The significance of 2Lt in CAP

[lordmonar]

Maybe that's my error in perception too - thinking like an Army Dog rather than an AF Eagle. However, there is still credence to the whole "Who's in charge" perception when it comes to military-style ranks. In my mind, the one with the most stripes or the largest brass is the one in charge (and accountable) - unless the situation or orders dictate otherwise.

But that is true in CAP too.  It just happens more often in CAP than it does in the USAF.

But in the USAF there are many many many times where a lower ranking individual is in charge.

1) Air Craft commanders are the boss.....even if a 4 star is riding in the back seat.
2) Supervision chains....the regs allow for lower ranking individuals to supervise and rate people who normally would out rank them (this happend to me....I was a TSgt with 1 year TIG supervising another TSgt with 2 years TIG).
3) Technical expertise....a fully trained and qualified SrA would be put in charge of a work detail with higher ranking trainees.  The SrA is in charge and responsible.  (again this happened to me....my NBC recon team...I was the team leader as a Sgt and I had a MSgt Trainee on my team.....I was the boss).

In CAP the same thing happens.  A 2d Lt is appointed as the commander....he's the boss even if there is a General in his squadron.   A GTL is in charge of the ground team even if there is another higher ranking person on the team.

Now...the differences between CAP and USAF is that a) the USAF hold down the number of people who can hold a particular rank based on force strength needs. b) the USAF will move people to jobs that match their rank...or shuffle them off to some do nothing job on the Air Staff if they are incompetent for the rank they wear.

CAP does neither of these.  In theory you could have a squadron full of Lt Cols.....the USAF would not allow this.  Also if you had a Squadron Commander job opening....instead of filling it with who ever was available...the USAF would find a person of the right rank and transfer him to that job.

I was taught that the reason for having visible ranks and uniforms in the first place was due to the historical chaotic nature of combat and the fact that someone who may be your boss one minute, may not be there suddenly, and everyone needs to know very quickly who the next in line is to take up the charge. In CAP, we don't have the urgency or randomness of combat operations so I can see how this is not so critical for us.

And drill was originally to get combat forces into the line of battle so they could repell the next bayonet charge.  Just because it was historically done that way means we have to keep to the original purpose of the tradition.

I think that is probably why I think the Warrant Officer-style ranks for non-command (or in CAP terms - Non-Corporate Officers) fits the organizational and operations structure better - and in my mind would provide our Corporate Officers (read command ranks) with more appreciation from the RM.

But one CAP member's perception on rank is (I'm sure) different from other CAP members perceptions based upon where they come from and their previous exposure to "military officers". Just for the record, I'm fine with wearing my brass the way it is - even if I think there is a better way available. 

You have to also take into account the psychology of the issue.  CAP member like their rank.  Just because you or I see the logic in something does not mean anyone else will see the same logic.  A major change from normal ranks to a Flight Officer/Warrent Officer/Axillary Officer ranks structure will be resisted by many people for many different reason.

Bottom line is that the system is not really broken....we are getting the mission done.  It is nice to just throw poop on the wall and see what sort of splotch it makes....but let's not get into ourselves over these on-line discussions. 

[vmstan]

CAP does neither of these.  In theory you could have a squadron full of Lt Cols.....the USAF would not allow this.  Also if you had a Squadron Commander job opening....instead of filling it with who ever was available...the USAF would find a person of the right rank and transfer him to that job.

Obvious reason being, the USAF forces you out after so many years or once you reach a high age... where as if CAP started doing that there wouldn't be anyone left who knew what they were doing. 

[High Speed Low Drag]

First time to read in a couple of weeks -  I have to say that I have often mulled over the possibility of a re-alignment like that which was proposed.  Not to mirror RM, but to give the officer ranks "teeth" and meaning.

In my thoughts, I considered that what is a SMWOG (when posted on E-services) would become an Airman (but not w/ cloth chevrons, metal ones worn like the cadets do would be fine).  Then, once screening is done, CPPT, and all of the now Level 1 stuff is complete, be promoted to SrA.  6 months TIG - SSgt.  Nine months later (or about a little over a year in the program), then come the butter bars.  It won't elongate the process that much, but it would give the new senior member a sense to follow before they can lead (the same thing we teach cadets).  Obviously, there would be exceptions (RM go in at rank, former cadets officers go to 2LT, 1LT, Capt, etc, however - pilots, mechanics, etc, would get advanced rank, but only up to SSgt.).  Level 2 and up would remain the same.

Asbestos suit on - check.  Shield down - check.  ..................

[flyboy53]

Agree. Promotion to second lieutenant should mean more than six months TIG and completion of Level I. Right now it almost seems like it's just a given.  What if completion of the CAP Officer course would be a requirement to this promotion?

Harkening back to the old ECI-13 Course, AFR and ANG enlisted who sought commissioning had to complete the equivilent to that course as part of their commissioning package. Then they did a two-week officer orientation.

I wish we did the same, along with some sort of appointment certificate. Make it something meaningful, as challenging as what a cadet has to do to get to that level of achievement.

[lordmonar]

To what point?

What is gained for CAP if we make 2d Lt "harder" to get?

[Walkman]

To what point?

What is gained for CAP if we make 2d Lt "harder" to get?

The only thing I can think is that maybe we get higher quality performance sooner from our newer members with more training. I know I was ready to jump in with both feet and do all sorts of training, and was honestly a little disappointed in what was offered as a new SM. I would have loved something more on leadership, military topics, D&C, anything like that.

At that point in my CAP life, if you told me that I needed to go to a 2 week Officer Training Course, I'd have done it in a heartbeat. (Yeah, I know not everyone can take that kind of time off, and all the caveats to the previous statement, blah, blah, blah...)

There is the common response on these threads of "if it's not broke..." which can be true, however, things can always be improved. Regardless of if we're called WO's, flight officers, Jedi Masters or whatever, if there's a way we can improve our training of new members, and increase their effectiveness sooner than later, then that's worth considering.

I think that may be what's at the back of people's minds that are presenting these ideas. How can we improve our effectiveness? How can we be better leaders? Sometimes that's manifested in rank/grade topics, because many people associate (correctly or incorrectly) rank with some sort of level of achievement.

[lordmonar]

Yes....but there is no suggestion of giving more or better training.....only that you can't put on 2d Lt until after you get ECI-13 done/level 2 what ever.

We are not adding any of those skills that you are talking about.  Just replacing the current Capt with 2d Lt.

[flyboy53]

To what point?

What is gained for CAP if we make 2d Lt "harder" to get?

My route to 2nd Lt. in 1974 involved having a 3rd Class Radio Telephone License.  Under that promotion criteria, people who have pilot licenses, radio telephone licenses, ground instructor ratings, A&P licenses have to "work harder" for the promotion because of the time, money, and experience related to obtaining that license. Also, certainly under that criteria, those senior members generally launch off into specialities that are more emergency services related. I didn't, however, within a year, I was the squadron deputy commander and I think I had already received my next promotion.

Too many times I've seen senior members come into this program, get appointed to second lieutenant and either hang around like junior airmen, kind of lost in the ivory tower of trying to figure out what they have to do next, or try to manage cadets with less management experience than the cadets themselves.

If the Officer basic course or an ECI-13 like course is too much, why can't CAP do something like a weekend leadership school or series of weekends as part of the promotion criteria. A lot of National Guard units have officer training academies done on weekends.

I understand that it may be cost prohibitive, but in the NYW, one of the groups does that every year. It has a senior member track that trains separately of cadets during a Cadet Leadership School. You should see it, the senior members even fall out in their own flight with the cadets in morning formation. The experience is purely academic but the weekend is so beneficial that in years past its attracted senior member officers from across the wing, and outside the state from Pennsylvania and Vermont.

[DogCollar]

This is really interesting discussion...and one that frequently occurs on CAPtalk.  What I am reading is that "rank" should mean something and should correlate to position in the command structure.  CAP has made the decision that professional development is what is necessary to advancement.  Now, professional development really doesn't apply to the squadron level, however, in order to move to group or wing level, officers should have completed Level III in professional development.  Level IV is appropriate for serving at region or national level...and Level V is "preferred" for serving at national.

I guess what may bother some is that there are members who have completed Level III or higher (and have been rewarded with promotions in rank) but have not served, or have finished serving at wing, region or national.  That doesn't bother me, however.  The squadron where I serve is very fortunate to have a Lt. Col, Level V, who has served on wing staff, as our "safety officer."  Most fortunate, though is her wisdom and experience she brings to our squadron.  She has inspired me to advance in professional development and has encouraged me in my part-time work on the wing level.

Maybe not by design, but CAP is fortunate to have experienced persons willing to go into squadrons after serving in other areas.  Unlike the RM we don't retire them after they have gone as far as they can in professional development.  We recycle them (for lack of a better description)!

So, in my opinion, don't worry about the insignia you wear on your uniform.  Instead concentrate on professional development.  The training structure in CAP is fairly arduous for a volunteer organization and improving incrementally.

[High Speed Low Drag]

Actually, flyboy1 had a good idea.  Now that OBC (old ECI-13) is online, there is no reason that it should not be mandatory for the promotion to 2Lt.  That would give the new senior member a lot more information to prepare them for 2Lt.

Why should 2Lt. be harder to get?  Because, as was pointed out, it should mean that the person wearing it has some experience in CAP - both time and education.  Second, it would afford the new member something to work towards.  As it is now, it is handed out like a door prize (stick around to the end of the party, and you will get a prize).  Third, (under my plan), a new member off the street isn't going to rate a salute in six months, they have to earn the customs & courtesies paid to them.  A previous poster said that the RM hands 2nd Lt out like candy - not true.  No matter the route taken, (even a 90 day OCS), you have to be dedicated and work hard to get the rank - there are a lot of wash-outs that don't make it.  We are not the RM, obviously, but we should but a little more meaning in that bar than 6 months part of the organization.

If CAP did the “enlisted” status, it would also automatically teach customs & courtesies to the new senior member.  I have seen too many senior members not give salutes to higher-ranking senior members, but chew out a cadet that doesn’t give them one.  Also seen new butter-bars get thrown a salute and they don’t have a clue what to do.

Is it too much to ask that a person completes OBC and spends a little more time in CAP before they get the bar?

[FlyTiger77]

... Now that OBC (old ECI-13) is online, there is no reason that it should not be mandatory for the promotion to 2Lt.  That would give the new senior member a lot more information to prepare them for 2Lt...
 
Is it too much to ask that a person completes OBC and spends a little more time in CAP before they get the bar?

Assuming, merely for the sake of argument, that this COA is accepted and implemented, it would take about 5 minutes before we started reading threads here regarding "The Significance of Capt in CAP" that would state that Capt is a meaningless promotion since it requires merely completion of SLS (a weekend course) and 18 months TIG (after all, AFIADL 13/OBC would have been completed as a SMWOG).

After we work through the logical progression and shift all PD training to the left, what will be left to differentiate Level IV from Level V? Are we going to create more courses in order to make Level V, an achievement already attained by very few senior members, "more meaningful"?

In my mind, an easier solution would be to revert to calling adult CAP members "senior members" and not "officers," with the desired result being to eliminate the unfair comparison of these dedicated volunteers in a great organization with the equally dedicated professionals of the greatest military our planet has ever seen. Of course, YMMV.

v/r

[andysum15]

The UK Air Training Corps now have both enlisted and officer ranks. There used to be only one enlisted rank which was Warrant Officer they now start at Sergeant then after four years promoted to Flight Sergeant and then after another four years they are eligible for Warrant Officer.
One of the reasons they went this route is because the Sergeant rank is the lowest senior NCO rank and is therefore a learning rank with in the sergeants mess. Similarly in the officer ranks the rank of Pilot Officer is a learning rank.
So with in the Civil Air Patrol 2Lt is a learning rank.
To me what ever rank you wear is well deserved and should be worn with pride. I have heard some people say it's only a CAP rank, doesn't matter it shows a level of achievement and shows service to your country.
All ranks whether senior member or cadet should be worn with pride and be respected.

[lordmonar]

Actually, flyboy1 had a good idea.  Now that OBC (old ECI-13) is online, there is no reason that it should not be mandatory for the promotion to 2Lt.  That would give the new senior member a lot more information to prepare them for 2Lt.

Why should 2Lt. be harder to get?  Because, as was pointed out, it should mean that the person wearing it has some experience in CAP - both time and education.  Second, it would afford the new member something to work towards.  As it is now, it is handed out like a door prize (stick around to the end of the party, and you will get a prize).  Third, (under my plan), a new member off the street isn't going to rate a salute in six months, they have to earn the customs & courtesies paid to them.  A previous poster said that the RM hands 2nd Lt out like candy - not true.  No matter the route taken, (even a 90 day OCS), you have to be dedicated and work hard to get the rank - there are a lot of wash-outs that don't make it.  We are not the RM, obviously, but we should but a little more meaning in that bar than 6 months part of the organization.

If CAP did the "enlisted" status, it would also automatically teach customs & courtesies to the new senior member.  I have seen too many senior members not give salutes to higher-ranking senior members, but chew out a cadet that doesn't give them one.  Also seen new butter-bars get thrown a salute and they don't have a clue what to do.

Is it too much to ask that a person completes OBC and spends a little more time in CAP before they get the bar?

Okay....but again why?

What benefit does CAP get by adding new requirements to make 2d Lt?

You talk about making them "earn" the right to a salute.....but most senior members don't really do that stuff anyway.  You talk about making the 2d Lt bars mean that they have more expedience with CAP....but I read 2d Lt as the new kid on the block.....2d Lts DON'T have experience...that's why they are LTs!
You suggest that we should make 2d Lt "a little more meaning in that bar than 6 months part of the organization"...again to what benefit?  What is the cost?  2d Lts are not worth anything (hence all the LT jokes you see running around the military community). 

You tell me how all this will make the rank of 2d Lt have more meaning....okay I'll buy that.....now you need to tell me how making 2d Lts have more meaning will improve CAP?

[flyboy53]

Perhaps a course name change would be more appropriate. I think it's amazing that the CAP waits until someone is fulfilling the requirements for promotion to captain to require them to take an "Officer Basic Course." 

Yet, I see it from another sad perspective that I know is a cost-saving and quality control factor. We have turned initial senior member training into a computer process instead of direct in-your face personal one-on-one training, and I believe a lot is lost in the process.

I used to enjoy assisting our wing assistant PDO go into the field and do an excellent job at conducting Level I seminar programs that would take most of a Saturday. It encouraged participation as a group and got those new officers networking with other new members. That's why I'm in such favor of conducting something like a weekend officer training school.

I'm of that era when the CAP had an active enlisted program. That was something that brought more meaning to officer ranks. I know the program is in process again, however, limiting it to just former military NCOs is a mistake. There's so much to be gained, especially for cadets, to have NCOs mentoring them. There's so much to be gained among senior members to have an NCO program for those who chose not to be officers.

[ZigZag911]

Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.

[OldSalt]

There is the common response on these threads of "if it's not broke..." which can be true, however, things can always be improved. Regardless of if we're called WO's, flight officers, Jedi Masters or whatever, if there's a way we can improve our training of new members, and increase their effectiveness sooner than later, then that's worth considering.

I think that may be what's at the back of people's minds that are presenting these ideas. How can we improve our effectiveness? How can we be better leaders? Sometimes that's manifested in rank/grade topics, because many people associate (correctly or incorrectly) rank with some sort of level of achievement.

This is the whole point of discussing our ideas together - there is credence to the idea of brainstorming between members with the intent of trying to improve the organization. I don't think anyone here is really floating ideas out purely for the sake of personal glory or misguided attempts at personally turning our present system upside down "just to do it". There are always ways we can improve ourselves and our organization.

It seems to me the easiest way to address all of the "rank vs. actual achievement", "rank vs. PD", "rank vs. command position". discussions, without upending what's in place now, would be to just re-align the currently authorized, but not effectively utilized, ranks of Flight Officers and NCOs.

Let's start from here and see how we can improve on what we already have. Sooo... to recap, CAP currently has the following grade / rank structure (from lowest to highest grade – not counting special appointment criteria) available for Senior Members per the latest CAPR 35-5 (16 MAR 10):

SMWOG (untrained boot / Level I)
All of the AF Airman / NCO Ranks (only if you hold / have held these ranks in RM and Level I PD) otherwise not available to anyone.
Flight Officer (Only for 18-20 yrs old + Level I)
Tech Flight Officer (Only for 18-20 yrs old + Level I + Tech Rating)
Senior Flight Officer (Only for 18-20 yrs old + Level II )
2^nd Lt (Level I + 6mos TIG)
1^st Lt (Level I + Basic Tech Rating + 12 mos TIG)
Capt (Level II + 18 mos TIG)
Maj (Level III + 36 mos TIG)
Lt Col (temp grade – this is a new change, Level IV + 48 mos TIG)
Col (temp grade for current NB members, region VCs, and selected National staff officers)
Brig Gen (temp grade for National Vice-Commander)
Maj Gen (temp grade for National Commander)

Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Level V for promotion to any grade. Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Senior or Master Tech ratings for promotion above 1^st Lt. in CAPR 35-5 (edit made for clarification per below posts).

Now – without changing the current grade ranks – how do we improve things and please state how adoption of your change improves CAP either organizationally or operationally.

[ßτε]

Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Senior or Master Tech ratings for promotion above 1^st Lt.

Senior rating is required for Level III.
Master rating is required for Level IV.

So to say they are not required for promotions above 1^st Lt is inaccurate.

[OldSalt]

Nowhere is there a requirement to attain Senior or Master Tech ratings for promotion above 1^st Lt.

Senior rating is required for Level III.
Master rating is required for Level IV.

So to say they are not required for promotions above 1^st Lt is inaccurate.

Understood, I was just quoting from CAPR 35-5 here. Thanks.

[lordmonar]

Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.

Okay...that's great....now we are getting somewhere.

So the PROBLEM is our Level I training is not preparing new members for leadership roles in CAP.

That I can work with.

Now come up with a program that beefs up our level I training....remembering some basic concerns.  It must be timely...we should not have to wait six months for the next time the training comes around (the major problem with the old Level I course IMHO).  It must focus on core compantacies that we expect our new leaders in training to have.  It must not be too taxing on a new individual....asking some new guy to give up a week for some CAP OCS would not be a good idea when the member is just learning about CAP. Finally it should not cost too much.  We just hit these guys up for about $100 in annual dues, $50-$300 for uniforms, $200-$300 for ES related expense (assuming a pilot type..he has to pay for his CAPF 5 and any fam/training rides in the CAP aircraft...ground team gear...etc).

[OldSalt]

Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.

So the PROBLEM is our Level I training is not preparing new members for leadership roles in CAP.

Actually, I'm not sure that Level I training is purposely designed to prepare new members for leadership roles in CAP. I believe Level II is where this starts with the inclusion of the Squadron Leadership School requirement by design. Not sure if this is really a "problem".