Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2017, 01:21:00 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Cadet to Flight Officer
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All Print
Author Topic: Cadet to Flight Officer  (Read 3997 times)
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 590

« Reply #60 on: February 20, 2017, 03:04:12 PM »

Of course this whole topic of a cadet becoming a Flight Officer may soon be pointless. Looking at the new CAPR35-5 (22112016) it appears that there my be an error in the Flight Officer program Time-in-Grade requirements or CAP may already be attempting to phase out the Flight Officer program.  If one joins on their 18th Birthday (The earliest age that one can be an FO) there are only 36 months to their 21 birthday (The age that they age out and become regular CAP Officers).
CAPR 35-5, 7.4.2. Requirements for Specific Grades (Figure 10) outlines that it will take 54 months of Time-In Grade (6mths from SM to FO, 18mths from FO to TFO, 30mths from TSO to SFO = 54mths), an improbability given the 36 month age out.
Question: Is it an error or is the Flight Officer program being phased out?

The program isn't being phased out as far as I know but NHQ did realign the FO promotion requirements to be more in sync with the new promotion requirements for officer grades.  A former cadet can still reach the grades for TFO and SFO if they earned the Earhart or higher awards when they were a cadet.
Logged
GaryVC
Member

Posts: 82
Unit: PCR-NV-070

« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2017, 03:19:18 PM »

I think it is possible that "sustained" in this context has become "Nevada Speak." I have heard our cadets refer to the Armstrong Achievement as C/CMSgt sustained. It isn't technically wrong either as sustained means "continuing for an extended period or without interruption."
Logged
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,949

« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2017, 06:15:38 PM »

I think it is possible that "sustained" in this context has become "Nevada Speak." I have heard our cadets refer to the Armstrong Achievement as C/CMSgt sustained. It isn't technically wrong either as sustained means "continuing for an extended period or without interruption."

Actually it is technically wrong. As Eclipse pointed out above, the term "sustained" has a very specific meaning in CAP regulations. Beyond that, it implies that there is an option for the cadet to lose rank if the "ghost achievement" is not completed, which there absolutely is not.

The fact of the matter is, there are multiple achievements in the CAP cadet program, primarily in the third and fourth phase, that have no accompanying promotion.
Logged

If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,731

« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2017, 07:10:38 PM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Starbux
Recruit

Posts: 32
Unit: SWR-NM-033

« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2017, 09:43:37 PM »

Also check CAPR 39-2, 3.2.5 which specifically addresses the process for cadets transferring to active senior status.

As mentioned before, this is a one way trip so make sure that you have done as much of the cadet program as you wish or are able before starting Down this road. If you're 18 and don't have your orientation flights completed, you won't be able to complete the Mitchell award.


Wow, that's a change.  I never finished all my O-rides, not because I was not interested in flying for obvious reasons.  I had my Private Pilot Glider by the time I was 17 and was already soloed in a SEL airplane and was on track to get my SEL add on at least by 18, which is when I got it.  By this time I had already had my Earhart working towards the Spaatz, which I did not get.  Do they give credit for cadets working on aeronautical ratings?  I mean a kid soloing a plane has more aeronautical knowledge than the 5 flights I give the kido's from their syllabus.  Don't get me wrong I am all for the O-ride program, especially since I get free hours and currency out of it.  I think its a little over the top to penalize people for not getting all of them.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 11:58:47 PM by Starbux » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,267

« Reply #65 on: February 20, 2017, 10:11:56 PM »

^^^ Read further down.  This is incorrect.

O-rides are not tied to any achievements or promotions.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Starbux
Recruit

Posts: 32
Unit: SWR-NM-033

« Reply #66 on: February 20, 2017, 11:57:18 PM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.

I agree I never really saw a point in it either.  I became TFO four months from being 21.  I only did it after I had come back from IACE and blew my final chance at the Spaatz, long story, no time.  I did it so I can go into an all SM squadron that flew most of the air missions in the wing.  It was fine there, because we were not a rank centric squadron.  I was pretty much "retired" from cadet life after those events.
Logged
SPAATZ1315
Recruit

Posts: 8
Unit: RMR-CO-183

« Reply #67 on: February 21, 2017, 05:58:56 PM »

Don't do it!! Stay a Cadet as long as you can. Take advantage of all that the Cadet program has to offer. You only get to be a Cadet once in your life. Don't be in such a hurry to become a Senior Member. It's time will come.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Logged
LATORRECA
Forum Regular

Posts: 151
Unit: NHQ-119

« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2017, 03:02:14 AM »

I wonder if the cadet is still following this topic. Hey buddy are you still a cadet or you jump to the disappointment side. @Mrodriguez

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

Logged
Starbux
Recruit

Posts: 32
Unit: SWR-NM-033

« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2017, 03:54:24 AM »

^^^ Read further down.  This is incorrect.

O-rides are not tied to any achievements or promotions.

Gotcha, I should have known better to bite off on the internet  ;)
Logged
Mrodriguez
Recruit

Posts: 5
Unit: NE-094

« Reply #70 on: February 26, 2017, 03:01:39 PM »

First off thank you everyone for your comments and information it's greatly appreciated. Secondly I have chosen to go senior for a few reasons. Like another in the thread I don't see myself progressing and don't want to stay that way. I also believe I can help my squadron more as a senior member and I would like to begin as soon as possible and start learning and working. Thank you again.  8)
Logged
SM. RODRIGUEZ
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 828

« Reply #71 on: March 02, 2017, 12:48:21 PM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.

"Officer candidate"
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,731

« Reply #72 on: March 02, 2017, 02:50:22 PM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.

"Officer candidate"

Nope. Not everyone is going down the zero path.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 828

« Reply #73 on: March 07, 2017, 11:55:51 PM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.

"Officer candidate"

Nope. Not everyone is going down the zero path.

 :P I expected a similar reply the moment after I hit "Post."

I think some form of "Candidate" title is a bit more appropriate than the "Without Grade" status. Candidate implies that you are in training to earn a grade. A Sponsor Member is "without grade" and will never assume a grade unless they change to a candidate in the officer or NCO pipelines.
Logged
DomLaz475381
Newbie

Posts: 4
Unit: NER-PA-214

« Reply #74 on: March 22, 2017, 12:25:38 AM »

I've recently switched from cadet to TFO. I think that the decision is positive, although the next few months may  be a learning curve. You have to be mentally prepared to switch, personal advancement ceases and you have to be more concerned about the advancement of your cadets. I am intending on taking on the role of activities officer for my home unit because I feel that the best way I can aide my cadets is planning fun trips to keep the cadets interested. I think that it's rewarding to provide your cadets with fun life experiences that they will carry with them forever. If you have and questions feel free to reach out to me, and welcome to the dark side!
Logged
Dominick R. Lazaro II
Technical Flight Officer
PA Wing

Wright Brothers-20603,  Mitchell-65040, Amelia Earhart-17164
NREMT-B/PROBOARD-FIREFIGHTER I
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,091

« Reply #75 on: March 22, 2017, 12:36:10 AM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.
The Flight Officer structure exists to prevent CAP from have sub-21 year old Lts and Capts.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,267

« Reply #76 on: March 22, 2017, 12:51:52 AM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.
The Flight Officer structure exists to prevent CAP from have sub-21 year old Lts and Capts.

Which apparently isn't a hard-fast issue for the US military, so why is it for CAP?

http://hanfordsentinel.com/kingsburg_recorder/news/kingsburg-student-completes-officer-candidate-school/article_7a2ec666-bae2-5cf5-a413-ed3ab53aeb8a.html



With a relevent degree, you can join the officer program with the USAF at 18:
https://www.airforce.com/how-to-join/process/officer

19 for Army OCS: http://www.goarmy.com/ocs.html

Frankly, the numbers who would be affected in CAP would be slightly higher, but not too much so, then the above edge cases.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,949

« Reply #77 on: March 22, 2017, 09:05:00 AM »

...personal advancement ceases and you have to be more concerned about the advancement of your cadets.

I just want to point out this one point real quick. Yes, you have to be more concerned about those below you advancing. One of the best ways to do that is to continue to set a good example. In other words, your personal advancement never ceases, because if it does then you are not setting that good example.
Logged

If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
τε
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 774
Unit: PCR-CA-437

« Reply #78 on: March 22, 2017, 09:20:32 AM »

I was a TFO before I became a butter bar. In hindsight over 20+ years, there is no value to the FO structure. Eliminate it. Make SMOWG a training grade for either the O or NCO path.
The Flight Officer structure exists to prevent CAP from have sub-21 year old Lts and Capts.
I think it's more to prevent 21 year old majors and 25 year old lt colonels.
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 801
Unit: GA-001/CV

« Reply #79 on: March 22, 2017, 10:24:19 AM »

I think you may be correct (about the prevention aspects), but the question remains: why?

First question: why?
If we truly want to reward ability and merit-based advancement/achievement, why not formally note that we have a tighter "pipeline" for advancement (the current path set by CAP leadership of tightening up PD requirements for advanced grades) and then loosen the age restriction on the lower end of the pipeline (unless it is a hard, written mandate from our USAF customer, which it may be)? Is it a USAF mandate, or is this something we can adjust to bring on hard chargers.

Second question: how is that working out?
Some 18-21s will make different choices on which path to take to excel/advance, just as in any career path. Is the "FO" structure actually working to prevent young field grades? From my perspective it is not, since the regs allow time in grade and PD credit as an FO to apply to junior officer advancement. I turned SM at age 18 in the late 80s to begin training as aircrew, in a day when cadets over 18 were forbidden from MS/MO/MP/GTL ratings. With credit for my under 21 SM activity I ended up making Lt Col at age 29. That obviously rankled the (Army career officer) MDWG Chief of Staff at the time, who flipped my promotion action into my lap as he stalked past me at Commanders Call (no ceremony for you, laddie buck!). So, what was the constructive point in slapping a young Sqdn/CC (me) down, just for being young? What behaviors are we trying to corporately reward and/or suppress, and should that not be the basis for the system?


Point: we should set performance and training standards, and eliminate biases based on age, sex, and any other non factors from consideration for promotion actions.

(and nowadays, I can say that as an older Lt Col, probably in my terminal grade for 20+ years)!

V/r
Spam


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Cadet to Flight Officer
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.611 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me