Spring 2011 NEC Agenda

[RiverAux]

I would even argue against a statement that Regions are "management level" since they have almost no direct control over anything in day to day CAP life.  As far as I can tell their only real function is to appoint Wing commanders.  Quite frankly they could be done away with and no one would notice since they have so little authority or influence. 

[FW]

Riv,  Regions are for proper "span of control" with NHQ.  The National Commander does not need to deal with 52 wing commanders on a daily basis.  It's too much.  At the Corporate Level, regions are "middle management".  They control aviation assets, liaison with CAP-USAF, and have region conferences and RSC.  Yes, at the unit level, region is basically a non entity; except for members wishing to go to RSC or for cadets participating in NCC. 
Could we survive without regions; maybe.  Do we need them; yes.

[lordmonar]

Groups, Wings, and Regions are not operational commands, they are headquarters components.

The only operational entities in CAP are the local units.  We may not operate that way, but that is the design.

I disagree.

I don't think any local squadron is a stand alone operational unit for anything larger than a single asset operation.

[Eclipse]

"isn't" doesn't mean "shouldn't be".

We have all heard the stories of days gone by regarding unit with end-to-end qualified people from IC to Ground team and the aircrews.

That is the model CAP is currently based on.  The fact that we are understaffed and have allowed units to specialize at their whim doesn't
change the model.  Groups, Wings, and Regions are supposed to be responsible for the coordination of assets, plans, programs, and compliance,
not, by design staffing a Ground Team or running a mission base.

The fact that many of our members are triple-billeted, or that most ES response brings members from all over a respective wing, doesn't make
the headquarters components "operational".

Further, Groups, Wings, and Regions are outward-facing organizations charged with providing services to the units and the members.  Units are inward-facing organizations charged with the training and utilization of the rank-and-file membership.

[lordmonar]

No...I don't think you understand what I am saying...

Even in the old days.....no single squadron could do anything other than soritie single assests.

Unless they owned 4 aircraft and 3 vans.

My point is....My squadron may have 1 or even 2 air planes....and a van.    Any operation that requires more then two aircraft and one gound team automatically becomes a group/wing level operation.  My squadron may still be doing the core of the work covering all the mission base staff positions......but it is now a wing operation.

[Eclipse]

A "wing-level operation" does not make the echelon known as "Wing" "operational", it means that it takes operational units from all over the state
to complete the mission.  That's not the same thing.

The actors and assets come form the units, not the Group, Wing, or Region.  Having a few players from the -001 charters doesn't make them "operational" components.  Their role in the flow chart is administrative, and in a perfect, fully-staffed world they would not be field assets.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse,

Even in the AD USAF squadrons are not stand alone operational units.  The local squadron commander is tasked with training, equiping and manning his unit to performed assigned missions.

It is at the wing that "operations" are conducted.

Same is true with CAP.

Wings and Groups are as much operational as a local squadron....in fact the are more operational as a cadet squadon by definition is not operational at all....or else it would be a composite squadron.

So by definition there are NO non-operational wings.  They all do the planning and conducting of operations......even if the Hommer J. Simpson Composite Squadron is able to operate independantly.

[Eclipse]

Perhaps we are stuck on the terminology.  For starters, a lot of people take exception when we only consider ES "operations", in fact, anything which is "doing" is "operations" in a CAP context.  Groups, Wings, and Regions do not have weekly meetings where they are training their members to be scanners, or doing drill, in fact Groups, Wings, and Regions aren't really supposed to have cadets assigned to them as their home squadron.

By design, Groups, Wings, and Region are the planners and administrators.

Local Squadrons are supposed to be the "doers".

Anything outside of that is an anomaly of our low membership numbers and circular reporting relationships, not the design of the system.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

For starters, a lot of people take exception when we only consider ES "operations", in fact, anything which is "doing" is "operations" in a CAP context.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[JC004]

...
By design, Groups, Wings, and Region are the planners and administrators.

Local Squadrons are supposed to be the "doers".

Anything outside of that is an anomaly of our low membership numbers and circular reporting relationships, not the design of the system.

What if they just plan to plan and administrate rather than do planning and administration?  Is it ok just to plan to plan if their function is to plan?

[LTC Don]

All verbiage aside, the command structure as stated in 20-1 isn't ambiguous.  It clearly spells out the high-level command chain in the org chart (see attached screenshot).  It doesn't say under CAP Regions (8 'sort of' Commands)    It's pretty clear on that point.

So, wear of the various command level patches on the flightsuit as the USAF does it, would bring us in closer conformity, which I would support.  USAF commanders are given the option to allow their aircrew to wear the US flag in place of their wing patch on the left sleeve. Squadron patches are worn on the right sleeve.

USAF BDU wear, has the MajCommand patch worn on the right breast pocket, and the Wing patch worn on the left breast pocket, and where authorized, the squadron patch on the right, above the nametape.  Again, a clear chain of command present. 

Being that we wear full color patches however, I could see where it gets pretty gaudy looking, as it does now with the ES patch worn upper right.

USAF AFI 36-2903 - http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf

How does this relate to the triangle emblem now in committee.  It really doesn't.  BUT.  I could support replacing the older CAP Emblem with the present MajCom shield which is really a good looking emblem, but not in addition to.  It makes no sense whatsoever to add to the stable of quite acceptable logos/emblems representing the organization.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

To really be pedantic, wouldn't the AETC MAJCOM shield figure into the mix somehow?  (Probably not.)

But, yes, I do agree with the crest order some have suggested.

I don't know how it's done now, but I remember that neither the ANG or AFRES wore their crests on BDU's/flight suits, or if they did, I didn't see it.  They wore the crest of their gaining command: MAC, TAC, SAC, ADC, ADTAC etc.  To further complicate things, most Guard/Reserve wings/groups had units (comms, intell) that would have been gained by other higher units, like Air Force Communications Command, but still wore the MAC/TAC/SAC shields.

I would, however, go back to the MAJCOM shield that had "U.S. AIR FORCE AUXILIARY" on the scroll, with "CAP" underneath the propeller.  There is currently nothing on our field/utility uniforms that denotes any connection to the Air Force, unlike our nameplates on other orders of dress.

[PHall]

To really be pedantic, wouldn't the AETC MAJCOM shield figure into the mix somehow?  (Probably not.)

But, yes, I do agree with the crest order some have suggested.

I don't know how it's done now, but I remember that neither the ANG or AFRES wore their crests on BDU's/flight suits, or if they did, I didn't see it.  They wore the crest of their gaining command: MAC, TAC, SAC, ADC, ADTAC etc.  To further complicate things, most Guard/Reserve wings/groups had units (comms, intell) that would have been gained by other higher units, like Air Force Communications Command, but still wore the MAC/TAC/SAC shields.

I would, however, go back to the MAJCOM shield that had "U.S. AIR FORCE AUXILIARY" on the scroll, with "CAP" underneath the propeller.  There is currently nothing on our field/utility uniforms that denotes any connection to the Air Force, unlike our nameplates on other orders of dress.

AFRC now requires that the AFRC MAJCOM patch to be worn now. The gaining MAJCOM patch is no longer worn. IIRC the same rules also apply to the ANG too.

[A.Member]

Item 8.  Approving the Triangle Thingy.  Interesting that they're seeking approval from the NEC to do what they've already been doing with the triangle thingy.  And one of the support comments mentions they are in favor of the proposed action because it will promote consistency, when in fact the proposed action simply adds the triangle thingy as yet another optional (up to 5 now), approved, current logo/seal/emblem without eliminating any of the other 4 still on the books.   

They use vague and fairly incorrect references to the Army and Air Force recruiting logos (conveniently without mentioning that those have restricted uses and are just one piece of an expensive, well-thought-out, and comprehensive brand system) as justification that CAP needs another emblem for general use along side all the others. 

And the proposed action fails to even proscribe when we should use our different logo/seal/emblems.  It's all optional if that passes.  Wanna use the seal on your squadron letterhead?  Sure.  The squadron in the next city over will be using the triangle thingy, and the Group HQ will be using the command shield.  That way we'll be sure to look like 3 different organizations to the public.

  I wish for once NHQ would consult outside industry experts when proposing things of this nature.

I couldn't agree more - particularly with the last sentence.   If they really want to make a change (and I don't think one is needed, other than to cease use of the triangle thingy), then it's time to put the amateur-hour stuff aside and get people with real industry expertise involved. 

With all due respect, agenda item 8 the triangle/propeller logo was probably written by the person who created the thing.  Either way, he clearly does not understanding branding.  The "background information" is filled with opinion and the justifications offered were, well..."misguided" (to be kind). 

[Ed Bos]

AFRC now requires that the AFRC MAJCOM patch to be worn now. The gaining MAJCOM patch is no longer worn. IIRC the same rules also apply to the ANG too.

The AF Reserves wear the Reserve MAJCOM patch. The ANG is not a MAJCOM, and Guardsmen continue to wear the MAJCOM patch for the gaining MAJCOM.

The only item I am not sure about is with regard to National Guard of the US, and Headquarters, National Guard Bureau folks... I believe they may wear the Air National Guard shield-style patch, but I'm not sure.

[Slim]

The only item I am not sure about is with regard to National Guard of the US, and Headquarters, National Guard Bureau folks... I believe they may wear the Air National Guard shield-style patch, but I'm not sure.

FWIW, our former state TAG here used to wear the ANG MAJCOM patch, as did all of the permanent party AGR people at the CRTC where we hold our encampment.

[PHall]

AFRC now requires that the AFRC MAJCOM patch to be worn now. The gaining MAJCOM patch is no longer worn. IIRC the same rules also apply to the ANG too.

The AF Reserves wear the Reserve MAJCOM patch. The ANG is not a MAJCOM, and Guardsmen continue to wear the MAJCOM patch for the gaining MAJCOM.

The only item I am not sure about is with regard to National Guard of the US, and Headquarters, National Guard Bureau folks... I believe they may wear the Air National Guard shield-style patch, but I'm not sure.

Most of the Air Guard folks I've seen out here in California were sporting the ANG patch on their flight suits.
Don't know if it's a CA ANG policy or not, but it's what I have seen.

[Ed Bos]

^^ Most of the California Air Guard folks I know don't.

[PHall]

^^ Most of the California Air Guard folks I know don't.

Come out to March...