Flight Officer Status

[THRAWN]

Just off the top of my head and with no real planning....

Now what could be done, is this: restructure the SM initial entry program so EVERY new SM serves time as a FO.
0-1 months –SMWOG (Level 1 and all the associated requirements)
1-3- months-FO (Work with mentor in squadron. Learn the tasks for the position the member will be in.)
3-7 months TFO (obtain tech rating/Davis Award)
7-12 months SFO (Work with mentor at higher level, group or wing and will be eligible to attend SLS PD only)
12 months+ Second Lieutenant or special circumstance promotion. After that, follow the normal progression in 35-5.

At the end of the 12 months, the new member will have a tech rating, have done some schooling in the CAP way of things, and see how things are done at the squadron and wing levels. Basic insignia on the corporate or AF uniforms. Would go pin on for the utilities, since sewing on the tabs every couple of months would just be a drag...

[Майор Хаткевич]

That is my exact point - the TIG and grade progressions do not match between FO and non-FO grades.  Now, it could be as Thrawn's experience where a non-former cadet progresses through the FO grades with the noted TIGs in CAPR 35-5 figure 8, and when 21 is not given an advanced "commensurate" grade, but rather starts at 2d Lt (which would be weird, since the TFO gets you the Davis).

I know when I was a TFO when this program first started, nobody knew what to do with someone like me, so this makes me a little sympathetic to those in the same situation.

Anyway, this will be good fodder to throw at the Knowledge Base to see what National's official position on this is.

Sound like the issue isn't the program, but lack of reg reading in the field. I had the same SFO=Capt belief until it was pointed out to me here a few years back when I was in that age group. It actually all makes sense, and if you look at the break down, someone starting at 18 can get Capt at 21Y 3Mos old, so you're actually looking at 3 years 3 months as opposed to 3 years for a 21+ SMWOG.


I guess the argument can be made that it's based on maturity or some such. It's still a pretty fast way to get there, and is even faster than someone like me who was a SMWOG at 20, and at 21 (plus  a few months when I got the ball rolling) became a 1st Lt based on Earhart. The fastest way is Spaatz, getting Capt at 21 (and CFI, but you know), so a FO tracked member is there right up with the "high speed" cadets in terms of time.


I was almost 23 when I became a Capt, turning 1st Lt at 21Y 4Mos, and going to Capt in 18 months.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

My point is that ages and the way that CAP regards "cadets" and "adults" does not match up.

In some ways, when someone turns 18, they are regarded as an adult member; i.e., must have CPPT, but in other ways they are still a "child; i.e., despite having to abide by CPPT regulations, they can still hang out with the under-18 cadets if they remain a cadet.

However, someone joining off-the-street at 18 cannot be a cadet and goes into the senior/FO category and must abide by the same regulations as a National Commander Major General.

Age 18 needs to be "either you is or you ain't."

[THRAWN]

And that's a good valid point. Is there a legitimate reason to allow cadets to remain over the age of 18? None that I've seen or have even heard of....

My point is that ages and the way that CAP regards "cadets" and "adults" does not match up.

In some ways, when someone turns 18, they are regarded as an adult member; i.e., must have CPPT, but in other ways they are still a "child; i.e., despite having to abide by CPPT regulations, they can still hang out with the under-18 cadets if they remain a cadet.

However, someone joining off-the-street at 18 cannot be a cadet and goes into the senior/FO category and must abide by the same regulations as a National Commander Major General.

Age 18 needs to be "either you is or you ain't."

[Ned]

Is there a legitimate reason to allow cadets to remain over the age of 18?

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

None that I've seen or have even heard of....

(Hint: things like NCSAs (including IACE),  tens of thousands of dollars in college scholarships, leadership training, aerospace education, flight training opportunities, leadership positions at encampments and other wing activities, participation in cadet advisory councils (including the NCAC), etc. that are not available to senior members may impact your analysis.)

Any cadet 18 and older can choose whether they want to remain as a cadet or transition to senior member status at any time.   

Both seniors and cadets in the program get training and perform services for their community, state, and nation.  But the choice of senior or cadet status is their choice to make.  Not yours.


Normally choice is a good thing.  Why do you think it is not?

[THRAWN]

I never said that it wasn't a good thing. I asked a question. Thank you for the lecture.

Is there a legitimate reason to allow cadets to remain over the age of 18?

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

None that I've seen or have even heard of....

(Hint: things like NCSAs (including IACE),  tens of thousands of dollars in college scholarships, leadership training, aerospace education, flight training opportunities, leadership positions at encampments and other wing activities, participation in cadet advisory councils (including the NCAC), etc. that are not available to senior members may impact your analysis.)

Any cadet 18 and older can choose whether they want to remain as a cadet or transition to senior member status at any time.   

Both seniors and cadets in the program get training and perform services for their community, state, and nation.  But the choice of senior or cadet status is their choice to make.  Not yours.


Normally choice is a good thing.  Why do you think it is not?

[Eclipse]

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

Maybe - if NHQ has now chosen to view them as "Seniors-lite" or some such. 
NHQ can't have the language both ways in the protection regs and not expect confusion and problems.

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.  (i.e., any non-Spaatz cadet over 18, who does not promote at least once per calendar year, is likely no longer engaged
in a meaningful way).

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

Maybe - if NHQ has now chosen to view them as "Seniors-lite" or some such. 
NHQ can't have the language both ways in the protection regs and not expect confusion and problems.

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.  (i.e., any non-Spaatz cadet over 18, who does not promote at least once per calendar year, is likely no longer engaged
in a meaningful way).

You make a lot of the same exact points I make, especially regarding CPPT and participation.

[Ned]

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.

We have a hard number for how many cadets are 18.  I don't have it handy. but it is something like 1,200 - 1,500 or so out of 26,000. 

There is no significant additional expense or adminstrative burden for the 18+ cohort. 

(They do have to take CPP, but since they would have to take it anyway if they were converted to senior members, it's a wash (and not a huge burden in the first place.))

And I think it is a little dangerous to start deciding which members are "worthy" of our time and attention. 

(And if we did, let's start with deciding which seniors are "worthy" of our time and attention.  Please.  I'll bet many participants here on CT would have some suggestions.    )

Members either meet the published standards, or they do not.  And we already have standards for cadet participation, which apply equally to cadets over and under 18.

Commanders are already tasked with enduring that cadets continue to "participate actively" (CAPR 52-16, para 4-4) and can terminate a cadet for "failure to progress satisfactorily" or "lack of interest demonstrated by a failure to attend three successive meetings without an acceptable excuse.) (CAPR 35-3, para 3.)

Sure, there are almost certainly commanders out there who are probably cutting some 18 year old college students some slack in terms of participation and progress.

But the fact that some cadets may not participate as often as they used to seems logically unrelated to whether cadets who continue to participate should be removed from the program when they turn 18.

[Eclipse]

(And if we did, let's start with deciding which seniors are "worthy" of our time and attention.

Please, lets, immediately, I'll get my pen...

Members either meet the published standards, or they do not.  And we already have standards for cadet participation, which apply equally to cadets over and under 18.

Not even a little (evenly), and the latest updates remove even a hint of objectivity in the standard.

Ned,

What, exactly, does this mean in a CAP context?

"h.  Adult Member.  For the purposes of this regulation, an adult member is an individual who has attained the age of majority, based on the jurisdiction of membership, and is assigned to any CAP membership category. College-age cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending upon the age of majority in a given jurisdiction."

[Ned]

I tried to answer that, but it was part of a response to someone else, so you might not have seen it.

And Bob, I'm similarly confused by your last question.  "College-aged cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending on the age of majority in a given jurisdiction" seems relatively straightforward, given that the age of majority is not the same in every location where we have cadets.  As just one example, a 19 year old cadet attending college in San Jose, California is an adult (hence an adult member), but that same cadet attending college in San Juan, Puerto Rico is not.  At least while physically in Puerto Rico.

Should we reword that?

[Eclipse]

Yes, we should reword that, what's there now doesn't properly frame the situation, and is almost certain
to give some CCs license to break rules regarding supervision, if not CPPT as well.

In a CAP-context, a "cadet" is never an "adult member', so the age of majority is irrelevant, unless
NHQ is looking to radically change the current paradigm.

This might be frustrating to 20-year olds, but that's always been the price of admission for cadet opportunities.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yes, we should reword that, what's there now doesn't properly frame the situation, and is almost certain
to give some CCs license to break rules regarding supervision, if not CPPT as well.

In a CAP-context, a "cadet" is never an "adult member', so the age of majority is irrelevant, unless
NHQ is looking to radically change the current paradigm.

This might be frustrating to 20-year olds, but that's always been the price of admission for cadet opportunities.

+1.


Even as an 18 year old cadet, I wouldn't be told the "cool stories", or treated without kid gloves - because that's what CAP required of the SMs around me.


Of course now I'm 23, and the kid gloves are off, I still don't get all the "cool stories", but let the pent up angst and hazing begin!  :angel: :angel:

[ZigZag911]

The status of the 18-20 year old cadets has been around for quite awhile, and no one has come up with a reasonable answer yet.

About 15 years ago, I raised the question in a supposedly "open forum" with a National CV, and got my butt chewed for daring to express an opinion contrary to the party line!

As a former cadet myself, I feel some clear distinction needs to be made for this age range.

I understand and support Ned's objections, and feel these should be taken into account in any revision of membership status...but a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

Back in the day (mid 70s) something called the "Cadet Transition Program" was tried...not wildly successful, too complex...but perhaps a place to start looking at the situation and its resolution.

[Ned]

In a CAP-context, a "cadet" is never an "adult member', so the age of majority is irrelevant, unless
NHQ is looking to radically change the current paradigm.

This might be frustrating to 20-year olds, but that's always been the price of admission for cadet opportunities.

When the draft 52-10 is approved, cadets over the local age of majority will indeed become "adult members," as we define the term.  That is the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted from paragraph 1-2g of the draft. 

But I agree that for practical purposes in our cadet program, the age of majority is irrelevant, because we treat cadets as cadets.

That's the paradigm we have always used, and the nothing in the draft would change our successful program in this regard.


Remember, some seniors are adults; some are minors in their home wings.  But we don't need any special rules for that, at least until we come across a systemic problem we need to address.  The same thing applies to cadets -- most are minors, some are adults.

It just mostly doesn't matter.

but a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

Back in the day (mid 70s) something called the "Cadet Transition Program" was tried...not wildly successful, too complex...but perhaps a place to start looking at the situation and its resolution.

There is no real dispute that there are significant developmental differences between a 12 year old and a 20 year old.  That is exactly why we already have doctrine that guides commanders and officers in this regard.  See paragraph 2-4d in the 52-16 that talks about age separation.  Within the cadet program we treat 20 year old cadet colonels and 12-14 year old cadet airmen differently depending on the activity and the circumstances.  But we treat them both as cadets, and senior supervision is always present.

And you are certainly correct that we have twice tried cadet transition programs.  I think my wife completed her Spaatz as part of the Advanced Cadet Transition (ACT) program back in the '70s, and we also implemented a remarkably similar Senior Transition Program (STP) later on.

Both failed because of a lack of participation.  Turns out there was no real incentive for successful cadets to transition to senior member status. 

Nothing has changed since then.

[Eclipse]

I understand and support Ned's objections, and feel these should be taken into account in any revision of membership status...but a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

I agree, though the problem is that if you allow an 18 year old to join as a slick-sleeve, what do you do with them?
Unless they have cadet experience from a similar organization (i.e. ROTC), they will be pretty clueless even compared to
a mosquito-winged 12 year old, and you can't just "park them" for a year or two to get a clue, since by the time they are
able to keep up, they will be aged-out.

Perhaps one compromise would be to limit cadets over 18 to Phase III or above and provide them some limited
adult responsibilities. However that would create a "max-age" for joining of about 16 for anyone who actually did the math.

You could argue that a motivated 16 year old would get a fair amount out of the program, even for only two years (probably
more then an 18 year old gets our of those same two years.)

No matter how you slice it, any change is likely to cause attrition and some hard feelings somewhere, which is not the
kind of thing NHQ tends to gravitate towards.

I have no particular heartburn with the way things are now, as long as there is no assertion of adult status for cadets.

[Eclipse]

When the draft 52-10 is approved, cadets over the local age of majority will indeed become "adult members," as we define the term.  That is the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted from paragraph 1-2g of the draft. 

But I agree that for practical purposes in our cadet program, the age of majority is irrelevant, because we treat cadets as cadets.

There's the problem, because those two sentences are at least somewhat contradictory.

The "adult members" are the senior members, not cadets.

I don't honestly understand the need for the language change, nor any special recognition of their legal status, at least within the confines of CAP's regs.

That looks like some sort of scope creep or a lawyer somewhere trying to "help".

If there is an important reason to recognize cadets or a given age as "adults", then that same reason probably justifies their not
being cadets anymore.   And in most cases, those "reasons" are voluntary and a choice made by those cadets - kids, military,
marriage, etc.  Personally, I've never understood the reserve / guard waivers, either.  Anyone who's completed BMT, and / or
become a commissioned officer, has leap-frogged much of what CAP could ever offer them. 

[Ned]

The "adult members" are the senior members, not cadets.

That's what we are clarifying with the draft.

"Adult member" = anyone over the local age of majority (includes some cadets)

"Adult leader" = all senior members, CSMs, etc., who might superivse cadets.  Specifically excludes cadets.

We made the distinction to help define who has to take certain CPP training (all "adult members," not just seniors) and some other rules like employment and mandatory termination upon conviction for abuse.

If there is an important reason to recognize cadets or a given age as "adults", then that same reason probably justifies their not
being cadets anymore.   

No, not really.  We are just talking about some needed CPP training for our older cadets (which we've been doing for years) and some vanishingly rare circumstances like terminating adult members convicted of abusing another member.

(Since in most jurisdictions, only adults can be convicted of crimes (as opposed to findings or adjudications of a juvenile court), it makes sense to to only talk about adult members in this circumstance.)

And that's pretty much it.  We could probably remove the "adult member" definition and references without making a huge impact one way or another, but it just made more sense to help clarify these situations as we wrote the draft.

And in most cases, those "reasons" are voluntary and a choice made by those cadets - kids, military,
marriage, etc.  Personally, I've never understood the reserve / guard waivers, either.  Anyone who's completed BMT, and / or
become a commissioned officer, has leap-frogged much of what CAP could ever offer them.

Can only concur that most cadets leave the program voluntarily for whatever reasons make sense to them. 

And the reserve / Guard waivers were put into place to allow 17 year old high school juniors to sign up for "split option" programs (basic training between junior and senior years, advanced training after high school and before college) without losing their CP eligibility.  It's worked pretty well for us.

And by the time most cadets hit 17, they are working on Phases III and IV indirect leadership stuff.  Which they pretty much never get in basic / AIT, where if I recall correctly, the emphasis is on followership.  IOW, CAP cadet training is different from, and complementary to the training provided by Uncle Sam at basic / BMT.  Win-win.

[Panache]

Just off the top of my head and with no real planning....

Now what could be done, is this: restructure the SM initial entry program so EVERY new SM serves time as a FO.
0-1 months –SMWOG (Level 1 and all the associated requirements)
1-3- months-FO (Work with mentor in squadron. Learn the tasks for the position the member will be in.)
3-7 months TFO (obtain tech rating/Davis Award)
7-12 months SFO (Work with mentor at higher level, group or wing and will be eligible to attend SLS PD only)
12 months+ Second Lieutenant or special circumstance promotion. After that, follow the normal progression in 35-5.

At the end of the 12 months, the new member will have a tech rating, have done some schooling in the CAP way of things, and see how things are done at the squadron and wing levels. Basic insignia on the corporate or AF uniforms. Would go pin on for the utilities, since sewing on the tabs every couple of months would just be a drag...

I suggested much the same thing in another thread.  I won't rehash it here.

If what I could recall, apparently NHQ is pondering the same thing, more-or-less (without the "Warrant Officers" idea), as they're concerned that SMs are being promoted too quickly.  I read it in one of the minutes they posted up in eServices.

EDIT: Found it.  It's in the May 2013 CAP Senior Advisory Group minutes in eServices.  Page 38.

[flyboy53]

Not only do I agree that NHQ should recognize flight officer grades in e-services, I believe the rank should be permanent and not stripped when the individual turns 21. So often I've run into former cadets who transition to senior status but then something happens like college or the military and they don't remain unit active.

At least they would retain the highest rank held.