have those. If we are lucky we have wing telling use "we need more FLMs or we need more ground teams"....but we don't have a plan that tells the Nellis Comp Squadron..."You will train, man and equip 2 full ground teams, 4 MRO's, 2 FLMs, 1 GOBD, 2 Full Air Crew and a PSC."
If we have people who are interested in that....they may choose to do so....but no one is telling us we got to.
Even when the USAF comes to do their graded SAR evaluation......there are no standards stateing how many sorties we must be able to generate. That we MUST have every possition filled in the mission base filled. That we have a depoyment time standard (i.e. first air sortie off the ground at Z+2:00). They evaluate us on how well we follow the regs and how well we manage the mission.....if you don't field any ground teams.....as far as I know you don't fail the evaluation.
So....in the real world.....absent any mandate....squadrons who pick one mission and do it well.....are doing a good job.
Saying quality and quantity are mutually required is just BS. If Quantity is required.....where are my numbers? How many cadets should I have in my program? How do you grade me in meeting CP objectives? Is it just numbers or a do I need to show a certain progression within the program (i.e. 50% Wright, 20% Mitchell, 10%Earhart, 5%, Eaker, 1% Spaatz). If Quanityt is require for AE.......again where are my numbers? How many teachers do I have to fly? How many AE presentations do I have do? Do I have to AEX? Do I have to have a certain percentage of my members with the Yeager award? If Quantity is required for ES....where are my numbers? How man MPs do I need, MOs, MSs, AOBSs? How many GTLs, GTMs, GBDs? How many ICs, OSCs, PSCs, LSCs, FSCs? How many MROs, CULs? How many FLMs, FLSs? How many mission chaplains, MSA's PAO's?
I don't see any of those numbers......so if a commander decides to focus on just doing one part of the big picture....he is not wrong.
Back in the 60's all the figures Patrick mentions were available at Group and Wing level. The reson, monthly reports were required from all major Squadron staff positions. You could see how many groups teams there were and what training they recieved each month. The PAO had to report the number of news releases submitted to local media, and speaking engagements. But someone came up with the idea that the poor volunteers in CAP had to much paperwork to do so the reporting was dropped. From that point on, higher headquarters up to National had no concept of the capability of a squadron or it's problem areas.
Looking at one area squadron, rarely is a cadet ever involved in an ELT search. So cadets lose interest in ES training of any type. In another example, even through there is a corporate aircraft locally and qualified MP along with MO and MS, a squadron 125 miles away will be called for a missing aircraft search while the local unit sits on their thumbs. (the aircraft was located fairly close to the local area)
In another area there hasn't been a directed Wing, Group or Squadron recruiting effort in 12 years. This is a failure of the respective Commanders who more often than not just stick people in the Recruiting and Retention slot and forget about them. National does a fairly good job of producing recruiting material, but there is no leadership n what to do with it. And here again the lack of reports to higher headquarters on recruiting efforts leaves the Group and Wing Commanders in the blind.
CAP needs to go back to a monthly or bi-monthly reporting system for each major staff position. This would provide needed information for the higher headquarters.
The reason most of that reporting was dropped was because few, if anyone, were reading them, and even fewer viewed them as anything but anecdotal information. With no specific goals, whether a unit publishes one press release or 40 basically equals the same thing in regards to executing the mission, and that doesn't even allow for the accounting of quality.
A unit recruiting 100 new members under false pretense who only last 1 month (or that keeps 50%+ empty shirts on their books) is basically equal to a unit doing no recruiting but maintaining status quo numbers. Which one is failing? Impossible to answer, because a real plan would encompass both quantity and quality of recruiting.
50 new GTM's looks good on paper, but is meaningless if they never show up to a mission after earning their badges.
Top-down management is impossible without statistical data to evaluate whether plans and programs are being executed and whether they are being effective, but statistical data, for it's own purpose, is a waste of everyone's time.
This issues is likely one good reason why the more effective people in CAP gravitate towards individual activities (i.e. encampments, flight academies, NCSA's, etc.) or ES. Both are objective situations with a beginning and an end, and are, for the most part, self-actualizing by design (with external framework or higher vetting).
Being a CC these days, at pretty much any level below NHQ, is basically just "do whatever you think is right, and let me know when you are done..."
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 09:42:26 PM
The reason most of that reporting was dropped was because few, if anyone, were reading them, and even fewer viewed them as anything but anecdotal information.
Being a CC these days, at pretty much any level below NHQ, is basically just "do whatever you think is right, and let me know when you are done..."
Well the issue really gets down to the lack of development and communications to the membership of CAP's National Goals. :-[ Who is responsible for determining these goals, is it the BOG, National Executive Committee, or the National Board (or a combination of these)??? IF you don't have any overall organizational goals than basically the only goal is to comply with regulations/policies and do what you feel is best for your unit's volunteers. Individual volunteer will do what they are comfortable with and enjoy doing.
Perhaps when the new organization structure is announced in Baltimore this summer some National Goals will surface publicly :-\ Frankly, in my opinion CAP as an organization seems to be like an aircraft that is constantly in the holding pattern away from the airport and has not been cleared to land at the airport. :( :( :( :(
Regarding reports/statistics, probably the best idea is at every level, even if there's no reporting required (e.g. Public Affairs, Radio Comms, Emergency Services, etc), is to just document the accomplishments every month/quarter using the same format (reporting categories) that were previously in the reports to higher headquarters. Likely during the bi annual compliance inspections the respective functional area/section is going to have to provide some documentation anyways and this a good way to ensure you have everything in order.
RM
You know, I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough manpower to do all three missions" crap. Even the rebuilding squadron in my group that only has a handful of active seniors and maybe 10 active cadets manages to accomplish all three missions, or at least is working towards it. My unit of assignment has a total strength of ~35 and we still manage to do all three missions pretty well, and everyone gets to work in their areas of interest. We have two "full-time" CP folks, an AEO, a handful of support staff and a variety of cadets and seniors pitch in with ES. Better yet, nobody has to spin more than a couple of plates unless they want to.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 08, 2012, 05:01:18 AM
You know, I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough manpower to do all three missions" crap.
+1
No matter how small my Unit was; If I am the Commander I can do 20 minutes of AE on the 2nd Tuesday of the month and 30 minutes on GES on the 3rd Tuesday of the month. Rest of the time I can do my Cadet thing.
Similar if I was tasked with being CC of a Senior Squadron. If I was 100% retired and lived in my hangar. Then I would have the Seniors meet weekly and we'll fly Cadets every Saturday. Then we can justify our alledged 'flying club'. 8)
You guys' heads would explode trying to have this same discussion on about the CG Aux given that there are probably a dozen main programs and probably 3-4 dozen smaller programs that are potentially available. Granted all of these fall under several overarching categories but still it allows for an almost unlimited variety in units and what they do.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 09, 2012, 09:59:11 PM
You guys' heads would explode trying to have this same discussion on about the CG Aux given that there are probably a dozen main programs and probably 3-4 dozen smaller programs that are potentially available.
Roger that. It is all about time management. As a Commander have your AE person, do AE, the CP guy do CP, the ES gal do ES.
Paraphasing Napoleon, there are no bad CAP Squadrons, only bad Commanders.
("There are no bad regiments, only bad colonels" -- attributed to both Napoleon and Ulysses S. Grant)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 08, 2012, 05:01:18 AM
You know, I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough manpower to do all three missions" crap.
I don't think it's about manpower, it's about desire.
Squadrons don't do just one or two missions because of time, they do it because of desire. If a volunteer doesn't want to do X, then you can't force them to. If a whole squadron of volunteers don't want to do X, then nothing happens with it.
If you only want volunteers that desire to participate in all the CAP missions equally then you should kick the rest of us out...we aren't good volunteers, so we should go find somewhere else to do what we want to do.
It would solve a "problem" with senior culture. Personally, I don't see the desires of volunteers to be a source of problems, its a source of energy for the organization.
People who join an organization like CAP, with a life-saving mission and a Congressional mandate, not to mention the national reputation and personal prestige of membership, and believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no ramifications or expectations of performance are doing both themselves and the organization a disservice.
You're not an asset unless you are all of the below, most of the time.
Trained
Qualified
Proficient
Available
Take out any of those four things, and you are not as valuable as you might think you are, either until you add them back, or until your personal circumstance puts them back.
Without people who are fully TQPA®, it's difficult to do any real planning, market our skills and abilities to our customers, or even recruit new people based on the display of current ops and historical successes.
A big problem is that we have people who walk around with one of the above missing from their pocket thinking and acting as if they are of equal
value to the organization as people who have all 4 and a couple spares.
"TQPA®" is a registered trademark of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium. All Rights Reserved.
Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2012, 03:58:20 PM
...believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no ramifications or expectations of performance are doing both themselves and the organization a disservice...
Nobody believes they can do whatever they want when they want.
We are told the priorities we need to work on. We attempt to do something with those, given the restrictions of our real lives, abilities and interests. Everyone will not take part in all the missions. That's reality.
If you're going to be miserable and wring your hands over not achieving some idealized operation, then I see nothing here to continue talking about.
Quote from: bflynn on July 10, 2012, 04:54:13 PM
Nobody believes they can do whatever they want when they want.
Quote from: bflynn on July 10, 2012, 03:44:52 PMSquadrons don't do just one or two missions because of time, they do it because of desire. If a volunteer doesn't want to do X, then you can't force them to.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2012, 04:56:46 PM
Quote from: bflynn on July 10, 2012, 04:54:13 PM
Nobody believes they can do whatever they want when they want.
Quote from: bflynn on July 10, 2012, 03:44:52 PMSquadrons don't do just one or two missions because of time, they do it because of desire. If a volunteer doesn't want to do X, then you can't force them to.
Completely consistent, which just means you're not getting and probably don't want to.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2012, 03:58:20 PMWithout people who are fully TQPA®, it's difficult to do any real planning, market our skills and abilities to our customers, or even recruit new people based on the display of current ops and historical successes.
Except you have just put the cart before the horse.
With out plans, and goals.......there is no way for a squadron commander to determine how many and in what way he needs to train, equip and man his squadron.
Until the mandate from NHQ on down comes to the unit......we ARE IN FACT just doing what we THINK is right and what we WANT to do.
This is not a "If you build it they will come" sort of thing.
Then you look at it from the other side of the equation. Squadron X and all 30 members bust their butts getting qualified, they are ready and available.....but because wing/group has not plan.....they never get called, they never get used and then the quit because of disillusionment.
So....in a lot of a ways.....just shopping from the menu of what you like to do is actually better for CAP...because at least you have people ready, able and willing to do part of the mission.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2012, 07:10:59 PMThis is not a "If you build it they will come" sort of thing.
Yes, this actually is. Personal experience has shown that a commander running a full program from the day he assumes the role will
have much less problem with retention and recruiting then one who waits for something from on-high, or decides "I don't have to do 'x'. "
Set the tone and the plan to accomplish the full, three-bladed mission, put it on the calendar, and start doing it, even if some nights
you're preaching to an empty room. When people see which way the boat is going, they will follow, or not, either way they will no
longer be in the way, and the ones who follow will be getting things done and having fun and will recruit their friend.
The insist on people getting to TQPA in whatever they are doing as soon as possible and understanding that they have to maintain
it to be of their max value to CAP.
BTDT.
Okay....then I ask.....how many ground teams do you have?
How many aircrew?
How many mission base staff?
Are they incorporated in your wing's training plan?
How many external AE presentations are you supposed to do?
What is your market pentration of your cadet program?
What metrics are you using to guage the performance of your CP and ES programs?
What is your readiness state RIGHT NOW....are you prepared to meet all the contingencies your group/wing have tasked to you?
You built is.....where is the rest?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2012, 03:58:20 PM
People who join an organization like CAP, with a life-saving mission and a Congressional mandate, not to mention the national reputation and personal prestige of membership, and believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no ramifications or expectations of performance are doing both themselves and the organization a disservice.
You're not an asset unless you are all of the below, most of the time.
Trained
Qualified
Proficient
Available
Take out any of those four things, and you are not as valuable as you might think you are, either until you add them back, or until your personal circumstance puts them back.
Without people who are fully TQPA®, it's difficult to do any real planning, market our skills and abilities to our customers, or even recruit new people based on the display of current ops and historical successes.
A big problem is that we have people who walk around with one of the above missing from their pocket thinking and acting as if they are of equal
value to the organization as people who have all 4 and a couple spares.
"TQPA®" is a registered trademark of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium. All Rights Reserved.
Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!
That, right there, makes an excellent case for unit specialization.
It is far more likely that a unit focused on, for example, ES, can be trained, qualified, proficient and available, than if they split their limited time between ES/CP/AE.
It's about prioritizing with the resources available.
^ I did my bit at that level, quite successfully thank you. I know longer need to answer those questions.
My CAP universe is now struggling with trying to find a way to write those plans that I want others to
execute. I inherited a typical status quo situation that I am struggling to change.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2012, 12:31:02 AM
What is your readiness state RIGHT NOW....
However with that said, it's actually pretty good. Our most recent eval was great, and we could certainly
meet the contingencies of a large single event within CAP's regular SAR / DR scope. Sustainability and
multiple fronts would be an issue, like in most wings.
As I am not a CC anymore, the other two areas are no longer my direct concern.
Quote from: bflynn on July 10, 2012, 04:54:13 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2012, 03:58:20 PM
...believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no ramifications or expectations of performance are doing both themselves and the organization a disservice...
Nobody believes they can do whatever they want when they want.
Until you become an IG and visit a lot of Units. You will be surprised at what Squadron Commanders 'rationalize'.
A good example is Senior Squadron 'flying clubs'. How can an 'ES' Squadron that does zero in CP and AE but boast about their 'ES" abilities have zero (0) Finds? And zero (0) A1 hours but knock out 250 hours annually in proficency flying?