Inactive senior members

[RADIOMAN015]

Something to the effect of you have X number of members in the state and only X% can respond in an emergency.

If our roster reflected accurate numbers the % would be much higher.

If you're interested in ES response capability, then the percentage of members who can respond is 100% meaningless.  If CAP has 2500 mission pilots it makes no difference if there are 10,000 or 500,000 inactive members on the rolls. 

What counts is the number able to respond and if we're using the total membership number as a way of promoting our ES response capability (which I know we do), then we should stop doing that.  The easy replacement is the number of people with current 101 cards.  This provides the max number of people that can respond.  If more detail is needed (# of pilots, # of ground team members) that can be requested or promoted separately.

I agree with you & I fail to see how total membership numbers have anything to do with ES response capabilities .  The members that are active in CAP ES, retain their ES qualifications & that is reflected in E Services.  Also members' can indicate when they are available for missions.  Pretty easy to determine as a percentage of total membership.  HOWEVER, just like volunteer fire departments you really have NO idea who is going to show up when the alert goes out until the alert calls go out.

HOWEVER, that being said when CAP says it has 56,000 members, it really doesn't indicate how many are patron, non active, retired, etc.....   Additionally though, don't wings get credit for keeping aircraft IF they have so many pilots etc?
RM

[Eclipse]

I agree with you & I fail to see how total membership numbers have anything to do with ES response capabilities .  The members that are active in CAP ES, retain their ES qualifications & that is reflected in E Services.  Also members' can indicate when they are available for missions.  Pretty easy to determine as a percentage of total membership.  HOWEVER, just like volunteer fire departments you really have NO idea who is going to show up when the alert goes out until the alert calls go out.

The last time we cycled 101 cards was 2004 - that's 5 years of members with active 101 cards who may have found different places to spend their time.  A rating is generally considered "current" for at least three years.  3-5 years exceeds many CAP careers, especially cadets.

But we're not just talking ES.  Our three missions require people and resources.  Incorrectly reporting the membership skews everything, as well as the assumptions made by higher HQ and Big Brother Blue.  As an organization, our ability to execute our three missions, especially the "Big-2" is severely challenged by a lack of people at all levels, but worse, the assumption of our capabilities is artificially high as well, which means our performance potentially looks worse than it really is.

Does anyone seriously expect the same level of performance and execution of a 10-man flight as of a 100-member composite squadron?

...don't wings get credit for keeping aircraft IF they have so many pilots etc?

No, its based on hours flown, and anything under 200 actual per airframe makes that plane vulnerable to reassignment.  Inside a wing aircraft placement decisions are generally made with an eye to where the most pilots are, with a tie going to units with more MPs,  but the inactive member issue isn't relevant there, because "inactive members" as we are describing aren't going to be current Form 5 and 91 pilots.

The reality is that many commanders consider anyone with a PPL to be a "pilot" in the CAP context, regardless of whether these members can fly as PIC.  I had one commander who boasted of the "...most pilots in the wing..."

PPL's?  Lots.  F5's? 2, with no one working their way up, because the two F5's were taking up the rest of the PPL's for cheap right-seat time, which was all they cared about.

[SarDragon]

That is what we have the Patron status for.  You can always change it back if the member becomes active.

This way the members still writes out the checks, National still cashes it, the numbers don't change on the squadron roster but the active member numbers for the unit, which is important for various reasons, some already mentioned, stay realistic.

But, and this, IMHO, is a big but, Patron members only pay National dues. Those empty shirts on the unit rosters y'all are talking about pay the full ride, so the region and wing get their piece of the pie, too. If someone is willing to pony up the bucks, why not give them a little slack.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

But, and this, IMHO, is a big but, Patron members only pay National dues. Those empty shirts on the unit rosters y'all are talking about pay the full ride, so the region and wing get their piece of the pie, too. If someone is willing to pony up the bucks, why not give them a little slack.

That's fine, and what 000 is for.

If you've got a twice-a-year member who likes to wander into a meeting on the random 5th Tuesday when Desperate Housewives is a rerun, no problem. 000 status preserves grade, allows casual participation, and relieves anyone from having to pay attention to PD and other compliance issues which the member himself has no interest in.

The only limitations to participation (in my wing, anyway) is that once your ticket(s) run out, theres no opportunity for renewal because there is no 000 commander.  Find a new home and you're right back in the game.

Meanwhile, no one is reporting you as an asset to the organization on any level but financial. 

[RiverAux]

Apparently in TX they moved some ghost squadron members into a squadron under the membership limit giving the remaining active members time to turn it around and less than 2 years later have 20 active.  http://lubbockonline.com/stories/090409/fea_489750383.shtml

[Eclipse]

Apparently in TX they moved some ghost squadron members into a squadron under the membership limit giving the remaining active members time to turn it around and less than 2 years later have 20 active.  http://lubbockonline.com/stories/090409/fea_489750383.shtml

I saw that article, too.

An excellent use of the chess pieces, though I don't know that'd I'd be going around talking about it.