Flight Officer revamp -- what if?

[supertigerCH]

Here's an idea...


Most likely people's opinions about this will vary widely... but what else is new when it comes to uniforms?



What if CAP were to stop the (somewhat silly looking) practice... of "Senior Members Without Grade" wearing epaulets with no rank on them?

What if when a new member joined CAP (and finished the Orientation, Exam, and Cadet Protection, etc.) he/she was given the rank (and epaulets) of Flight Officer?

What if after 6 months, those Flight Officers who wanted to be part of the "Regular" Leadership/Officer track... would then be made 2nd Lieutenants, and move up the ranks from there?

What if the remaining Flight Officers were then to keep the rank of Flight Officer all the time... instead of being referred to as SMWOG?

What if, after 5 total honorable years of service in CAP... Flight Officers became Technical Flight Officers... and after 10 total honorable years of service to CAP... Tech. Flight Officers became Senior Flight Officers?


This seems like it would eliminate the goofy practice of some members walking around in uniforms with epaulets that have no rank on them.  Also, it would allow those who want to be regular officers to move up into officer ranks early on... and (over time) would still recognize the years of service given by those who don't want to be regular officers or NCOs.

After all... even members who are not regular officers or NCOs... still accumulate knowledge & experience after working for & being part of CAP for so many years.


Cadets who turn 18 would still continue the practice of serving more time as a cadet... or becoming a flight officer until age 21.  That part would stay the same as it is now.


Just a random idea...

Thoughts or opinions anyone?

[Luis R. Ramos]

It would be great if people would drop the SMWOG since NHQ never made it a grade. People adopted that on their own after reading too much in the appropriate regulations...

[SarDragon]

Some prior perspective on SMWOG:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10904.msg295705#msg295705

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18401.msg334826#msg334826

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10177.msg185497#msg185497

That's enough. you'll get the idea.

[supertigerCH]

What are people's thoughts about an actual change... in who CAP would call Flight Officers (like what has been proposed here)?


Making those people who (up until now) have been referred to as "SMWOG" into Flight Officers... therefore giving them some type of rank if they choose to serve CAP in this way.

We all know many members of CAP who are like this... who enjoy doing work, helping and serving in whatever way they can... but they are not really interested in having high rank or leadership positions.  They are very content at just helping and donating their time to do work supportive of CAP.

Such a change would allow these people to keep serving in the way they enjoy best... and would give them an occasional "promotion" (Technical Flight Officer, Senior Flight Officer) that recognized their experience & years in CAP... without adding the leadership pressures of becoming a regular officer.



As was mentioned in the beginning... this would eliminate the phrase "Senior Members Without Grade" ...and would also still provide a "launching point" for all members who wanted to move up into the regular officer leadership track after joining.

[Storm Chaser]

It would be great if people would drop the SMWOG since NHQ never made it a grade. People adopted that on their own after reading too much in the appropriate regulations...

Members using the unofficial SMWOG (Senior Member Without Grade) is no different that members using other unofficial acronyms or terms such as BBDU, G/W, covers (not a CAP or USAF term), blues, etc. What else should we call them? Members who have not been promoted yet?

[supertigerCH]

I guess that's kind of the main idea of this thread.


How about making people Flight Officers when they first enter CAP (when they finish all the joining requirements such as Orientation, Exam, Cadet Protection, etc.)?  That way as soon as the complete the membership requirements for joining... BANG! they are a Flight Officer.

It would be the starting rank for everyone who joined (from the moment their application is approved by National).  There would not then be a "limbo" period anymore... and members without rank would not even exist.

Problem Solved.



(and of course those people who wanted to work on the requirements for promotion to Lieutenant after 6 months could do so.)

[JeffDG]

Yet another solution in desperate search of a problem.

[supertigerCH]

Hi Jeff,


Don't know if this an example of "something that's not a problem".

The reason I started this thread was because so many people (at my squadron and here in CAPTALK)... are always talking about SMWOG... and what they're really supposed to be called, and if it's even a rank or not.  After years in CAP, members still continue to go back and forth about this.


(Also if you take time to look at what I named the thread... you will see that it's not a proposed "solution" to anything.  Rather, as it says, this is a "What if?" ...which means it is just an idea for people to toss back and forth.)


I ask anyone's forgiveness... who was under the impression that I just made myself a CAP General by bringing this topic up.

[Eclipse]

The reason I started this thread was because so many people (both at my squadron and here in CAPTALK) are always talking back and forth about SMWOG... and what they're really supposed to be called, and if it's either a rank or not.  After years in CAP, members still continue to go back and forth about this.

SMWOG is a status, not a grade.  The proper term is "Senior Member", but because that is also the generic for anyone over 21 in the program,
the WOG is added, usually only in text.

In a perfect world, members would join as "nothing", perhaps "airmen", etc.  Complete their Level 1 and whatever basic training
was considered as the minimum, and then perhaps "declare" their intentions to pursue either technical (enlisted) or management
(officer) duties.  No reason there couldn't be mobility within that declaration, but not as much as there is today.

Sadly, we're at least 2/3rds short of the number of members to make that viable.

[Flying Pig]

I think it adds, nor takes away absolutely nothing to the program.  Just like the whole NCO discussions.  No rank in CAP has anything to do with what you can participate in.  I enjoyed CAP as a 10yr 1st LT.  Flew, commanded the cadet program, commanded a squadron...had a good ol' time. 

Edit:  I meant "it neither adds, nor takes away....."

[supertigerCH]

Flying Pig,

You're exactly right.  Rank in CAP does not determine what things you can (and cannot) be involved in.  It's one of the neat things about the more informal side of CAP. 

[Storm Chaser]

One possible alternative to the status quo is using the term "Officer Trainee" for those members pursuing officer grades and "NCO Trainee" for those pursuing NCO grades. That would be compatible with the distinction in uniform made in CAPM 39-1 for these two tracks.

Interesting enough, CAPR 35-5, Para. 1-4 refers to these members as "CAP members without grade". Should we start using the acronym CAPMWOG instead?

[Eclipse]

One possible alternative to the status quo is using the term "Officer Trainee" for those members pursuing officer grades and "NCO Trainee" for those pursuing NCO grades. That would be compatible with the distinction in uniform made in CAPM 39-1 for these two tracks.

That's fine, but I don't think you should declare until you're past Level 1 and have a clue.

Perhaps the membership ribbon requires a member to declare?

[Flying Pig]

One possible alternative to the status quo is using the term "Officer Trainee" for those members pursuing officer grades and "NCO Trainee" for those pursuing NCO grades. That would be compatible with the distinction in uniform made in CAPM 39-1 for these two tracks.

That's fine, but I don't think you should declare until you're past Level 1 and have a clue.

Perhaps the membership ribbon requires a member to declare?

Im really NOT trying to derail this but I have to ask......  Has CAP determined that there will be specific NCO and officer duties? 

[Storm Chaser]

Not yet.

[Flying Pig]

You'd think they would have identified the need before implementing the program 

[Luis R. Ramos]

What should we call them?

How about... senior members!!! No rocket science. What the regulations call them.

What the regulations always called them.

It was not until 2005 that someone ended reading a little too much into regs and decided that all senior members were and should be treated as officers. So, if (s)he is not a lieutenant, (s)he must have the officer grade of Senior Member Without Grade.

We keep reading that "CAP Grade structure parallels the Air Force."

Use your common sense, people!

Since when the US Air Force has the grade of Officer Without Grade?

No Rocket Science!!!

[Storm Chaser]

What should we call them?

How about... senior members!!! No rocket science. What the regulations call them.

What the regulations always called them.

It was not until 2005 that someone ended reading a little too much into regs and decided that all senior members were and should be treated as officers. So, if (s)he is not a lieutenant, (s)he must have the officer grade of Senior Member Without Grade.

We keep reading that "CAP Grade structure parallels the Air Force."

Use your common sense, people!

Since when the US Air Force has the grade of Officer Without Grade?

No Rocket Science!!!

No, they have Officer Trainee for those attending OTS and Cadet for those attending ROTC or the USAFA. Neither of those are pay grades. On the enlisted side, they have Airman Basic, which has a pay grade (E-1).

Since now we have two tracks (those pursuing officer grades and those pursuing NCO grades) as described by CAPM 39-1, Para. 1.4 and CAPR 35-5, Para. 1-2, I recommended the terms "Officer Trainee" and "NCO Trainee", respectively.

That said, Senior Member without Grade (SMWOG) is not necessarily an inappropriate term. While eServices identifies members without grade as SM (Senior Member), technically all active adult members are senior members.

Also, is that really what the regulations call members without grade? Well, let's see.

All members will be enrolled as CAP members without grade...

Adult individuals without grade...

Active Member

According to CAPR 39-2, senior members include active, reserve/patron and retired members.

And while eServices identifies adult members without grade as SM, it also identifies cadets that have not completed Achievement 1 as CADET, even though they do have a grade: Cadet Airman Basic (C/AB).

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have suggested this before, but I would take the OP suggestion (which I think has merit) but call them "warrant officers," and revamp the insignia accordingly.

Alright, you have to use a bit of imagination here, but picture these embroidered on standard grey CAP shoulder marks:

WO-1 - appointed after completion of Level I, CPPT, and background check.


CWO-2 - appointed after minimum one year service as WO-1, earning Technician rating in speciality track.


CWO-3 - appointed after minimum two years' service as CWO-2, earning Senior rating in speciality track.


CWO-4 - appointed after minimum three years' service as CWO-3, earning Master rating in speciality track.


SLS, CLC, Wing/Region conferences would be optional, as WO's are specialists.

[supertigerCH]

CyBorg,

You make a good point.  I have often wondered why... if CAP has decided to have Flight Officers... why they didn't make their ranks parallel (and look like) Warrant Officers in the military.  The Air Force DID at one time have Warrant Officers (like the other services), but they got rid of them.

I'm assuming this is the historic reason why CAP created the "Flight Officer" ranks.

Your idea CyBorg makes sense... however I'm not sure if the Air Force would ever go that far... to be okay with changing the look of CAP's Flight Officer Ranks.  My original idea from the beginning of this thread... would keep the current FO ranks looking as they are now, and would only change WHO was called a Flight Officer.


However, I think even my more tame idea would have almost no chance of ever happening... even though a lot of these ideas make sense.

[Storm Chaser]

Your idea CyBorg makes sense... however I'm not sure if the Air Force would ever go that far... to be okay with changing the look of CAP's Flight Officer Ranks.  My original idea from the beginning of this thread... would keep the current FO ranks looking as they are now, and would only change WHO was called a Flight Officer.

I don't see why the Air Force would be opposed, especially given the fact that they don't currently have warrant officers. What could make CAP's grade insignias more distinctive than that?

[Eclipse]

I and other have made the point before - trading one irrelevant set of grade insignia and levels
for a different one, doesn't solve the problem, it just rearranges it.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^My point exactly.

Warrant insignia have not been seen on Air Force uniforms since CWO4 Bob Barrow, AFRES, retired in 1992.

There has been a lot of talk about re-activating Warrant grades (personally I think it's a good idea) but the AF seems decidedly cool to the idea.

What we would be most likely to be confused with (and this is a stretch) is US CBP insignia.  They use military-style rank insignia (but not titles) and it would not surprise me if they use extant Air Force insignia since the colour of blue is so close as to be almost irrelevant.

One of their lower GS grades wears a warrant officer-type insignia.

Look closely at the shoulder marks of this CBP officer.



I am always tempted to call CBP by their military grade insignia equivalents when I pull into customs: "Mr/Ms," "Lieutenant," "Captain," etc.

And (shock horror gasp! ) they also use metal grade insignia, when they are not military...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I and other have made the point before - trading one irrelevant set of grade insignia and levels
for a different one, doesn't solve the problem, it just rearranges it.

I think my proposal has some relevancy.

For warrant grades, all the officer would have to do is become proficient at his/her speciality track.

No SLS, no CLC, no having to hold jobs at Group or Wing...just do the job you want to do.

[Eclipse]

And it serves what purpose?

The GT badge, wings, and/or decorations aren't enough to tell people you are proficient?

[Garibaldi]

All this sounds like a cogent argument for the structure I posted a few weeks ago. Officers to command and fly, enlisted to do the "grunt" work. I'd gladly turn in the gold bottle caps for a set of SSGT stripes, so I could lead my GT.

[Eclipse]

Why do you need the stripes?

[supertigerCH]

Flight Officer/Warrant Officer rank (for non-officer senior members who are not regular officers) would not be to show proficiency in anything.  We have GT, other badges, and wings for that.

Re-structuring Flight Officer/Warrant ranks to include senior members... who are not regular officers... would just get rid of the whole nebulous limbo issue of SMWOG.

[Garibaldi]

Why do you need the stripes?

Why not? It is my firmly held belief that a GT functions like a squad, which doesn't need an officer to lead them. Sure, for Mission Base, you can have an officer or a senior NCO to run it.

I don't NEED the stripes, but being an officer, coming from a cadet NCO environment, I would feel much more comfortable being an NCO in my duties.

[Storm Chaser]

I and other have made the point before - trading one irrelevant set of grade insignia and levels
for a different one, doesn't solve the problem, it just rearranges it.

I and others disagree. Cyborg's proposal is complementary to yours. Permanent Warrant Officer grades to signify PD and progression in the senior program and temporary Officer grades based on duty position. The latter would have authority, but not the former. 

[Storm Chaser]

Why do you need the stripes?

Why do you need the oak leaves?

[Eclipse]

Why do you need the stripes?

Why do you need the oak leaves?

I don't.

[supertigerCH]

I think that one thing people on both sides of this question have in common... is that all of us don't "need" anything.  That's not the reason we joined CAP.

People just hold to their particular opinion about certain things -- because in their eyes they see something that looks like it makes the most practical sense.


Of course everyone will not always see everything the same way, and that's okay.  That's what these forums are here for... the free exchange of ideas.

[Storm Chaser]

Why do you need the stripes?

Why do you need the oak leaves?

I don't.

You can always turn them in, you know?

To be honest, I find it hard to understand your position, as it seems you argue both sides on many of your posts in different threads. You don't think we should have NCOs because there's nothing they can do that officers can't. But yet, everyone shouldn't be an officer. But we also don't need warrant officers. We have too many officers and it's too easy to make field grade officer. But members are being screwed by making the promotion process more difficult. But officers don't have authority and they should; commanders command. Commanders are responsible in their AOR. But NHQ is responsible for everything that goes wrong in CAP, even at the unit level. All regulations must be followed without exception. But we're not the military. But we need to follow a paramilitary organization model. But we shouldn't be compared to the Air Force... except when we should. But we should have one uniform for all. But we shouldn't get rid of AF-style uniforms. But we actually should because we need one uniform. Members should do RSC and NSC; SOS, ACSC and AWC are irrelevant to CAP. But no one should have to do RSC and NSC because the coursework is irrelevant to CAP... and too expensive. But we shouldn't have an inexpensive online version because the course is irrelevant. And I can go on and on until I get a headache.

How is it possible that you're the only person in all of CAP that knows how to "fix" CAP?

[Eclipse]

^ ^ You've characterized the "Great Paradox" quite nicely.  NHQ wants CAP to have its cake and eat it too,
grade without responsibility or authority, anyone can have any job they want regardless of their training
or experience, retention and "not sad" is more important then maintaining good order, etc., etc.

What you wind up is the paragraph above.

The simple matter of fact is that you can't fix this untenable situation with piecemeal solutions
that randomly raise the bar on certain people, create unnecessary sub classes, or by changing the
color of the pins.  That's effort to no results.

So you either leave it alone and accept it as "CAP being CAP" or you take the steps to fix all the pieces so that the
puzzle actually makes sense end-to-end.

In most of these revamps, you have people who are not interested in giving up the trappings of a paramilitary organization,
they just want to tweak things a bit so the USAF won't care as much and they can continue on the down the road, that
doesn't fix anything.  Military grade confers responsibility, authority, and expectations, even at the lowest level,
until CAP grade does the same thing, it's all just an indicator of...well whatever that person wants it to be.

CAP is an organization where 1/2 the people in the room want to wear full military style dress uniforms and
adhere to strict C&C, while the other half of the room wants to "come as you are" and call everyone "hey you".
And NHQ says that's pretty much fine.

How does that work from a logic perspective and not be expected to cause issues and misunderstandings?

I've said about 12 times that my primary heartburn, agreed by others, is not the alignment, but the transition.
From the post with the committee details, it's obvious that the plan as submitted was much more comprehensive then
that which was approved.  It tried to fix and normalize a lot more then was adopted.

From 50k feet it looks that in typical CAP fashion, the glaze was retained and the meat discarded.

[Storm Chaser]

CAP is an organization where 1/2 the people in the room want to wear full military style dress uniforms and adhere to strict C&C, while the other half of the room wants to "come as you are" and call everyone "hey you". And NHQ says that's pretty much fine.

Sadly, I have to agree. The question is, is there room for both?

[Eclipse]

CAP is an organization where 1/2 the people in the room want to wear full military style dress uniforms and adhere to strict C&C, while the other half of the room wants to "come as you are" and call everyone "hey you". And NHQ says that's pretty much fine.

Sadly, I have to agree. The question is, is there room for both?

Obviously there is, because that is what we have today, but not in a non-schizophrenic situation.

1/2 the room thinks the other is wasting their time (and by association their time as well), which fosters
resentment in the other half.  When you ask "dad", he just says "What's the bog deal?"

[supertigerCH]

So... would making new members (who have not attained any rank yet) Flight Officers be okay?  Would it be a relatively simple way of getting rid of the amorphous phantom status of people who are Senior Members... but not yet officers?

For those who didn't want to become CAP officers (or NCOs), would they then be able to have some type official identity (rather than being identified as a sentence describing them).  Would it help make official in our CAP structure a way 4 them to serve quietly & helpfully... in whatever "nitch" position they joined CAP to serve in? (w/out being called something that makes them appear that they're "here... but not really here" like SMWOG?)

[LSThiker]

CAP is an organization where 1/2 the people in the room want to wear full military style dress uniforms and
adhere to strict C&C, while the other half of the room wants to "come as you are" and call everyone "hey you".
And NHQ says that's pretty much fine.

But I thought most want the full CAP experience?

[Ned]

^ ^ You've characterized the "Great Paradox" quite nicely.  NHQ wants CAP to have its cake and eat it too,
grade without responsibility or authority, anyone can have any job they want regardless of their training
or experience, retention and "not sad" is more important then maintaining good order, etc., etc.

What you wind up is the paragraph above.

The simple matter of fact is that you can't fix this untenable situation with piecemeal solutions
that randomly raise the bar on certain people, create unnecessary sub classes, or by changing the
color of the pins.  That's effort to no results.

My Goodness, what a disfunctional organization.  Yet, between all the cake-eating and unqualified people doing any job they want in the midst of an unfixable and untenable situation, it's amazing that we were able to produce any results at all.

Like the 44 lives saved, over 30,000 cadet orientation flights, 1,200 hours flown at the request of the AF during air defense exercises (out of over 95,000 hours flown), 142 disaster relief missions, and over $300,000 in flight and academic scholarships awarded to cadets. ( CAP Report to Congress 2013)

Perhaps all the hard-working members in the units did not get the word about the Great Paradox and stubbornly insisted on producing results despite the incredible disfunction you see at every turn.


Maybe it's just me, but while it is always approptiate to discuss ways to improve our professiona development and, yes, even our uniforms, we should not lose track of the fact that uniforms and PD are just tools to help us get our missions done - saving lives and property, conducting an outstanding cadet program, and educating our members and the public about the aerospace world.

Keep things in perspective.

[Storm Chaser]

^ ^ You've characterized the "Great Paradox" quite nicely.  NHQ wants CAP to have its cake and eat it too,
grade without responsibility or authority, anyone can have any job they want regardless of their training
or experience, retention and "not sad" is more important then maintaining good order, etc., etc.

What you wind up is the paragraph above.

The simple matter of fact is that you can't fix this untenable situation with piecemeal solutions
that randomly raise the bar on certain people, create unnecessary sub classes, or by changing the
color of the pins.  That's effort to no results.

My Goodness, what a disfunctional organization.  Yet, between all the cake-eating and unqualified people doing any job they want in the midst of an unfixable and untenable situation, it's amazing that we were able to produce any results at all.

Like the 44 lives saved, over 30,000 cadet orientation flights, 1,200 hours flown at the request of the AF during air defense exercises (out of over 95,000 hours flown), 142 disaster relief missions, and over $300,000 in flight and academic scholarships awarded to cadets. ( CAP Report to Congress 2013)

Perhaps all the hard-working members in the units did not get the word about the Great Paradox and stubbornly insisted on producing results despite the incredible disfunction you see at every turn.


Maybe it's just me, but while it is always approptiate to discuss ways to improve our professiona development and, yes, even our uniforms, we should not lose track of the fact that uniforms and PD are just tools to help us get our missions done - saving lives and property, conducting an outstanding cadet program, and educating our members and the public about the aerospace world.

Keep things in perspective.

Well said, Ned.

[supertigerCH]

Bravo!  Thanks for the re-focus Ned.


Although everyone was making a lot of good points as well... I was having a bit of a hard time trying to pull this thread back on topic.   

[Eclipse]

^ ^ You've characterized the "Great Paradox" quite nicely.  NHQ wants CAP to have its cake and eat it too,
grade without responsibility or authority, anyone can have any job they want regardless of their training
or experience, retention and "not sad" is more important then maintaining good order, etc., etc.

What you wind up is the paragraph above.

The simple matter of fact is that you can't fix this untenable situation with piecemeal solutions
that randomly raise the bar on certain people, create unnecessary sub classes, or by changing the
color of the pins.  That's effort to no results.

My Goodness, what a disfunctional organization.  Yet, between all the cake-eating and unqualified people doing any job they want in the midst of an unfixable and untenable situation, it's amazing that we were able to produce any results at all.

Like the 44 lives saved, over 30,000 cadet orientation flights, 1,200 hours flown at the request of the AF during air defense exercises (out of over 95,000 hours flown), 142 disaster relief missions, and over $300,000 in flight and academic scholarships awarded to cadets. ( CAP Report to Congress 2013)

Perhaps all the hard-working members in the units did not get the word about the Great Paradox and stubbornly insisted on producing results despite the incredible disfunction you see at every turn.


Maybe it's just me, but while it is always approptiate to discuss ways to improve our professiona development and, yes, even our uniforms, we should not lose track of the fact that uniforms and PD are just tools to help us get our missions done - saving lives and property, conducting an outstanding cadet program, and educating our members and the public about the aerospace world.

Keep things in perspective.

Yes, let's.

The success are smaller each year, and the trendlines are down, yet instead of accepting and addressing it,
and building on that success, status quo is accepted. Each year a smaller pool of people works harder then the
last to just keep the needle at zero.

Why is it that a fully functional organization seems to be mutually exclusive from the operational successes?
This what CAP could do if these silly baseline issue were properly addressed, closed once and for all, and
never discussed again?

Do Unit CC's get to point to mission success when they fail their SUI?
"Hey, we don't know where the money is, but we sure flew a lot of hours..."

Of course not.  Anecdotal success based as much on happenstance as any plan is something to
be thankful for, but certainly not something to fall back on as validation of "The Plan".

PD and uniforms are "just tools"?  Then why can't they be the best, sharpest, most appropriate
and properly aligned tools available?

I love Harbor Freight, but why shop there when you could have Snap On for the same money?

[MHC5096]

What we would be most likely to be confused with (and this is a stretch) is US CBP insignia.  They use military-style rank insignia (but not titles) and it would not surprise me if they use extant Air Force insignia since the colour of blue is so close as to be almost irrelevant.

One of their lower GS grades wears a warrant officer-type insignia.

Look closely at the shoulder marks of this CBP officer.



I am always tempted to call CBP by their military grade insignia equivalents when I pull into customs: "Mr/Ms," "Lieutenant," "Captain," etc.

And (shock horror gasp! ) they also use metal grade insignia, when they are not military...

The insignia used by CBP-OFO is the USN/USCG style WO1 bar. It is worn by journeyman level (GS-12) CBPOs. The First Lieutenant insignia (CBP Enforcement Officer) and Captain insignia (CBP Canine Supervisor) are also GS-12s. For protocol purposes GS-12 is the equivalent of a Major/Lieutenant Commander.

[MSG Mac]

Im really NOT trying to derail this but I have to ask......  Has CAP determined that there will be specific NCO and officer duties?
[/quote]

An NCO can hold any position inn CAP except Commander.

[Flying Pig]

Im really NOT trying to derail this but I have to ask......  Has CAP determined that there will be specific NCO and officer duties?

An NCO can hold any position inn CAP except Commander.
[/quote]

Wheeeww.... my gosh, then how have we lasted this long?

[Storm Chaser]

I would be in favor of having an enlisted program in CAP; one where new members can join as Airmen and work their way up through the NCO grades. But I do have a problem with the way the current program was implemented. As it stands now, officers and NCO PD is one and the same. NCOs can practically hold any duty position. There are no NCO-specific duties or skills. And other that the grade insignia, there's really no distinction in training or capabilities. How does that benefit CAP?

For an enlisted or NCO program to be effective, we need to define what the role of these NCO will be. We need to develop appropriate training and PD that focuses on that NCO role. And there has to be a way for non-prior military members to join as enlisted and eventually promote to NCO. This program doesn't exist yet. All we have is a new insignia and the ability to promote them. We've even created Senior Enlisted Advisor positions at different levels of the organization that meet no real purpose, as CAP doesn't have a considerable enlisted membership.

Whatever the goal was with this program, it's clear that the cart was put before the horse.

[lordmonar]

All that is being worked on now.  We are just at the end of the first phase.   Part of phase I I is to develop NCO specific roles and PD

[Storm Chaser]

All that is being worked on now.  We are just at the end of the first phase.   Part of phase I I is to develop NCO specific roles and PD

I assumed that much. However, I and many others believe that that should've happened first.

[Flying Pig]

If there was a reason for NCOs in CAP, we wouldn't still be trying to figure out how and where they will fit.  (and yes... although I am no longer an active member, I believe my past dedication to CAP and its mission allows me to use the word "we" )

[Eclipse]

If there was a reason for NCOs in CAP, we wouldn't still be trying to figure out how and where they will fit.

Can't get any more clear then that.

In successful organizations, form follows function.  Only in government does function follow form.

[supertigerCH]

in terms of the new NCO stripes that CAP is starting to use (with propellers on them instead of stars)... i think the rank patched would have looked a bit better if (for Staff Sergeant & Tech Sergeant) the blue above the "CAP"  rose up to a point... rather than just being curved.

however i'm way off topic... and to be honest i'm just glad that we have a new patch that looks nice & actually matches the uniform for a change.

[AlphaSigOU]

in terms of the new NCO stripes that CAP is starting to use (with propellers on them instead of stars)... i think the rank patched would have looked a bit better if (for Staff Sergeant & Tech Sergeant) the blue above the "CAP"  rose up to a point... rather than just being curved.

however i'm way off topic... and to be honest i'm just glad that we have a new patch that looks nice & actually matches the uniform for a change.

The original design of the CAP NCO stripes for SSgt and TSgt had the blue V above the stripes running straight instead of curved as it is today. It would have looked awkward and possibly led to confusion with the senior NCO grades.

[Panache]

I and other have made the point before - trading one irrelevant set of grade insignia and levels
for a different one, doesn't solve the problem, it just rearranges it.

I and others disagree. Cyborg's proposal is complementary to yours. Permanent Warrant Officer grades to signify PD and progression in the senior program and temporary Officer grades based on duty position. The latter would have authority, but not the former.

I still think this is the best route to take for our organization, but I also realize the chance of it happening is practically nil.

[supertigerCH]

"The original design of the CAP NCO stripes for SSgt and TSgt had the blue V above the stripes running straight instead of curved as it is today. It would have looked awkward and possibly led to confusion with the senior NCO grades."


Well yeah... if the blue V was straight instead of curved.  I can see where that would not look so good.  What I was envisioning was sort of a blue V that was still in the shape of the blue on master sergeant stripes (without the top stripes of course).  For me, I don't see how anyone could confuse a rank without stripes on the top with a rank that did have stripes on the top... but yeah who knows?

Any chance of this thread ever getting back to the original topic?  lol...

[PHall]

Having seen the "new" stripes in person at the Vanguard store at the National Conference this past weekend, all I can say is that they look worse in person then they do in pictures.

[lordmonar]

Having worn them......I got to say they actually looked better then I thought.

So as they say.   YMMV.

[AlphaSigOU]

Should have been a little clearer in my last post... the 'diamond' shaped blue field without stripes at top like those for the senior NCO grades would look awkward. My bad.

[supertigerCH]

@ AlphaSig,

Oh okay... I see what you mean now.

This NCO stripe issue... is one of those things that just comes down to personal taste.  What looks good to some people, doesn't to others.  Oh well, it's okay... this is not a critical issue.  Although I think they could have looked better (as I described)... the ones they have now authorized look more than good enough.  They look professional enough to do the job.

I think the majority of CAP members are glad the NCO option exists, even if they themselves don't take part in it.  Just my overall impression.


Anyway, although I expressed that they could be better... I will still have no problem wearing the new stripes.  At least they look good enough.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I just looked at them on VG's site.

Really, I think having the "CAP" on them is a bit redundant and detracts from the overall attractiveness of the insignia.

If it would have simply had the full-colour triangle/prop in the centre...a little more work, maybe, but could not be mistaken for the AF.



Of course, it would likely not meet the criteria for "distinctiveness" for someone viewing a satellite image of a hi-res zoom-in on a CAP NCO's arm...

[Storm Chaser]

I just looked at them on VG's site.

Really, I think having the "CAP" on them is a bit redundant and detracts from the overall attractiveness of the insignia.

If it would have simply had the full-colour triangle/prop in the centre...a little more work, maybe, but could not be mistaken for the AF.



Of course, it would likely not meet the criteria for "distinctiveness" for someone viewing a satellite image of a hi-res zoom-in on a CAP NCO's arm...

I think it looks fine and it removes the need for CAP cutouts on the collar. It's definitely better than the alternatives: gray chevrons for the service uniform and ultramarine ones for the BDU.

[MisterCD]

To perhaps add fuel to the fires over insignia, in my conversation with Vanguard's general manager, one big issue is the lack of detailed specifics on CAP insignia. Without information on the specific pantone numbers for colors, exact type of materials to use, etc. Vanguard resorts to best educated guesses to fulfill CAP requests. Granted, this information may be woefully inaccurate, but it is what I received direct from the company's head at the conference.

Regarding the stripes, the thread and colors used are identical to what the USAF uses for its enlisted stripes. I think they are quite sharp, IMHO.

[arajca]

To perhaps add fuel to the fires over insignia, in my conversation with Vanguard's general manager, one big issue is the lack of detailed specifics on CAP insignia. Without information on the specific pantone numbers for colors, exact type of materials to use, etc. Vanguard resorts to best educated guesses to fulfill CAP requests. Granted, this information may be woefully inaccurate, but it is what I received direct from the company's head at the conference.

Isn't this what many of have been saying for quite a while now?

[Eclipse]

Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

In this case, wouldn't it be the same shade of blue/silver as AF chevrons?

The only differences are the tri-prop design and "CAP" designator.

[Eclipse]

Which red, which blue, and is it white or silver?

Then there's consistency.   With no spec, it might be one thread density and color one run,
a different one the next time because something "close" was already in the machine.

Or perhaps the prototypes are run using the more expensive color, and then the regular production
is on the cheaper one.

How about stitches / threads per inch?  Ever seen some of those anemic nametapes VG has made in the past?

Details, details.

[PHall]

Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

In this case, wouldn't it be the same shade of blue/silver as AF chevrons?

The only differences are the tri-prop design and "CAP" designator.

The AF chevrons haven't been blue/silver for a number of years now. They're blue/white.

[Garibaldi]

Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

In this case, wouldn't it be the same shade of blue/silver as AF chevrons?

The only differences are the tri-prop design and "CAP" designator.

Speaking of, someone posted in another thread about the airman/airman first/senior airman stripes with the blue star as opposed to the white. I'll post the pics when I get back to the phone they are on.

The AF chevrons haven't been blue/silver for a number of years now. They're blue/white.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This is how I remember the chevrons (obviously, I am using metal examples):


Airman (E-2)


Airman 1st Class (E-3)


Senior Airman (E-4)


Sergeant (E-4)


Staff Sergeant (E-5)


Technical Sergeant (E-6)


Master Sergeant (E-7)


Senior Master Sergeant (E-8)


Chief Master Sergeant (E-9)

Of course, there were also the various diamonds attached for First Shirts.

To me, this grade structure worked fine...one of the goofiest things the AF ever did was go straight from SrA to SSgt.

[PHall]

There have been many changes to AF Enlisted grade over the years since 1947.
I personally went through three of them during the time I served (1974 - 2005).

[Spaceman3750]

We should change to these chevrons instead. When cadets or NCOs promote we could say "Chevron X locked!"

[Panache]

To me, this grade structure worked fine...one of the goofiest things the AF ever did was go straight from SrA to SSgt.

I imagine there was always friction from the Army and Marines over the original structure, with Air Force E-4s being Sergeants while Army NCO E-4s and Marine E-4s were Corporals.  Corporals probably resented calling Air Force E-4s "Sergeant".

[Storm Chaser]

The Air Force probably eliminated the rank of Sergeant (E-4) to be more in line with the other services (Army, Marine Corps) where Sergeant is E-5. They could've renamed the rank to corporal, but it really makes no difference. It also eliminates unneeded complexities. A SrA who has completed ALS can still be a supervisor. An experienced SrA can also perform the duties of MTI, MTL, Tech School Instructor, etc. The elimination of Sgt (E-4) did not affect the Air Force in any negative way. Even the Army promotes most Specialists (E-4) to Sergeant (E-5), skipping Corporal (E-4).

The only people I know that find the change odd are those who served prior to this change, which occurred over two decades old ago. Prior to 1967, when the Air Force had the ranks of Airman Third Class and Second Class, an Airman First Class was an E-4. It wasn't until 1967 that Airman First Class was rename Sergeant (E-4) and Airman Second Class was renamed to Airman First Class (E-3). The split of E-4 into SrA and Sgt didn't occur until 1975. I bet some found those changes "goofy" at the time.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^Point taken - in fact, my uncle served under one of the early AF rank structures.  A3C, A2C, A1C...in fact, all the AF's rank structures over the years have been a bit wonky compared to the other services, though of course the Coast Guard's is identical to the Navy.

It seems to me that I remember hearing that SrA's are only allowed to be MTI's now if they've already graduated ALS...but I cannot confirm that.  I would be all in favour of that.  My MTI was a SrA and only slightly above playground bully on the maturity curve...I am not inclined to really respect anyone who cannot complete a sentence without dropping a permutation of the "F" bomb.  All I really learnt from him is how to stay under his radar...he was not an "instructor" at all.  MTL and Tech School Instructor I think would be better than having SrA's as MTI's.

To me, the way that the Army has Corporal/Specialist is a bit inane.  My dad was one of the earliest Specialists (back then the Specialist grades went all the way up to SP9).  He told me that back then it was intended to be kind of an enlisted version of a warrant officer, where a troop could just be a "specialist" in their MOS and not have to worry about NCO responsibility.  Of course, now it's not that way at all.  "Specialist" is the exception, not the rule.  I have met very, very few "hard-stripe" Army Corporals but loads of Specialists.

In fact, very briefly, the Army flirted with the rank of Lance Corporal (1965-1968).

I just find it strange that the Army and Marines have "buck sergeants" but the AF doesn't.

[lordmonar]

The USAF eliminated the E-4 NCO because a) most of them were not doing NCO work.  b) The few who were, were being held to a higher standard, doing more work....but getting paid the same as the SrA.  C) It was a "give away" rank.  No competition, no quotas, just get your five level, go to NCO Prep, 4 years TIG and congratulations you are an NCO.

The idea was to make you compete for the NCO title.

[ZigZag911]

I get why they got rid of E-4 Sergeant...but why not make it Sgt. E-5, like the other services?

[lordmonar]

I get why they got rid of E-4 Sergeant...but why not make it Sgt. E-5, like the other services?

a) We are not the other services.  b) you would be "demoting" all those SSgts.  c) the transition phase had a long lead in time...so what do you do with all those E-4 Sgts who never made SSgt?   

It was just easiest to just say "after 1 Jan 19XY no more promotions to Sgt" and be done with it.

[Salty]

Don't forget the whole back and forth over the white/subdued star on the USAF stripes too.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Don't forget the whole back and forth over the white/subdued star on the USAF stripes too.

I knew quite a few NCO's who were rubbed the wrong way by that when the rank structure was redone.

[Panache]

Even the Army promotes most Specialists (E-4) to Sergeant (E-5), skipping Corporal (E-4).

Back when I was in the Army, we had one Corporal in the entire barracks building.  Every other E-4 (myself included) was a Specialist.

[TheTravelingAirman]

The Air Force probably eliminated the rank of Sergeant (E-4) to be more in line with the other services (Army, Marine Corps) where Sergeant is E-5. They could've renamed the rank to corporal, but it really makes no difference. It also eliminates unneeded complexities. A SrA who has completed ALS can still be a supervisor. An experienced SrA can also perform the duties of MTI, MTL, Tech School Instructor, etc. The elimination of Sgt (E-4) did not affect the Air Force in any negative way. Even the Army promotes most Specialists (E-4) to Sergeant (E-5), skipping Corporal (E-4).

The only people I know that find the change odd are those who served prior to this change, which occurred over two decades old ago. Prior to 1967, when the Air Force had the ranks of Airman Third Class and Second Class, an Airman First Class was an E-4. It wasn't until 1967 that Airman First Class was rename Sergeant (E-4) and Airman Second Class was renamed to Airman First Class (E-3). The split of E-4 into SrA and Sgt didn't occur until 1975. I bet some found those changes "goofy" at the time.

It is no longer the case that SrA may act as MTI, MTL, etc. MTI is Tech and above (may be an exception for exceptional SSG with line no. for TSG. Anyone currently occupying a slot without meeting the new requirements stays, but is replaced by someone who does meet them). MTL and the various instructor duties are locked at SSgt and above. The various complaints of sexual assault and unprofessional relationships have changed AETC a lot. AETC already wasn't fun, so thank the powers that be I won't return anytime soon. Or ever.

[Shuman 14]

I just looked at them on VG's site.

Really, I think having the "CAP" on them is a bit redundant and detracts from the overall attractiveness of the insignia.

If it would have simply had the full-colour triangle/prop in the centre...a little more work, maybe, but could not be mistaken for the AF.



Of course, it would likely not meet the criteria for "distinctiveness" for someone viewing a satellite image of a hi-res zoom-in on a CAP NCO's arm...

I agree.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It is no longer the case that SrA may act as MTI, MTL, etc. MTI is Tech and above (may be an exception for exceptional SSG with line no. for TSG. Anyone currently occupying a slot without meeting the new requirements stays, but is replaced by someone who does meet them). MTL and the various instructor duties are locked at SSgt and above. The various complaints of sexual assault and unprofessional relationships have changed AETC a lot. AETC already wasn't fun, so thank the powers that be I won't return anytime soon. Or ever.

That is a good move on behalf of AETC.  As I said, my MTI was a SrA and not much more than a playground bully.  It was beyond the "standard TI games" of "I'm gonna recycle you back to your grandfather's flight!", and garden variety things like that.

I do not remember how many of my flight he ended up sending to Wilford Hall, but I know there were several, and he seemed to take some sort of perverse pride in it.

In contrast, my training superintendent was a Master Sergeant (and the punk SrA did not try any of his little games when the Master Sergeant was around) and he spoke with AU-THOR-I-TAYY.  He was a big black fellow with .00000001% body fat and a James Earl Jones Voice Of Doom.  Nonetheless most of us respected him.  He knew his stuff, and he didn't have to advertise it.

Back when I was in the Army, we had one Corporal in the entire barracks building.  Every other E-4 (myself included) was a Specialist.

The Army should either rename or redefine that rank.  Like I said earlier, my dad was one of the earliest Specialist 4's.  He had been a hard-stripe Corporal in the National Guard but when he went active duty he got reclassified as a Specialist 4 (this was in 1957).  It suited him fine because he just wanted to do his job and not be overmuch involved in the supervisory role of an NCO.

In the early '80s my ex-brother-in-law got shifted from Specialist 5 to Buck Sergeant.  I don't know how he did that as I was only about 15 at the time, but he had uniform sets with both insignia.  When the "suntans(?)" got phased out for the green shirts he gave me a lot of his old ones (remove insignia and hey presto, nice, casual short-sleeved shirt).  I think he had the option of being promoted to Specialist 6, but as I say that was a long time ago and it's been decades since I've seen him so I could well have rectal cranial inversion on the matter.

So, in the Army, a Specialist is actually a "Generalist" anymore, from what I know.

And that one Corporal had authority over all you Specialists.