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.

[BillB]

The specific Flight that brought up the question to National, within six months had 24 members on the MML. So it qualified for Squadron designation. However the Group Commander wanted it to remain as a Chartered Flight. Within the next 8 months membership dropped to 12 with only four or five being active.

[DrJbdm]

Oh how complicated can we make things on ourselves... 

[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.

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?

I understand where you're coming from, but the problem is all those things are REQUIRED of a Sq to be functioning at mins.

You can't exactly go flying & not do the main report cause you didn't feel like doing the maint. Okay, that's a bad example, but you're supposed to be doing PAO activity, you're supposed to be doing AE -that's one of our big three for God's sake, you can't do other stuff & skip that. You need a program there & you SHOULD fail inspections if you don't haeva n active program at all those slots.

I know you don't have the staff for it, that's what I'm saying is we need to share resources between area units to work those programs. Can you have a quality PAO at every unit, probably not, but you can get one in 3-5 units sharing a single staff. You can have a travelling AE officer too that's good at his job & gets to spend a whole lot of time doing it.

Some of this is back to what I'm saying on recording attendance to eServices also. Little check boxes after the names: "what did you cover tonight or anything to report since your last meeting:" check safety, fill in blank talked about this topic, bang no more safety reports, it's already taken care of; check PAO, our PAO had story printed in local paper, link provided. See how easy that is, & I get to track attendance for management purposes too. Man I love this idea!

[Major Carrales]

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.

Let's see what can be done with such levels...

1 Mission Pilot/Onserver who is Squadron Commander
1 Mission Observer/ Pilot who is Deputy Commander, FRO
1 Mission Observer/Scanner who is Deputy Commander for Cadets, COMM, FORM 5, STAN/EVAL
1 Mission Scanner who is PAO, ADMIN, SAFETY and PERSONNEL

8 cadets...

It could be possible...even in a composite squadron.  The way we handled it is that we took several "hats" and recruited.  As we got members in we shed some of the hats to these newer members.

This is the sort of things that forming/developing units have until they can build up their unit.  If we had taken the scope that a unit should be shut down for this reason in 2005, we would have nothing today.

[DNall]

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.

Let's see what can be done with such levels...

1 Mission Pilot/Onserver who is Squadron Commander
1 Mission Observer/ Pilot who is Deputy Commander, FRO
1 Mission Observer/Scanner who is Deputy Commander for Cadets, COMM, FORM 5, STAN/EVAL
1 Mission Scanner who is PAO, ADMIN, SAFETY and PERSONNEL

8 cadets...

It could be possible...even in a composite squadron.  The way we handled it is that we took several "hats" and recruited.  As we got members in we shed some of the hats to these newer members.

This is the sort of things that forming/developing units have until they can build up their unit.  If we had taken the scope that a unit should be shut down for this reason in 2005, we would have nothing today.

No safety, PAO, AE, Trans, Maint, Logistics, Supply, ES Training, Prof Dev, etc... hard to runa well-rounded Sq there actually doing what it's supposed to. Good chance you write a bunch of reports that say oh yeah we did a safety brief this month, but you didn't really have a comprehensive safety program at work & someone tasked to be on top of ORM all the time.

What should happen there is your Gp/Wg HQ should see that situation on the ground & send in a team of specialists to jump start it like it is a new unit. Take the rpessure of some of those other reqs off you temporarily & let you focus on the couple things you're good at. Use thier recruiting & retention specialist to go get you another 15 adults & 20 kids in a month like you're starting a new unit. Use their Sq operations specialist to help rework the way you do business & build up your programs so everyone feels good about how things are going. Take a look at who's in charge & where people are slotted, see if that's part of the problem to be fixed or part of the solution to be built on. You know what I'm sayin, get some resources in there along with some seriosu help & get you jumpstarted back to life, and if that fails then pull the charter & wait a few years to give it another try in the area. That's the kind of tiger team (if you're familiar w/ TQM) that I'd like to have at each Wg maybe even Gp, just there on standby to help. And that's why I'd like to meassure attendance to see in nearly real-time what's going on at units so I can be right there on top of the situation to fix problems before they get so far down it's hard to recover.

[Major Carrales]

No safety, PAO, AE, Trans, Maint, Logistics, Supply, ES Training, Prof Dev, etc... hard to runa well-rounded Sq there actually doing what it's supposed to. Good chance you write a bunch of reports that say oh yeah we did a safety brief this month, but you didn't really have a comprehensive safety program at work & someone tasked to be on top of ORM all the time.

I should say it is my belief that the squadron with the most staff works best.  That is the key to making this work is to delegate authority to experts, or those training to be experts.  But to shut down a squadron because it is having a slump is such a demoralizing turn of events that the unit would die never to be reborn.

[Dragoon]

I understand where you're coming from, but the problem is all those things are REQUIRED of a Sq to be functioning at mins.

You can't exactly go flying & not do the main report cause you didn't feel like doing the maint. Okay, that's a bad example, but you're supposed to be doing PAO activity, you're supposed to be doing AE -that's one of our big three for God's sake, you can't do other stuff & skip that. You need a program there & you SHOULD fail inspections if you don't haeva n active program at all those slots.

Here's an alternative view.  A Wing is the lowest level of the corporation.  It has a responsiblity to support all of CAP's missions.

But squadrons don't have to.

As long as ENOUGH squadrons are accomplishing each mission, the Wing can get them all done.

So....if one unit wants to have a cadet program, but no ES and no external AE, and no counter drug and no drug demand reduction, why is that bad?  It could be that the members they have are only interested in CP.  And as long as there are other units in the state that are willing to take on the other missions, what's the problem?

It's not like every squadron in USAF supports every USAF mission.  (I don't see a lot of doctors or satellite jockies in F-15 units)

Sometimes, we are more concerned with doing all things poorly than doing any given thing well.

Now in big states, you'd have to make sure you had adequate coverage geographically.  If one squadron wants to do nothing but Comms support to the Wing, I say let 'em.  Ditto a "flying only" or a "ground team only" unit.

The staff jobs you have to have include finance, personnel and safety.  If you have cadets, then cadet programs. 

It's nice to claim you have to have a Chaplain/MLO, but since most units don't we know that's a lie. 

You certainly don't need a historian, legal officer, or health services officer.

You only need a logistics officer if you have equipment (don't laugh, some units don't)

Recruiting would be nice, but not if you don't have a recruiting problem (believe it or not, some units are big enough)

Most units don't have true functioning AE officers and do fine, since AE has devolved mainly into O rides (operations) and the self study cadet program.

You don't need a full time PD officer - if the unit is small, then it's easily rolled into the Deputy Commander for Seniors or the Personnel Officer.

You don't need an "Activities Officer" - all activities fall under someone's area of expertise, like ES or Comms or CP.  Let them handle it (which is how most units I've seen do it anyway)

The Admin Officer has less and less to do as we move into the online world.  No need to order regs of forms, everyone prepares their own correspondence and you can let each staff guy organize his own files.

If your squadron only has one radio in the van, you don't really need a comms officer (as long as someone in the Wing can provide the training your ES folks might need - of course that assumes you do ES!)

etc. etc.

That isn't to say that some units might find a use for any or all of these guys.  But I'd sure love 20-1 to specifiy some positions as "optional,"  plus give better guidance on how to combine responsiblities in smaller units (for example, if you've only got 3 seniors, how best to break up the critical tasks, and what can you ignore?)



If your squadron only has one radio in the van, you don't really need a comms officer (as long as someone in the Wing can provide the training your ES folks might need - of course that assumes you do ES!)

[lordmonar]

Dragoon,

The only problem with specialisation....is you forget that we are here to support our communities as well as our states.

Yes a wing is getting the mission done.  I got three squadrons.  One does ES one Does CP and one does AE.  They are 120 miles away from each other.  You cannot say I am truly meeting my mission requirements.

Wing is responsible for getting the mission done...I agree with that.  What needs to be done is....at those squadrons with no CP or AE....wing needs to come in with a Staff Assistance Visit and help them get their program up to speed, recruits, what ever they need.  And like wise for each squadron.  Specialization is not the way to go.

[DNall]

I should say it is my belief that the squadron with the most staff works best.  That is the key to making this work is to delegate authority to experts, or those training to be experts.  But to shut down a squadron because it is having a slump is such a demoralizing turn of events that the unit would die never to be reborn.

Well shutdown MEANS die, and reborn at some future date means w/o anyone currently in the room & from scratch as though the old had never existed. Who you worried about demoralizing?

Dragoon,

The only problem with specialisation....is you forget that we are here to support our communities as well as our states.

Yes a wing is getting the mission done.  I got three squadrons.  One does ES one Does CP and one does AE.  They are 120 miles away from each other.  You cannot say I am truly meeting my mission requirements.

Wing is responsible for getting the mission done...I agree with that.  What needs to be done is....at those squadrons with no CP or AE....wing needs to come in with a Staff Assistance Visit and help them get their program up to speed, recruits, what ever they need.  And like wise for each squadron.  Specialization is not the way to go.

That's right on. The responsibility of Wg to get each mission done is to enforce that each Sq get each mission done above standards. Don't try to twist yourself out of what you know is right just cause you can find an apparent loop-hole in a reg. You know we need to do all three missions - even a Sr Sq need to support joint & cadet activities when they can, or at least help out area Comp Sqs so they can focus more on cadets.