CAP's top priority for 2011

[RiverAux]

What should be CAP's top priority in 2011 at the National Headquarters level? 

Personally, I think it should be the development of a document outlining their vision of how CAP ground teams (in the generic sense, not just SAR) should be trained for and utilized during natural disaster response operations.  What key skills should CAP bring to the table?  What training should we be doing that currently isn't part of the program?  Are we really interested in being part of ground ops after natural disasters in the first place or should we stick with air ops only? 

[arajca]

I think you need to expand it include base operations. There is even less thought given to base ops than ground teams.

[Al Sayre]

Aww c'mon, you guys know that uniforms have the highest priority

[manfredvonrichthofen]

A plan to bring our ES program and training to current times and try to be a little more advanced. You know, try to be the cutting edge of ES both on foot and in the air. I know our tactics are great both ground and air. But bring the knowledge and equipment more current. I know that many of us are still using locaters that were really old when I was using one as a cadet.

[Major Carrales]

A plan to bring our ES program and training to current times and try to be a little more advanced. You know, try to be the cutting edge of ES both on foot and in the air. I know our tactics are great both ground and air. But bring the knowledge and equipment more current. I know that many of us are still using locaters that were really old when I was using one as a cadet.

This requires strong local units willing to change.  Thus, I think our main priority is to promote strong squadrons with rejuvenated staffing and clearer comprehensive training programs.  From that, ES, CP and AE programs can prosper.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

More of an emphasis on mentoring new members.

Too often we just sign them up, take their money and their fingerprints and then put it back in their lap as "well, what do you want to do?"

Perhaps some kind of aptitude test?

[Major Carrales]

Aptitude test, if not standardized and administered from a higher lever, can lead to ruin, political infighting and a lot of other stuff that can be divisive.

We really need to take some time and money to outfit our units with updated equipment and other necessities to help better accomplish the missions.  This can be grassroots (raising money locally and bolstering equipment inventories) or from "up top, downwards" through seeking and getting grants and larger donations from manufacturers.

It is telling of just how poorly many units are outfitted. 

[Eclipse]

We really need to take some time and money to outfit our units with updated equipment and other necessities to help better accomplish the missions.

Before we start outfitting or training anyone, we need to define the mission and the customer, and not necessarily in that order.

After that we need to set the scale and scope for each wing/group/unit, including expectations for performance which include a graduated ramp-up.

Meet step 1, get money for step 2, etc.

The best thing CAP could do for itself would be a 6-month stand-down where nothing is done but a reboot.

[PHall]

A plan to bring our ES program and training to current times and try to be a little more advanced. You know, try to be the cutting edge of ES both on foot and in the air. I know our tactics are great both ground and air. But bring the knowledge and equipment more current. I know that many of us are still using locaters that were really old when I was using one as a cadet.

But is this what our "customers" want from us? Some research in what our customers want from us is a much better idea.

[BillB]

If doing a six-month standown, better not schedule any missing aircraft during that period, or plan to send out boy scout ground teams.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Don't you think our customers would want for us to be better outfitted with gear and to be trained the best as we possibly can?

I don't think a stand down would be smart in the slightest bit. We would suffer because we would be called for missions, and tell them we can't because we are revamping our programs. Our customers would immediately think we are unorganized and can't be relied on. Not to even mention those that would suffer from us not able to perform for missions.

[PHall]

Don't you think our customers would want for us to be better outfitted with gear and to be trained the best as we possibly can?

I don't think a stand down would be smart in the slightest bit. We would suffer because we would be called for missions, and tell them we can't because we are revamping our programs. Our customers would immediately think we are unorganized and can't be relied on. Not to even mention those that would suffer from us not able to perform for missions.

Better outfitted for what mission? We could be out fitted better than International Rescue, but if it's for a mission our customers don't want or need, it's a waste of money.

Talk to our "customers" first and find out what they want/expect from us and then build from there.

The world is changing out there and missions we have performed in the past may not be relevent to todays needs.

[Eclipse]

If doing a six-month standown, better not schedule any missing aircraft during that period, or plan to send out boy scout ground teams.

That would generally be the first nay-say at the USAF table and could reasonably be accommodated.

Corporations do this all the time and somehow keep their doors open - see Six Sigma, Kaizen, ISO, and similar.

ES operations could be scaled back to "current ops" using existing operators with no additional changes or training allowed until
after the stand down.  There are more than enough people in the channel for this.

AE & CP could certainly be "all stopped" during the process.  I'm not talking about shutting down, I'm talking about every member in the
organization focused on fixing those things in CAP which never get the attention they need, and remain a thorn in CAP's collective side.

CAP is a unique organization with amazing people, rich history, and phenomenal opportunities for growth and service, but it also has some "issues" which need to be ironed out once and for all, which could be done with some intestinal fortitude, acceptance of attrition, and a little brute-force effort.

When I clicked over 10k posts I went to look back at my first posts in 2005 - we're still arguing about discussing the same things 5+ years later, and then I thought back to when I joined in 99, and realized we've basically been having the same circular discussions for the entire decade of my membership - a lot of times trivial matters which should have been settled with a sentence, but left ambiguous
allow for bad feelings or hassle by people who should not have to be bothered (i.e. volunteers).

A decade ago I had seasoned members in my AOR because of "over-administration" and "lack of mission focus" - 10 years of technology
should have streamlined that, but because we have so many sandboxes, we've probably actually made things harder.  Sure in some cases responses are quicker, but like so many corporations have done, NHQ assumes things are "easier", so they keep adding to the pile.

100 "easy" tasks, aren't any better than 10 "hard" ones, and the reporting tools, such as they are, allow for hyper-focus on the trash
cans while the warehouse is running amok.

[RRLE]

we need to define the mission and the customer

Good start but what do you do if CAP has more then 1 customer (it does) and the customers do not agree on what the mission is.

For starters, CAP customers are the USAF, the general public when it needs SAR, the general public for AE, cadets and senior members. The last two groups may or may not have the same mission in mind either.

[PHall]

Our main customers on the Air Force side are AFRCC and AFNORTH. Then there are the various state EMA's for state and local stuff.

The requirements from the AF side should be pretty constant across the country, but the state requirements will vary by each state.
Each Region and Wing needs to research what our customers in each state needs and then to tailor their training and equipping to meet those requirements.

It's not a one size fits all world out there.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What I would like to see from CAP in 2011:

1.  OFFICER TRAINING.  The new online OBC is good, or at least a good start.  Our junior officers are still our weakest asset.  We need a comprehensive training program, best conducted at the Wing level I believe, for our incoming officers.  Do you "Corporate Advocates" know of any major national corporation that limits its training of new management personnel to a 1 hour online course?  That's what the cashiers and secretaries get, not the managers.

2.  Rethinking of GT Doctrine.  When CAP got into the SAR business, there were virtually NO ground search assets.  Now every Sheriff Dept. has a SAR capability, and there are tons of ground search specialists with way better training and equipment than us.  What they lack is the skill and equipment to coordinate with an aircraft.  We have that.  Why not train small 2-3 man teams to work with another team as a "Air Coordination Element?"  The wheel has already been invented... at the Army battalion hq. there is always one AF officer pilot to coordinate air support.  Why not develop skilled aircrew as equally-skilled ground guys to coordinate with civilian SAR assets?


3.  Increased support to Law Enforcement.  We can legally perform Law Enforcement missions as a corporate mission under an MOU, but we shy away because they are scary.  As long as we are looking for new "Customers" and missions, why not consider supporting small counties with air support when their budgets cannot support an organic aviation unit?  Let's put the "Patrol" back in "Civil Air Patrol."

[JohnKachenmeister]

Oh yeah, I forgot because somebody mentioned this one once:

4.  Development of a doctrine for establishing airbase operations.  Imagine Katrina II, and the local CAP unit can stand up once the wind dies down and can run all airbase operations as C-130's and Blackhawks arrive in swarms.  Good communications and good training is all we need.  I mean... flight line, air traffic management, security, traffic and parking control, media relations, management of volunteer unloaders, provisions for food service and hydration for aircrews and base personnel, overnight facilities, communications, computer resources, weather data... all the stuff they had to set up in Haiti after the earthquake WE should be capable of establishing within hours of a disaster right here.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

What I would like to see from CAP in 2011:
2.  Rethinking of GT Doctrine.  When CAP got into the SAR business, there were virtually NO ground search assets.  Now every Sheriff Dept. has a SAR capability, and there are tons of ground search specialists with way better training and equipment than us.  What they lack is the skill and equipment to coordinate with an aircraft.  We have that.  Why not train small 2-3 man teams to work with another team as a "Air Coordination Element?"  The wheel has already been invented... at the Army battalion hq. there is always one AF officer pilot to coordinate air support.  Why not develop skilled aircrew as equally-skilled ground guys to coordinate with civilian SAR assets?

Are you talking about getting away from the current aspect of GT Ops as they are now, with personnel not being deployed as ground searchers, only as support to coordinate with our air Ops?

[JohnKachenmeister]

^Standard Army answer, Lieutenant.  Depends on the situation and the terrain.

UDF we are not going to lose.  It is WAY down, but still a big part of our mission load, and it is ours alone.

In some localities, we might be the go-to guys in ground ops.

In most cases, the restrictions on our employment, the use of cadets, and the need to have law enforcement support present anyway means that LE would be the principal asset in ground searches, with CAP officers to coordinate the air assets.

[Eclipse]

we need to define the mission and the customer

Good start but what do you do if CAP has more then 1 customer (it does) and the customers do not agree on what the mission is.

For starters, CAP customers are the USAF, the general public when it needs SAR, the general public for AE, cadets and senior members. The last two groups may or may not have the same mission in mind either.

Then perhaps narrowing the customer base, or the scope of what we provide is required.

Fireman put out fires, they do not enforce the law.

Policemen enforce the law, they do not put out fires.

Occasionally, because of circumstances, they work together, but you won't see an LEO pulling a hose line, or a fireman writing a traffic ticket.

We try to be all things to anyone who asks, to the detriment of overall performance and image.

[Ned]

Fireman put out fires, they do not enforce the law.

Umm, of course firefighters enforce the law.  That's one of most important things they do.  The Fire Marshall keeps people safe by setting and enforcing fire safety standards for things like crowd capacities, smoke alarms, and sprinklers.(They write a lot of tickets for criminal violations.)

Arson investigators investigate suspicious fires and arrest firebugs.  They carry guns, put handcuffs on arsonists, and take them to jail

All are firefighters.

Policemen enforce the law, they do not put out fires.

Similarly, police officers put out a lot of fires.  Often because they are the first persons to detect the fires when the fire is still relatively small.  When I was a young police officer, we actually had Scott airpacks in the trunk of the patrol care to help us with this part of our duties.

Out here in California, we have a number of Public Safety Agencies that combine police and firefighting departments into  a single agency.  Google the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety.  Officers spend time working in the fire house, and then can be reassigned to police patrol.  If a major fire erupts, police cars respond along with the engines and the "cops" go into firefighter mode.  The City saves money by being able to run smaller fire engine crews while still being able to have a large number of trained firefighters arrive at a fire.

The taxpayers seem to like it.

Kinda like CAP.  It's a good deal.

[Eclipse]

Your honor, the defense suggests you are going to hurt yourself stretching so far....

[Ned]

Your honor, the defense suggests you are going to hurt yourself stretching so far....

Bob,

See, I deal with this stuff all the time.  Every day at work, for instance.

Notice I don't try to make CAP / IT analogies, because I know that I would be out of my depth.


That may be one of the differences between us.

If there was a stretch here, the responsibility lies with whoever brought the police/firefighter issues into a perfectly good governance thread.

[Eclipse]

If there was a stretch here, the responsibility lies with whoever brought the police/firefighter issues into a perfectly good governance thread.

Within any profession we can find areas where specialization was found to be economically unfeasible and therefore occupations were combined, usually to the detraction of the function(s) being combined.

Municipalities don't create "Public Safety" departments with combined duties because they want to, it is because they have to due to the economic realities of their area - same goes for volunteer fire departments, allowing the sheriff to enforce local laws instead of a local PD, etc.

If anything, your examples make my point - the fact that people can do something, doesn't mean they should,

[lordmonar]

we need to define the mission and the customer

Good start but what do you do if CAP has more then 1 customer (it does) and the customers do not agree on what the mission is.

For starters, CAP customers are the USAF, the general public when it needs SAR, the general public for AE, cadets and senior members. The last two groups may or may not have the same mission in mind either.

One of the processes of defining your missions and customers is to also develop priorities of those missions and customers.

Once you know what the customers (all of them) want......you can tailor your missions to fit.....or decide not to do them if you can't satisfy all their opposing needs.

You can be Sears or Wallmart...that try satisfy all their customers needs....or you can decide to be Borders or Barns and Noble that only focuses on one target audience.

For the most part......I think CAP needs (at a national level) focus on what we already do.....but to bring the technology but to speed.....get WMRS, EServices, SIMS, On line testing, IMU, etc integrated and more user friendly.

Following that.....we need to look at fundraising outside of the USAF/government sources.

[ProdigalJim]

Couldn't agree more on the fundraising...and that means more than just dialing for dollars or asking for checks. A more coordinated effort on "in-kind" contributions could go a long way.

WIWAC, it was much, much worse; there was no free uniform program, as irritating as the present program seems to be for some people.

Working with local FBOs, for example, for training space or aircraft support; I know the regs cover this, but that doesn't mean it's done often enough. Just a tiny example.

[RiverAux]

We really need to take some time and money to outfit our units with updated equipment and other necessities to help better accomplish the missions. 

Just what equipment do you think needs updating?  The feds have been spending multi-millions on updating our radios for years, so those are in pretty good shape.  Sure, a lot of DF equipment is sort of old, but it still works and seeing as how it is used in missions that are in severe decline, not sure they would be a big priority in my book (but still every unit should have at least one, and I know we're short in my wing). 

[RiverAux]

2.  Rethinking of GT Doctrine.  When CAP got into the SAR business, there were virtually NO ground search assets.  Now every Sheriff Dept. has a SAR capability, and there are tons of ground search specialists with way better training and equipment than us.  What they lack is the skill and equipment to coordinate with an aircraft.  We have that.  Why not train small 2-3 man teams to work with another team as a "Air Coordination Element?"  The wheel has already been invented... at the Army battalion hq. there is always one AF officer pilot to coordinate air support.  Why not develop skilled aircrew as equally-skilled ground guys to coordinate with civilian SAR assets?

I think the teams you're talking about are a decent idea, but only as a supplement. 

FYI, There are huge swaths of the country where there are no county sheriff SAR teams.  I know that in my state fewer than 10% of counties have such teams.  I daresay that there are more than a few states where CAP has more qualified ground SAR personnel than all the county teams put together.  And no, they don't have significantly better training than us for the types of missions that we do.  As discussed on this board many times there are very few differences between CAP and NASAR standards and where there are differences they are in very specialized areas that CAP chooses not to participate (high angle rescue) in anywqay.  I'm not saying our GT training standards are enforced as well as NASAR standards, but thats a different story. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

^I guess we're spoiled here in Florida.  Sheriffs have airboats, big trucks full of gear, and trained guys always on duty that can assemble for a wilderness search.

SOME counties have their own aviation assets, but not all.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Aptitude test, if not standardized and administered from a higher lever, can lead to ruin, political infighting and a lot of other stuff that can be divisive.

Of course it would be standardised, done under AU auspices, and administered by a testing officer.

[jpizzo127]

Step 1. Speak to the customers and determine what they expect from us.

Step 2. Refine our training to meet these missions.

Step 3. Develop a real national curriculum of training standards.

Step 4. Revamp Equiptment where necessary

Above all else, we need strong leadership at the top and a real sense of urgency and purpose.

[cap235629]

REWRITE 39-1!!!!!!!!

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Step 1. Speak to the customers and determine what they expect from us.

Step 2. Refine our training to meet these missions.

Step 3. Develop a real national curriculum of training standards.

Step 4. Revamp Equiptment where necessary

Above all else, we need strong leadership at the top and a real sense of urgency and purpose.

I absolutely couldn't agree more.  :clap:

[JeffDG]

Step 1. Speak to the customers and determine what they expect from us.

Step 2. Refine our training to meet these missions.

Step 3. Develop a real national curriculum of training standards.

Step 4. Revamp Equiptment where necessary

Above all else, we need strong leadership at the top and a real sense of urgency and purpose.

Other than 1 and 3 being somewhat at odds, this is a good approach.  Otherwise we'll constantly have solutions in desperate need of problems.

Now...why are 1 and 3 in conflict a bit?  Different wings have different customers, and different customers have different requirements, causing inefficiencies in "national" training materials.  For example, requiring a Mission Pilot to be able to properly execute a canyon turn might be essential in CO, but in ND, not so much.  Likewise, a comms person in ND better understand frequency issues of conflict with Canada, but here in Tennessee, that's not a major issue.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Even though different wings need to know different things to operate in their AO, there still needs to be a national minimum standard to train to.

[davedove]

Actually, there should be a step before any of this:

Determine who our customers are/should be.  We should be looking at just who our core customers are and determine how to fill their needs.  Then, and only then, we can look at taking on additional customers if we have the resources.

Step 1. Speak to the customers and determine what they expect from us.

Step 2. Refine our training to meet these missions.

Step 3. Develop a real national curriculum of training standards.

Step 4. Revamp Equiptment where necessary

Above all else, we need strong leadership at the top and a real sense of urgency and purpose.

[Paul Creed III]

1) Increase retention of cadets and seniors

2) Fix 39-1; too many supplements and confusion

3) Create workflows for more of our paperwork (promotions and awards for example) in eServices so that there is less lost paperwork.

4) Adopt an online payment system that can be used to accept payments to Wings/Groups/whatever for events like conferences, encampments, etc.

5) Membership-wide "official" email accounts

6) A CMS-based website system that can be used by any entity that needs a CAP-branded website; too many sites out there look horrendous.

[exFlight Officer]

1) Increase retention of cadets and seniors

2) Fix 39-1; too many supplements and confusion

3) Create workflows for more of our paperwork (promotions and awards for example) in eServices so that there is less lost paperwork.

4) Adopt an online payment system that can be used to accept payments to Wings/Groups/whatever for events like conferences, encampments, etc.

5) Membership-wide "official" email accounts

6) A CMS-based website system that can be used by any entity that needs a CAP-branded website; too many sites out there look horrendous.

+ 1   

[JeffDG]

3) Create workflows for more of our paperwork (promotions and awards for example) in eServices so that there is less lost paperwork.

You know, it would be nice to build all the awards and such into a DB, link it to a "Rack Builder" so a person could look at all the stuff they're entitled to in one spot.  At least the CAP awards could be done that way, the military awards on the AF uniform could be difficult to gather.

[A.Member]

3) Create workflows for more of our paperwork (promotions and awards for example) in eServices so that there is less lost paperwork.

You know, it would be nice to build all the awards and such into a DB, link it to a "Rack Builder" so a person could look at all the stuff they're entitled to in one spot.  At least the CAP awards could be done that way, the military awards on the AF uniform could be difficult to gather.

If you're one of those sheep with an iPhone ( ):
http://www.rawapps.com/74881/rack-em-upem-up/

Don't know how well that one works but maybe I'll build one for Android users.

[JeffDG]

3) Create workflows for more of our paperwork (promotions and awards for example) in eServices so that there is less lost paperwork.

You know, it would be nice to build all the awards and such into a DB, link it to a "Rack Builder" so a person could look at all the stuff they're entitled to in one spot.  At least the CAP awards could be done that way, the military awards on the AF uniform could be difficult to gather.

If you're one of those conformists with an iPhone:
http://www.rawapps.com/74881/rack-em-upem-up/

Don't know how well that one works but maybe I'll build one for Android users.

The value I'm talking about would be a database in eServices that tracked all your awards and fed them into such an app.  If I were an Apple Kool-Aid drinker, I'm sure I'd love your App...

[Paul Creed III]

Integrated into the member's records in eServices would be great. For that matter, all awards and decorations should be tracked in eServices which could be accomplished with a workflow application.

[A.Member]

2) Fix 39-1; too many supplements and confusion

3) Create workflows for more of our paperwork (promotions and awards for example) in eServices so that there is less lost paperwork.

4) Adopt an online payment system that can be used to accept payments to Wings/Groups/whatever for events like conferences, encampments, etc.

5) Membership-wide "official" email accounts

6) A CMS-based website system that can be used by any entity that needs a CAP-branded website; too many sites out there look horrendous.

This is pretty much it.  I'll substitute out your first one for: 

1.  Have a consistent and clearly defined strategic vision for the organization (ie. a plan!)...and communicate it effectively!

[Paul Creed III]

I can agree with that since that plan would help all of the items after that!!

[DogCollar]

Integrated into the member's records in eServices would be great. For that matter, all awards and decorations should be tracked in eServices which could be accomplished with a workflow application.

It would be great for Professional Development Officers to have an approval tracker for awards, decorations and promotions.  That way we know who's holding up the works can be proactive in making changes necessary, rather than waiting long periods of time for someone to respond. 

[JeffDG]

Integrated into the member's records in eServices would be great. For that matter, all awards and decorations should be tracked in eServices which could be accomplished with a workflow application.

It would be great for Professional Development Officers to have an approval tracker for awards, decorations and promotions.  That way we know who's holding up the works can be proactive in making changes necessary, rather than waiting long periods of time for someone to respond.

They shouldn't be, programatically, much different that ES quals...

Each "rating" for example has prerequisites (for example:  Level 1 for Technician, Technician for Senior).  They don't really have Familiarization and Prep, but then they have tasks that you need to accomplish, then in the same area as "Exercise Participation", make it "time-in-service" requirements...don't re-invent the wheel, just tweak the SQTRs to a new purpose.

[Paul Creed III]

Much like the cadet promotions module has the requirements for each progression, the senior promotions module could have the same features.

[JeffDG]

Much like the cadet promotions module has the requirements for each progression, the senior promotions module could have the same features.

If you look at "2d Lt" as a SQTR:
Age Check
Level 1
One of:  6 Months as SMWOG
              PP-ASEL
              Others (sorry, I don't have the reg in front of me, but all of the "mission skills" that entitle you to 2d Lt)

Tasks:
           Performing at exemplary level meriting promotion...

[davidsinn]

Much like the cadet promotions module has the requirements for each progression, the senior promotions module could have the same features.

If you look at "2d Lt" as a SQTR:
Age Check
Level 1
One of:  6 Months as SMWOG
              PP-ASEL
              Others (sorry, I don't have the reg in front of me, but all of the "mission skills" that entitle you to 2d Lt)

Tasks:
           Performing at exemplary level meriting promotion...

That's how it works now. What we need it is a module for PD. Tracking the requirements for each specialty track.

[Paul Creed III]

So, is that promotions module fully functional as a workflow? I have not seen that module before. Should I have my squadron commander use that instead of actual paper to shuffle?

[davidsinn]

So, is that promotions module fully functional as a workflow? I have not seen that module before. Should I have my squadron commander use that instead of actual paper to shuffle?

Absolutely. It is the only way promotions are performed in my unit. As a matter of fact it's the only way they have ever been performed because that module came before my unit was chartered.

[JeffDG]

Much like the cadet promotions module has the requirements for each progression, the senior promotions module could have the same features.

If you look at "2d Lt" as a SQTR:
Age Check
Level 1
One of:  6 Months as SMWOG
              PP-ASEL
              Others (sorry, I don't have the reg in front of me, but all of the "mission skills" that entitle you to 2d Lt)

Tasks:
           Performing at exemplary level meriting promotion...

That's how it works now. What we need it is a module for PD. Tracking the requirements for each specialty track.

OK...that makes sense...

But, IMHO, PD Stuff like Technician/Senior/Master is closer to SQTR than the promotions, in that you have discreet tasks that you need to perform to qualify for the rating in the track.

[Paul Creed III]

Wow. That's cool. What is the name of the module in eServices and I assume that only the squadron commander has access to it?

[Bluelakes 13]

Paul,

Deputies or folks given permissions can run it.  It was all I used while unit CC.

[davidsinn]

Wow. That's cool. What is the name of the module in eServices and I assume that only the squadron commander has access to it?

It's the membership module.

[Paul Creed III]

Cool. I will pass that on to my commander.

[SARDOC]

The Personnel Officer also has access to the Membership module.  eServices is the only way I do promotions now except for Professional , Special and Mission related skills promotions which still require Paper*

Not really paper but can be done electronically via email.

[Tim Medeiros]

Yet another example that speaks to the need for "eServices for Dummies: Everything you ever wanted, or didn't want, to know about eServices"

Duty Performance Promotions is actually in the Duty Performance Promotions module of the Membership restricted application.  It can be granted via WSA and is automatically granted to certain duty positions.

[a2capt]

We've used it all the way to Major, now- for at least the last couple years plus some. No paper at all. Works great.

[JohnKachenmeister]

E-services reminds me of the old video game "Doom."  I'm still discovering new doors.  Every time you get a new assignment you get to a new level and find... MORE DOORS!

[Spaceman3750]

E-services reminds me of the old video game "Doom."  I'm still discovering new doors.  Every time you get a new assignment you get to a new level and find... MORE DOORS!

Speaking of more doors, how long has the member reports restricted module been there? I just discovered it last night, either because they just rolled it out or they just granted ES Officers permissions by default.

[Tim Medeiros]

Member Reports has been around at least 2 or 3 years.


Edit: just checked, I submitted 2 recommendations for it back in March 2007, so around that time is when it came out.

[J.American]

Rewriting CAPM 39-1.  Generally making it more standardized along with AFI 36-2903.

[dbaran]

I'd like to see significant focus on bringing in some new business on the ES or HLS side.   CAWG has gone from 400 missions/year to probably 40, and I'd guess 80% of them are in San Diego because one guy down there listens for ELTs.  Flying hours are pretty close to zero.   A huge chunk of business went away with the end of ELT chasing, yet nothing has replaced it.    The "continuing resolution" budget situation has frozen another activity (which shall remain nameless) that was about 40% of our flying, too, with no signs of a change.

I'd be curious if it is better (more active) in other wings at this point.  The only email traffic these days seems to be on new requirements to endure equal opportunity drivel or how to fill out a form 78 on line.

From the lack of activity, it makes me think that someone outsourced ES/HLS to India and we just haven't gotten the layoff notice yet.  Meanwhile, I have an increasing number of Thou Shalt Powerpoint mandates which are a complete waste of time. 

What we're going to get if we don't start doing something useful  is an organization filled with people who don't have anything better to do one night a week ("God's Waiting Room" was how one cadet programs guy described CAP's senior program), and everyone who actually likes to do something will go join a sheriff SAR team so they can actually help others.

[bosshawk]

David: your cadet had a pretty good impression of Senior Sq meetings in CAWG.  That is why I have quit attending and am now awaiting the expiration of my membership.