Functioning At Minimums

[Dragoon]

I think if you'll look, you'll find that a unit w/ 4 seniors & 8 cadets is incapable of functioning at minimums & should be shut down.

Perhaps.  But do we have any standard as to what "functioning at minimums" means?

If we define that, then the minimal number of personnel will become evident.

But as long as we're nebulous about what a squadron has to accomplish......we'll have no idea how it should be staffed.

And yeah, if we HAD standards, units that couldn't meet them should be dechartered.

[flyguy06]

Our own regulations define a Squadron as a unit with 5 cadets and 3 senior members. Its our own rule so why would you shut down the aforemneitoned unit?

In any volunteer organization wheathe rit be CAP, BSA, your local Masonic lodge, you will have a small core of dedicated volunteers. You have to try and make due with what you have .

[MIKE]

Our own regulations define a Squadron as a unit with 5 cadets and 3 senior members. Its our own rule so why would you shut down the aforemneitoned unit?

Ummm... No.

19. Squadrons. The squadron is the community-level organization of CAP. Wing commanders may activate squadrons whenever there is a minimum of 15 members of the unit, three of whom must be senior members. Whenever the membership drops below these minimums, the wing commander will deactivate the squadron or redesignate it as a flight. The designation of each squadron will indicate whether it is a:
a. Senior Squadron. Comprised entirely of senior members.
b. Cadet Squadron. Comprised primarily of cadets with a minimum of three senior members to meet supervisory, administrative, and training requirements in the conduct of cadet programs.
c. Composite Squadron. Comprised of both senior and cadet members, conducting both senior and cadet programs.
20. Flights. The flight is the smallest CAP membership unit authorized and must contain a minimum of eight members, three of whom must be seniors. Flights should be organized only in sparsely populated areas where there are an insufficient number of individuals to constitute a squadron.
a. A flight may be assigned either to a squadron, group, or wing at the discretion of the wing commander concerned.
b. If the membership drops below the minimum membership required, the flight will be deactivated. If the membership increases to the minimum required for a squadron, the wing commander will redesignate the flight as a squadron.
c. Flights will use organizational charts established for a squadron of less than 50 senior members as a guide in establishing the unit.

See also: CAPR 20-3

[shorning]

Our own regulations define a Squadron as a unit with 5 cadets and 3 senior members. Its our own rule so why would you shut down the aforemneitoned unit?

Ummm... No.

So, you designate it a flight instead of closing the unit.

[lordmonar]

Our own regulations define a Squadron as a unit with 5 cadets and 3 senior members. Its our own rule so why would you shut down the aforemneitoned unit?

Ummm... No.

So, you designate it a flight instead of closing the unit.

And then wing or group works hard to get the squadron back on its feet.

Repairing dieing units should be a priority of a wing or group commander.

[MIKE]

Our own regulations define a Squadron as a unit with 5 cadets and 3 senior members. Its our own rule so why would you shut down the aforemneitoned unit?

Ummm... No.

So, you designate it a flight instead of closing the unit.

Just pointing out what the regulations actually say.  I think it should mean 15 or 8 who are actually active... and not just the 15 or 8 names on the MML.  JMHO.

[Dragoon]

Okay, so assuming all members are active, a squadron can have 3 seniors and 12 cadets.

Where the heck is the guidance on what positions should be filled?  Saying "all of them" is a cop out.  Asking 3 seniors to perform all the tasks of all the positions on the 20-1 is lunacy.

[shorning]

Where the heck is the guidance on what positions should be filled?  Saying "all of them" is a cop out.  Asking 3 seniors to perform all the tasks of all the positions on the 20-1 is lunacy.

So rack-n-stack you're priorities.  What does your unit need to accomplish your mission.  Sure, there are a few jobs that have to be filled.  But...

[Dragoon]

That's a very common sense approach. 

But sadly, not backed by the regs. 

It doesn't say "barring adequate manpower, you only need to fill those positions required to meet your mission."  (Heck, we don't even really talk about squadrons having missions.  The default setting seems to be "if you're not fully supporting all three of CAP's missions, you're failing!")

It doesn't say  "the following X positions must be filled, while the otehrs should be filled on an as needed basis."


Nope, it just shows us what a squadron is supposed to look like - using a number of personnel wayyy  beyond the minimum squadron size.

And based on that structure, each staff officer above squadron seems hell bent on creating reports that the squadron has to fill out, based on the (wrong) assumption that the squadron has someone doing the job.

[DNall]

So, you designate it a flight instead of closing the unit.

That would be correct in this case, but let me just clarify... the point of a unit deisgnated a flight is cause it can't keep up w/ the actual work/staff requirements of a Sq, & so that mgmt load is done at another unit to which they are assigned as subordinate. I want to make that distinction, because that's not what generally happens.

What about the standards though? Well, you know how many reports you're supposed to do & what shape the paperwork should be in, if you have safety presentations, AE for cadets & seniors... you can look at 20-1 & see all the things that are supposed to happen at a Sq. We then have inspections - where exceptional means you're meeting the standard above the average CAP unit, not necessarily that you're doing exceptional.

Honestly to do everything that's currently expected of a Sq I don't think you can legit pull it off w/o 15-20 pretty dedicated adults. I don't think that's reasonable though. A lot of that work load should be lifted up out of those units to the Gp level... at that point you might as well just call anything under 50 active members a flight & stick 3 or 4 together like a mini-group, to have a joint staff meeting once a month & call that whole pile a Sq. I think you'd get much better results that way, but that's just my take.

Far as rack/stack - absolutely do that, regs are a guide. Hwever, what they theoretically want is for a Sq to be a well-rounded unit that accomplishes more than CP or ES, & the minimums around that to support it, then maybe nothing to some pencil whipping on less related items. To do what's expected of a Sq takes something more like that 15-20 number I tossed out.

[Dragoon]

So, you designate it a flight instead of closing the unit.

That would be correct in this case, but let me just clarify... the point of a unit deisgnated a flight is cause it can't keep up w/ the actual work/staff requirements of a Sq, & so that mgmt load is done at another unit to which they are assigned as subordinate. I want to make that distinction, because that's not what generally happens.

What about the standards though? Well, you know how many reports you're supposed to do & what shape the paperwork should be in, if you have safety presentations, AE for cadets & seniors... you can look at 20-1 & see all the things that are supposed to happen at a Sq. We then have inspections - where exceptional means you're meeting the standard above the average CAP unit, not necessarily that you're doing exceptional.

Honestly to do everything that's currently expected of a Sq I don't think you can legit pull it off w/o 15-20 pretty dedicated adults. I don't think that's reasonable though. A lot of that work load should be lifted up out of those units to the Gp level... at that point you might as well just call anything under 50 active members a flight & stick 3 or 4 together like a mini-group, to have a joint staff meeting once a month & call that whole pile a Sq. I think you'd get much better results that way, but that's just my take.

Far as rack/stack - absolutely do that, regs are a guide. Hwever, what they theoretically want is for a Sq to be a well-rounded unit that accomplishes more than CP or ES, & the minimums around that to support it, then maybe nothing to some pencil whipping on less related items. To do what's expected of a Sq takes something more like that 15-20 number I tossed out.

Very true.  But there is another option for this additional work load besides pushing it uphill.

Don't do it.

For example, if you don't do any AE activities, why submit an AE report?
If you don't have anyone you want to nominate for Senior of the Year, why do many wings make you do it anyway?
If you don't have a PAO and did no public affairs stuff this quarter, why submit a PAO report?

Honestly, we are our own worst enemy.

For example, until the latest 62-1 rewrite, a unit would fail a compliance inspection unless it could prove that EVERY member of the unit, including the inactive ones, have recieved the monthly safety brief. 

Which is silly.  If someone isn't doing anything but paying dues and sitting at home, why do they need a safety brief (and how you gonna get it to them?)

Changing this required 3 years of effort by some dedicated Wing CC's who realized it was crap.  The National Safety Officer should have figured this out in about 5 seconds.

We just keep adding work the the squadron without asking.

1.  Is it worth doing, given the manpower constraints in the unit, or

2.  Is it worth doing at all?

[BillB]

A Flight does NOT have to be assigned to a Squadron. A Flight can obtain a Charter just as a Squadron can. A Chartered fFlight has to meet the same reporting requirements as a Squadron. Basically the only difference between a Chartered Flight and a Chartered Squadron is the number of members. The Commander of a Chartered Flight wears the same Command badge as a Squadron Commander.
Normally a chartered Flight works up to Squadron size and submits a name change to change Flight to Squadron. The charter number remains the same.

[TankerT]

The Commander of a Chartered Flight wears the same Command badge as a Squadron Commander.

Actually, no.  There are two Command Badges.  One for Squadron Commanders, and one for Flight Commandes.

CAPR 39-1 states:  Command Badge (Current squadron and group commanders only).  I haven't been able to read anywhere that it applies to a Flight Commander.

[Dragoon]

A Flight does NOT have to be assigned to a Squadron. A Flight can obtain a Charter just as a Squadron can. A Chartered fFlight has to meet the same reporting requirements as a Squadron. Basically the only difference between a Chartered Flight and a Chartered Squadron is the number of members.

Which is sheer lunacy, IMHO.

If they can do all the work of a squadron, call 'em a squadron and be done with it.

If they can't do all the work (because they are too small), then call them a flight AND DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO DO ALL THE WORK!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Number 181 on my "To-Do list for when I'm the National Commander:"

The common-sense approach is to have a monthly "Commander's Activity Report."

Consolidate all required reports into one.  Each month, every commander would get a form to fill out.  That form would combine all required reports that month into one.

Example:

1.  SAFETY:

    Did you conduct a safety briefing during this month?  Y   N
   
    Topic:  ______________  Number of pers. briefed: ______

    If not, explain why: _______________________________

    Did you have any accidents or injuries this month?   Y   N

2.  SUPPLY:

    Verify the condition and storage location of the following items of property:

    Direction Finder Unit, SN 12345.  _______________________________

    Radio, hand-held, SN 23323.  __________________________________

    Rifle, Parade, M-1,  SN 56789 __________________________________

                                   SN 67302 __________________________________

You get the idea.  3-5 supply items inventoried each month, and by the end of the year, the whole thing is done.  Each month would have recurring monthly items, plus one or two annual items.  

[flyguy06]

Ok, so I made a mistake.

[lordmonar]

Very true.  But there is another option for this additional work load besides pushing it uphill.

Don't do it.

For example, if you don't do any AE activities, why submit an AE report?
If you don't have anyone you want to nominate for Senior of the Year, why do many wings make you do it anyway?
If you don't have a PAO and did no public affairs stuff this quarter, why submit a PAO report?

Or you submit the report.  A one liner that says....Nothing significant to report.

Honestly, we are our own worst enemy.

For example, until the latest 62-1 rewrite, a unit would fail a compliance inspection unless it could prove that EVERY member of the unit, including the inactive ones, have recieved the monthly safety brief. 

Which is silly.  If someone isn't doing anything but paying dues and sitting at home, why do they need a safety brief (and how you gonna get it to them?)

I agree.  You should show that a breifing was done and you should show that you have a method to breif inactive members when/if they ever come back.

A simple read file with the say last 3-4 months of breifings and a squadron roster attached to each.  If a member misses a meeting (or two or three) as soon as the return, they read the breifings they miss.  If in the mean time you get a SUI...the safety guys see you are meeting the spirit of the regulation and are doing your best to comply.

We just keep adding work the the squadron without asking.

1.  Is it worth doing, given the manpower constraints in the unit, or

2.  Is it worth doing at all?

Actaully we should be asking first and formost...what is the value added to the mission?

Safety breifings are good...I see the value added.  PAO reports, AE reports....what does that do for me and my squadron?  If it does not directly affect a squadron's mission and only helps the wing level...they have to show how it helps the overall mission.

Often (such as the PAO and AE reports) it is only so the wing level guys can document "their" contribution to the CAP mission.  Which means it is a BS report.  If wing did something with those reports....such as followed up and asked why you did not do any PAO or AE activities....then again...we have wing intervention into a squadron that may need some help getting their program together.

That is my biggest complaint about CAP in general.  We have wing and higher levying requirements on to the squadrons but they don't seem to want to help the squadrons.  When the Wing AE guy gets a negetive or no report about a squadrons AE activites...he should be on the phone to the squadron commande asking if there is a problem and how he can help out.

Just my humble rant.

[lordmonar]

The Commander of a Chartered Flight wears the same Command badge as a Squadron Commander.

Actually, no.  There are two Command Badges.  One for Squadron Commanders, and one for Flight Commandes.

CAPR 39-1 states:  Command Badge (Current squadron and group commanders only).  I haven't been able to read anywhere that it applies to a Flight Commander.

There are two command badges....one for squadron and one for group.  Flight commanders do not get a badge ASAIK.

[BillB]

I called National and got the word. As long as a Flight holds a Charter, the Commander can wear the Squadron level Command badge. However a Flight assigned to a Squadron without the Flight having it's own Charter, the Flight Commander can not wear the badge.
National advised they forgot about Chartered Flights since there are so few of them, it will be in the next 39-1 published.

[lordmonar]

I called National and got the word. As long as a Flight holds a Charter, the Commander can wear the Squadron level Command badge. However a Flight assigned to a Squadron without the Flight having it's own Charter, the Flight Commander can not wear the badge.
National advised they forgot about Chartered Flights since there are so few of them, it will be in the next 39-1 published.

Ergo...as far as national is consersed...a chartered flight may as well be a squadron....it is just a word game to get around its own regulations.