Forecast of Iowa Wing.

[RogueLeader]

Here is my forecast of what will be happening in the Iowa Wing.  NOTE: this is my personal belief.  There are no official plans or desires of Wing staff to do what I believe that they might try to do (as far as I know.)

After the cadets are moved to one or two cadet squadrons- with local detachments; testing will be required to be taken at the Cadet Squadron HQ.  Then, consolidation of the Senior Squadrons into a single squadron with local detachments.

Therefore the whole program can be commanded by a very few people.  This does make for a very effective control over the wing as concerned with ES, CP and PD.  This further integrates into the "One CAP" mentality- with the wing banker solution.  Please note that this would happen over five to ten years. 

As discussed on the other Iowa thread, all Maj's and LTC's have been forcibly moved to wing(either move or we put you in the reserve squadron), now it looks like the cadets will be "restructured" into one maybe two centrally located squadrons with local detachments.  Does anybody else see a pattern here, or is it just me?

What Iowa has done has done much to reinvigorate IAWG, it has gotten better retention, more state funding-$320,000 in 3 years, support from the NG, TAG.  All of which are good things.  But where does it end??? If the Wing leadership thinks that that is the way it should be done.  Fine, tell us. Don't do it one piece at a time, give us your ideas for the wing, then get us to buy-in into the idea.  Forcing on the wing only creates chasms between the ranks and the leadership.

[ColonelJack]

I think what's mostly missing here with the discussion of IAWG is what I've seen only pointed out once in this thread:  what IAWG has done is great -- for Iowa Wing -- but won't necessarily play anywhere else.  The "turnkey" comment made earlier is most accurate.  Folks looking for a "one-size-fits-all" solution to the problems of membership and training should not look at the IAWG model as the be-all and end-all.

We have the same problem in my "real-world" job, education.  Somebody somewhere comes up with a pretty good idea to make test scores, etc., go up, and out of the clear blue you find school systems all over the nation trying to make it work in their systems too.  And -- 99.9% of the time -- it doesn't.  These people try to find "turnkey" solutions to local problems and either don't realize or don't care that what works in one place won't work in another.  The demographics are different ... the size of the area is different ... the motivations are different.  And trying to force a "one-size" mentality on your membership -- in education and in CAP -- is doomed to failure before it even gets started.

Jack

[JohnKachenmeister]

So... Granted, Jack, but...

What IS the best solution for CAP?  Iowa is right in its approach, CAP "Squadrons" are not units in the sense that the military uses units.  The first thing we divest ourselves of in a mission is unit integrity.  We create a "Task Force" under an Incident Commander out of individuals and elements of local units.

Our units really are more akin to the Navy Reserve's "Training Centers."  Members go, train in individual tasks, but their collective tasks can only be done on their annual cruises when they are assigned to the fleet.  And then they are assigned as individuals to different vessels, depending on the ability of the fleet to support training in their ratings.

What is the best plan for us?

[Dragoon]

John, you're on the right track.

For all non-CP stuff, squadrons aren't operational entities.  They are force providers.  Whenever we DO anything, we mix and match people from lots of squadrons to build the response. 

It makes a lot of sense for squadrons to be training centers, assuming we can get over the problem that many squadrons don't have resident experts on hand to do the training.

Possible solutions include squadron specialization (i.e. a "comms squadron" or a "ground team" squadron), so you don't have to train everything, or perhaps more self explanatory training materials, eliminating the need for as many experts.

Now on the CP side, things are a bit different - cadets can live their whole life in a single squadron.  For them it is an operational entity.

I don't think centralization of CP will work well in very large Wings.

[mikeylikey]

Somewhat off center.....but.......I was once a member of a SQD that had a weekly meeting and a mandatory monthly Training Assembly.  We were co-located at an AF Reserve station so our monthly training was in conjunction with the UTA (<----correct terminology I think).  We (the Officers) attended the morning formations both Saturday and Sunday.....we attended various workships and programs and were part of the AF team during that weekend UTA.  On the Cadet side they were rotated each month to a different function (i.e. Security, OPPS, even the financial management SQD).  It was perfect......we were billeted and fed by the AF RES. 
Heck....even our Chaplains took turns to give the sermons on Sunday. 

Most states have an Air Guard and Some have Air Reserve units right?  Why can't we take what I was part of and make it into something on a national scale?  You attend your weekly meetings......but there is an absolutely mandatory UTA at the nearest Reserve/Guard station.  If you miss the Training....you have to make the time up sometime before the next months training. 

Lets get more "in bed" with the AF.  We are more like that Reserve forces than Active Duty......why not act like them.  They offer a whole lot CAP members can take advantage of.

[Nick Critelli]

While I am glad to see that people are still curious about the IAWG, the only silver  bullet  or  take away from  our experience is NOT the end result but that a  due diligence process or some other form of qualitative analysis should be used at the Wing level.

We used four forms of qualitative analysis:

1. OODA Loops (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act)
2. Improvement Cycling
3. SWOT (Strength, Weakness Opportunities and Threats)and
4  Option/Criteria weighing.

All program are subject to OODA looping and improvement cycle analysis.  This has resulted in incremental modifications to our core programs, e.g. OTS, ICAPA, Squadron   leadership succession, etc.

It has also brought to our attention the concept of the specialty squadron.  In October 2003 we identified two areas where specialization could benefit our mission response: Flying units and communication units.  Reading value in the old saw that "birds of a feather flock together" we have started a OODA loop on the concept.   We have experience with flying squadrons that is positive.  A year ago we opened a Virtual HQ for the communications people in the Wing. It too has proved workable as they begin to think and work as a unit.  Frankly I like the concept but whether it  will past SWOT and Option/Criteria analysis is an entirely different matter.  I am always amazed at how many good ideas fall by the wayside when subjected to this analysis.

The title of the thread is FORECAST OF IOWA WING. Our forecast is simple: IAWG will forever be in an qualitative analysis mode, our existing programs will change and there will be new and different programs to fit existing and future  problems.

In the movie Annie Hall, Woody Allen is lamenting the fact that his relationship with Ms. Hall is fading. He explains the issue by saying that relationships are like a shark. .. "It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark."   CAP is no different...it must continuously keep moving, adjusting, modifying and creating...or it will die.  Given the need for and demands made upon IAWG at the time,  our Wing leadership did an excellent job of keeping us, moving, alive and well.  But then was then and now is now. New demands create the need for us to keep moving.  Were we to do  nothing we would have been dead in the water and  dishonored  our prior leaders who kept the Wing in good shape.

I have received several requests to address Wing Conferences and Squadron meetings to talk about our experiences and process.  While  I'm happy to do so,  all requests must come from your Wing CC to my Wing CC. 

NC

[RogueLeader]

It is apparent that IAWG Leadership has plans to change the organization at the wing and lower levels.  Do you think that it would be better to have goals that everyone in the wing knows about, and can have the opportunity to contribute?  Now I know that everyone will not agree, nor can you put it to a vote; but you could say is:
'Here are our long term goals:
  Move all Field Grade Officers to Wing
  Centralize Cadet Programs- with localized Detachments
  Wing-centric operational command
  Standardized Training to ensure quality.

The reasons are . . . . .
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact . . . ."

If that approach was used, I believe that many people- including myself- would be more accepting of the proposals, as they came down the line.

[Major Carrales]

I come from a Wing where many of our Groups are Larger than Iowa, I think Texas would have to take another track.

I'm a field grade officer quite dedicated to in growth of my unit and other in the area, my Wing HQ is Four hours away...how will this add to my CAP experience?

[RogueLeader]

That is the same situation that I was in-except for grade- while I was in Iowa.  The concept of what Iowa is doing- it works.  It does not, however, work for other Wings.  I honestly believe that it could functionally work at the Group level.  The vision for it though, needs to come from wing.  Send a proposal through the chain of command suggesting steps to take and how to get there.  Get the State Director on-board.  Lets stop just talking about it and DO something to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

[TDHenderson]

Here is my forecast for the Iowa Wing.   

http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/USIA0424?from=month_topnav_undeclared

Looks to be hot for the upcoming WTA!

[RogueLeader]

Here is my forecast for the Iowa Wing.   

http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/USIA0424?from=month_topnav_undeclared

Looks to be hot for the upcoming WTA!

It ain't so cool here in OK either.  Stay safe, and as always have fun.

[Hawk200]

Somewhat off center.....but.......I was once a member of a SQD that had a weekly meeting and a mandatory monthly Training Assembly.  We were co-located at an AF Reserve station so our monthly training was in conjunction with the UTA (<----correct terminology I think).  We (the Officers) attended the morning formations both Saturday and Sunday.....we attended various workships and programs and were part of the AF team during that weekend UTA.  On the Cadet side they were rotated each month to a different function (i.e. Security, OPPS, even the financial management SQD).  It was perfect......we were billeted and fed by the AF RES. 
Heck....even our Chaplains took turns to give the sermons on Sunday. 

Most states have an Air Guard and Some have Air Reserve units right?  Why can't we take what I was part of and make it into something on a national scale?  You attend your weekly meetings......but there is an absolutely mandatory UTA at the nearest Reserve/Guard station.  If you miss the Training....you have to make the time up sometime before the next months training. 

Lets get more "in bed" with the AF.  We are more like that Reserve forces than Active Duty......why not act like them.  They offer a whole lot CAP members can take advantage of.

I kind of like this idea. It would be nice to work with them hand in hand. I wouldn't make it mandatory, there are enough folks here that don't like the idea of being more like AF officers, I imagine they would shudder at the thought of actually working with them. As long as it didn't conflict with my current Guard schedule, I would enjoy something like this.

[ZigZag911]

Most CAP squadrons have too few senior members on staff, each  trying to do too many jobs.

The reason for this is that, in terms of numbers, relatively few of our squadrons actually approach USAF squadron level numbers -- yet they are expected function as if they, in fact, had that many members.

Iowa did not need to invent CAP 'detachments' (this is simply an observation, not a criticism)....we already have an ideal sized unit to be the community based "tactical" unit: the CAP flight.

Probably what we need to do is raise the requirement of number of seniors to charter a squadron to something like 15 or even 20.

Flights could either be assigned under a Group HQ, or several could be components of a training squadron, as mentioned by John Kach, that would give administrative and logistic support: PAO, personnel, finance (below Wing banker level), Ops, safety program, aerospace, chaplain -- pretty much the whole 'staff' shooting match.

The seniors in the flights would be   filling either cadet leadership officer roles, or ES filed roles (aircrew, GTL/GTM), or both.

[RogueLeader]

For the Record, I do like what the Iowa Wing is doing to be more relevant.  I do not, however, like the way it is being presented and actuated.  I honestly believe that had  Wing leadership put their proposal together under a system as outlined above, I think there would have been less resistance.

[Eclipse]

Most states have an Air Guard and Some have Air Reserve units right?  Why can't we take what I was part of and make it into something on a national scale?  You attend your weekly meetings......but there is an absolutely mandatory UTA at the nearest Reserve/Guard station.  If you miss the Training....you have to make the time up sometime before the next months training. 

Yeah, I'm going to drive 4-5 hours to Scott AFB once a month, for training I can get (better) at home.

Let's all remember something.

The word "mandatory" is hollow in CAP.  What are you going to do?  Fire me?  Seems a little self-defeating.


Hold me back for promotion? (nope, regs say you can't add anything to the requirements already included in the regs).

At last check, the whole of IAWG was as big as my group.  By hook, crook, or luck, they seem to have found something that works FOR THEM.

It is a house of cards dependant on the benevolence of a number of people, none of whom are immortal or elected for life.

5-10 years?  Looks around you.  How many of today's CAP leaders were even in the organization 10 years ago?  How many who were leaders then, are still even >in< CAP, let alone still in a position of influence and/or authority?

The wrong thing said to the wrong person in Iowa government, and it collapses.

A Governor who can't spell CAP?  Or wants to cut costs?  Flat.

New Wing CC who believes the REAL program, versus a mini-state guard is more important?  Gone.

New Region CC or CAPFLT001 with different ideas?  Bye.

When you work THE program, you can be reasonably sure that the majority of your operations won't just disappear overnight.  When you make up your own rules and depend on outside resources or organizations, you run the risk of all your work being for nothing.

[Eclipse]

It also needs to be said that people join for their own reasons, and you can't force them to do anything.

We do not have billets, duty assignments, or "stations".

You can't force field grade officers to wing staff, what if they don't want to do a staff job?  What if they are productive aircrew, who enjoys the camaraderie of his unit and just wants to fly?  You can't hold back his promotion, and you can't MAKE him serve at wing.

So you transfer him and hack him off.

What's the point of that?

You also can't have "Comm Squadrons" and "Ground Squadrons", etc. for the same reason.

CAP is supposed to be about providing people the chance to serve in uniform, locally, in ways which leverage their existing aptitudes and experience in order to build a force of people who are good citizens, stewards of their community, and ready to respond to emergencies.

It is not about augmenting the military, shoring up weak state guard budgets, or building a mini-defense force.

By design, training, and operational ability, we are 2nd and 3rd responders, in place to assist and relieve
the 1st responders.  In the chess game of life (and especially emergency services) this is as important a piece as the 1st wave.

Its the members frustrated about that >FACT< that are pushing us into areas we do not belong, and operational models which will not work.

[mikeylikey]

By design, training, and operational ability, we are 2nd and 3rd responders, in place to assist and relieve
the 1st responders.  In the chess game of life (and especially emergency services) this is as important a piece as the 1st wave.

I have to disagree that that is not the case!  It is apparent just by reading the newspaper articles CAPNHQ throws up on the website that CAP search teams are called in by Law Enforcement usually as a first responder.  Members are called by the AF to go find ELT's to right?  We worked Katrina supporting no one except the residents down there.  Granted there are times when we will assist and relieve some first responders......but don't sell our organization short!

[JohnKachenmeister]

It also needs to be said that people join for their own reasons, and you can't force them to do anything.

We do not have billets, duty assignments, or "stations".

You can't force field grade officers to wing staff, what if they don't want to do a staff job?  What if they are productive aircrew, who enjoys the camaraderie of his unit and just wants to fly?  You can't hold back his promotion, and you can't MAKE him serve at wing.

So you transfer him and hack him off.

What's the point of that?

You also can't have "Comm Squadrons" and "Ground Squadrons", etc. for the same reason.

CAP is supposed to be about providing people the chance to serve in uniform, locally, in ways which leverage their existing aptitudes and experience in order to build a force of people who are good citizens, stewards of their community, and ready to respond to emergencies.

It is not about augmenting the military, shoring up weak state guard budgets, or building a mini-defense force.

By design, training, and operational ability, we are 2nd and 3rd responders, in place to assist and relieve
the 1st responders.  In the chess game of life (and especially emergency services) this is as important a piece as the 1st wave.

Its the members frustrated about that >FACT< that are pushing us into areas we do not belong, and operational models which will not work.

Eclipse:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Follow me for a minute.

We have 3 missions.  AE, Cadet, and ES.  Why not have three distinct types of squadrons? 

The cadet squadrons would run CP, and the AE squadrons would be the education experts.  The ES experts would be in ES squadrons.  Each squadron would simply allocate time for training on all three missions, and the specialty squadrons would provide contact training teams within their area.

For example:  I command the Wrongway Corrigan Memorial Cadet Squadron.  I and my officers run the cadet program, testing, PT, drill, inspections, activities, etc.  I want ES training for my cadets to get them ready to assist in CAP's ES missions.  I set aside the 3rd week of each month as "ES Day," and arrange for the commander of the Pancho Barnes Memorial Senior Squadron, which is the ES unit in my area, to send trainers over, establish a curriculum, and train my cadets and officers in GT, Flight Line, Commo, or whatever specialty is needed by the team.  The Barnes Squadron keeps the ES records, and updates the 101 cards. 

I also task the Manfred von Richtoffen Squadron (AE) to conduct the AE program on the 2nd week of each month.  Von Richtoffen's officers are also trained in ES by a crew from Barnes.   Von Richtoffen also sends AE teams to Barnes to manage the senior AE program there, and conducts all external AE in the assigned geographical area.

All cadets are mine.  Barnes and von Richtoffen are officer-only squadrons.

What would be wrong with THIS plan? 

[ColonelJack]

[What would be wrong with THIS plan? 

Nothing -- provided the Barnes and von Richtofen squadrons were within a reasonable distance for travel to your unit.  If they are a 4 - 5 hour drive away, or require flying in more than two or three people, you've got a problem if the individuals involved have "real-life" conflicts with your training schedule.  In fact, Kach, that's a pretty good set-up.  But how many other wings or groups have similar arrangements (or are even in a position to make similar arrangements)?

I think I see what Eclipse is trying to say here, though.  IAWG has found something that works well -- for them -- for now.  While we all are justifiably proud of their set-up and wish it the greatest success, it must be noted that it could all fall apart as soon as someone new is introduced into a leadeship position -- someone who doesn't share the vision but has the authority to change things, be it in CAP, the military, or the Iowa state government.  And all the "signed accords" in the world won't stop a new governor or state legislator who's trying to make a political name for him/herself from chopping the whole thing off if it makes him/her look like they're trying to save state money.

Just food for thought.

Jack

[JohnKachenmeister]

[What would be wrong with THIS plan? 

Nothing -- provided the Barnes and von Richtofen squadrons were within a reasonable distance for travel to your unit.  If they are a 4 - 5 hour drive away, or require flying in more than two or three people, you've got a problem if the individuals involved have "real-life" conflicts with your training schedule.  In fact, Kach, that's a pretty good set-up.  But how many other wings or groups have similar arrangements (or are even in a position to make similar arrangements)?

I think I see what Eclipse is trying to say here, though.  IAWG has found something that works well -- for them -- for now.  While we all are justifiably proud of their set-up and wish it the greatest success, it must be noted that it could all fall apart as soon as someone new is introduced into a leadeship position -- someone who doesn't share the vision but has the authority to change things, be it in CAP, the military, or the Iowa state government.  And all the "signed accords" in the world won't stop a new governor or state legislator who's trying to make a political name for him/herself from chopping the whole thing off if it makes him/her look like they're trying to save state money.

Just food for thought.

Jack

Jack:

You are right.  Organizing regionally would work where there are units within a reasonable commute.

Or... You could have  "Super-units,"  for example.  If distance is a problem, you assign local folks to Barnes and von Richtoffen who live near Corrigan.  They actually serve at Corrigan, although assigned 500 miles away where their home squadrons are based.  The home unit commanders set up mandatory training sessions to maintain currency 2-3 times per year where the outlying folks have to come in for a weekend of updating their training and proficiency.

Just about any problem can be solved.  Well, except for the Arab-Israeli conflct, the pacification of Baghdad, and the "Tastes great-less filling" controversy.