Flight Officer revamp -- what if?

[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.