Composite Squadron Organization

[TheSkyHornet]

Yes, it's another one of those questions that pops up from time to time. But so far, I haven't seen any reference to this line of the text:

CAPR 20-1

3. Organizational Structure.
Civil Air Patrol's organizational structure at all levels follows the basic organizational
concepts in this regulation. However, there may be situations where wings/units need to realign organizational elements to fit
unique mission requirements. In these cases region commanders may approve deviations to improve efficiency.

a. Position descriptions at all echelons (national, region, wing, group, and squadron) are so similar that the same position
description applies to all levels, unless otherwise indicated. Short, brief sentences in the position descriptions give a broad
picture of the duties of each position. The tasks listed are described in detail in other CAP directives. All phases of each
functional area have been covered in each position description even though some units may not have a need for every task.
Local units are authorized and encouraged to develop more detailed position descriptions to fit individual unit situations.

b. Each unit commander should develop and post an organizational chart at headquarters, depicting the name and grade of
the incumbent of each position and the specific duties of each so unit personnel know their responsibilities and their chain of
command. In smaller units, it may be necessary that more than one position be filled by the same member; however, someone
should be responsible for each task outlined in the position description so the entire unit is aware of who is responsible for
which duties.

CAPP 52-15

1.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
If units provide tailor–made challenges for ranking cadets, each unit is
apt to have a unique organizational structure. There is no "one size fits
all" solution or standard organizational chart for a cadet unit. Each
squadron should choose an organizational structure that is appropriate
for its mix of cadets, be the squadron big or small, top-heavy or
bottom-heavy.

(Emphasis in bold = mine)


So, what I see are many units that do things many different ways, which I heavily agree with. As a volunteer force, we structure things in a way that work for us to be most efficient/effective to accomplish our missions, be it Cadet Programs or ES Ops or AE.

Is there anyone here that refers to Region to get approval on their organization structure?

One of the topics that keeps popping up is the fact that in a Senior Squadron, everyone reports to the Deputy Commander. In a Cadet Squadron, everyone reports to the Deputy Commander. In a Composite Squadron, the operational corps reports to the Deputy Commander for Seniors, and the Cadet Program reports to the Deputy Commander for Cadets; but the support staff report directly to the Squadron Commander.

Why would the support staff not report to the CDS, or why not have an XO in there? I get it, CAP tries to do the military thing with its structure, but most squadrons are designed to act like a full air wing rather than an individual squadron with a specific function. That's the reality of trying to maximize the resources to operate. I get it. But there's that elephant in the room mish-mosh of where people are supposed to report.

In some smaller units that don't have the resources, but have established org charts, I see conflicts where the CDS is actually the Squadron Deputy Commander with the CDC reporting to him/her. This is completely against the chain of command that CAP expects to see because CP does not report to the Senior Program. I see some units that have a Deputy Commander or Vice Commander with the CDS and CDC below him/her equally. But when unit members wear multiple hats, you do get those crossed lines at times.

So, I can't see that many squadrons are actually going by that excerpt from CAPR 20-1 while nearly all of them will in some way be influenced by that of the Cadet Staff Handbook and tweak their Cadet Program to function as they see fit. Are there really units submitting their org charts to region for approval?

[JeffDG]

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

[Holding Pattern]

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

You do see the "except" right after that, yes?

[TheSkyHornet]

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

And I'll defer that to the previous question as well. It ties in completely with the region commander approval.

I'm not trying to be the "skirt the regs" guy, but how many units here have an org chart that doesn't match the figures in CAPR 20-1? And how many reorganize their Cadet Program structure without going to region on that?

The wording in 20-1 seems pretty clear: If you want to change it, you need approval from region. We know for a fact that this is a routine violation by many units. But is the intent incorrectly written in here in that this is supposed to be more for Wing-level units and not so much the local squadron, or is this every unit? I don't know why the phrase "Wings/units" was used rather than, "Wings, Groups (if applicable), Squadrons, and sole Flights (if applicable)."

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

You do see the "except" right after that, yes?

I would take expanding staff elements as adding in something like "Assistant Operations Officer" or "Assistant Deputy Commander for Cadets." Necessary or not, that's Commander discretion.

My specific point is in regard to the approval of a restructure (deviation from CAPR 20-1) by higher command.

[lordmonar]

[rant]
CAPR 20-1 is majorly busted.   And that "region commander approval" is just the first part of it.
Like the region commander cares if cadet squadron X has an ES officer or if you want to have a DO and and EXO instead of a CDS.
Or if you want your ITO to report to the Comm Officer instead of the deputy commander.

Anyone who knows about leadership can see that the span of control on almost every one of the flow charts is jacked up.

Add to that "this is the best organization" is a direct lie.....as it does not account for the fact that most units only got 20 people in them in the  first place.
[/rant]
You may return to your regularly scheduled thread.   

[JeffDG]

[rant]
CAPR 20-1 is majorly busted.   And that "region commander approval" is just the first part of it.
Like the region commander cares if cadet squadron X has an ES officer or if you want to have a DO and and EXO instead of a CDS.
Or if you want your ITO to report to the Comm Officer instead of the deputy commander.

Anyone who knows about leadership can see that the span of control on almost every one of the flow charts is jacked up.

Add to that "this is the best organization" is a direct lie.....as it does not account for the fact that most units only got 20 people in them in the  first place.
[/rant]
You may return to your regularly scheduled thread. 

It's more "jacked up" than that.

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

In terms of Span-of-Control, I think that I, as a Wing CoS, have 17 direct reports.  You cannot effectively manage 17 direct reports as a full-time manager drawing a rather large salary, let alone a part-time volunteer who has to prioritize his day-job.

[Holding Pattern]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

[JeffDG]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

It says "deviations are not authorized", pretty simple language.

[Holding Pattern]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

It says "deviations are not authorized", pretty simple language.

If you read the very next word, it says "except" and continues from there.

[SarDragon]

And to provide a third iteration of the text of that paragraph:

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

[JeffDG]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

It says "deviations are not authorized", pretty simple language.

If you read the very next word, it says "except" and continues from there.

True, but the org charts themselves are fixed and not changeable, even by CAP/CC.  You can blow things out below that level if you want, and go nuts.  But, you still have 17 people reporting to the Wing Chief of Staff.

[Al Sayre]

Unless you get some deputies...

[grunt82abn]

New guy question since we are talking about span of control during Incidents. Are these structures basic templates like we use in Fed Fire which allot for "Minimum Manning" and allow the IC to appoint positions based on incident need? Or, are these structures set pieces and the IC cannot add or delete from these manning charts?

[Spaceman3750]

New guy question since we are talking about span of control during Incidents. Are these structures basic templates like we use in Fed Fire which allot for "Minimum Manning" and allow the IC to appoint positions based on incident need? Or, are these structures set pieces and the IC cannot add or delete from these manning charts?

ICS has its own command structure independent of the unit. Most of our incidents tend to look the same, but according to ICS, below the command & general staff level (FLOP, IO, MSO, LO, IC, etc) the IC can open and close branches, units, divisions, etc as needed.

[JeffDG]

New guy question since we are talking about span of control during Incidents. Are these structures basic templates like we use in Fed Fire which allot for "Minimum Manning" and allow the IC to appoint positions based on incident need? Or, are these structures set pieces and the IC cannot add or delete from these manning charts?

What's being discussed here is day-to-day org charts for squadrons/groups/wings/regions, not ICS stuff.

On missions, we use ICS, and yes, it expands/contracts based upon need.  As you're no doubt aware, ICS is specifically designed to be flexible.  On a 2AM ELT search, no way in hell am I going to have an OSC, ABOD, GBD, PSC, LSC, FASC, CUL, etc. etc.  I might grab someone to round up the air-crews and make him the AOBD reporting directly to the IC, have an MSO to watch my back and make sure I don't get too "mission focused" and not consider safety, and maybe a comm guy if I'm lucky!  On a large scale exercise/mission, I'm going to want the whole staff filled out.

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

[JeffDG]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

[A.Member]

Unless you get some deputies...

But the deputies are not direct reports.  The direct report may have delegates, assistants, or deputies, but those positions would still report up through the direct who still maintains responsibility and accountability for the assigned duties.  As a Chief of Staff, I wouldn't go to the deputies, I'd be looking to the direct. 

Figure 16 in CAPR 20-1 depicts the hierarchy Composite Squadron Hierarchy for Seniors very clearly, as well as identifying those positions that are allowed subordinates.

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

That is the way the fire service does it, for the most part. Battalion Chief is IC, Company officers fill certain roles, and the bigger the incident gets, On coming chiefs and officers fill roles as needed. Not saying this would ever fly in CAP, but now that you bring it up, it seems like a solid idea!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[PHall]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

That is the way the fire service does it, for the most part. Battalion Chief is IC, Company officers fill certain roles, and the bigger the incident gets, On coming chiefs and officers fill roles as needed. Not saying this would ever fly in CAP, but now that you bring it up, it seems like a solid idea!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Now, let's see you "sell" this idea to the folks at National who actually write the regs.  I'll wait...