Units with no proximate "USAF Culture" Present

[flyguy06]

I for one can tell you that I joined CAP for the military aspect. If it werent for that part, I probably would not be a member. I am not as interested in ES as I am leadership development and flying cadets on orientation flights. So, yes, I wear only the ,ilitary style uniforms. I have never worn the blue shirt/grey panys combo, so when all that stuff about the coporate uniform changes came out, I basically ignored it cause it didnt apply to me.

I agree with posters that have CAP has changed. I remember when I joined CAP in 1984 it was toatally military. Commanders were genarally ex military pilots. Those days do seem to be going away. We do have more leaders that have no military background and are leading CAP in a different direction that when I joined. It may affect my membership, it may not. Thats a decision I have to make. As well as the person who doesnt want to be military. They have to realize that CAP is a auxillary of the USAF and we use the USAF as a model for our organization. That means uniforms, saluting, and traditional military customs and curteousies.

[Hawk200]

I have run into people who's all purpose answer is "its in the regs" and who's first response is to ridicule when the initial person did not follow/interpret it correctly or to his liking.

A far too common action. I always knew why we followed regs, but I never really knew how to explain it. I asked a friend, who was formerly an AETC instructor, how he would explain it. He gave me a lot of insight.

It's not hard to imagine a well meaning "group" in a somewhat isolated town starting a CAP unit and being sent a "Unit Start Up kit" having little or no help from anyone.  If that Unit is kept in isolation and is fed lines like  "Its all in the regs, Dummy!" how can you expect anything resembling proper procedure.

I know you probably stated this as a hypothetical scenario, but I would imagine that it's also a fact, and has happened numerous times.

Or, if this Unit gets off the ground and is not in an area or has personnel versed in USAF customs and military courtesy, how can you expect them to maintain the desired level of those items.

Good point. You can't, not honestly.

Guard and Reservists are not likely to take an active role in that unit.

Agreed, and with all fairness to them, they don't have any responsibility to do so. An assigned Reservist is one thing, but that would be a difficult load to carry.

I'm starting to think that programs similar to the Iowa plan might be the way to go. It's formal training in residence, and would put forth much of what those folks need in a "bubble" environment.

[DNall]

I have never seen a time or place where Seniors need to march. They do need to know how to fall in, salute, and basic facing movements, but that's about the extent. The problem comes up with the multitude of uniforms that seniors can wear. You can have ten seniors at a meeting and no two will be in the same uniform. Perhaps at a Senior Squadron meeting this would be acceptable, but when cadets see seniors in these uniforms, often obsolete phased out golf shirts and brown pants or blue jeans, what image does this present?  Commanders are afraid to correct senior members for fear they will drop from the program. The question is do they contribute enough to offset their ignoring requlations?

March up & get your diploma in front of a hundred cadets, that'd be a good time to make a flank/column turn & not fall on your butt, salute smartly, about face & mach back to your chair, again w/o falling on butt. Anything beyond basic individual drill would be for instructional purposes & mostly for cadet programs officers, they need to know it all.

In this respect, I'm of th onpinion that with several regs, the uniform reg in particular, it should go into excusioating detail to explain exactly what is expected with the assumption you got no prior-service, corrective-culture, or outside help, just what's in the book.

[RiverAux]

The mentality of "I wear a golf shirt and don't want to play Army" is what gets us in trouble because it allows the perception of a split personality to exist.

I think that hit it right on the head.  So long as we allow a civilian "uniform" to be worn we will not be able to maintain any sort of military culture.  How do I know how to address a senior member I've never seen before who is wearing a golf shirt?  Is he a Col or a 2nd Lt?  So, I'll be referring to him by first name more than likely, and it goes on from there.

I don't know that you need to be near a base, but I know it has helped with our cadet program as we have a fairly reliable stream of folks in their 20s from the base helping with the cadet program and that definetely helps keep up standards on that end. 

[SAR-EMT1]

If I may, let me pose a question to the membership:
Does your unit have a Reservist assigned? Currently or in the recent past.
How has that individual made an impact?

[Major Carrales]

If I may, let me pose a question to the membership:
Does your unit have a Reservist assigned? Currently or in the recent past.
How has that individual made an impact?

USAF personnel or Reservists attached to our unit...I don't know what you are talking about.

About ten years ago there was a USAF Major attached to our Group.  I saw him once at a SARex we had but never again.

The last CAP-USAF person I saw was a Lt Col who came down to observe the Texas Wing DSAR graded exercise.

[RiverAux]

As far as I know Reservists are assigned at Wing level and don't have a particular unit they're supposed to be visiting.  They tend to hit a lot of them and fill in where needed as role players for SAREXs, etc.  The State Director sort of uses them as eyes and ears.  But, even then they aren't enough of a part of a unit to be any better in this than the IG does when doing inspections. 

[afgeo4]

We only have so many hours to train, and it ain't many.  We need to set firm but realistic standards, spell out what is required and then demand folks meet them.  And it may be that the "realistic" part precludes doing some "military" stuff that doesn't end up high on the priorities list.

Demand that folks meet standards and expectations?  Or.....what?  I agree that there is some need to re-educate on the military-like procedures and protocols within the confines of CAP.  However, I also believe that those who come to CAP from non-military backgrounds bring gifts and talents that are needed that enhance the culture of CAP more than detracts from it.  Why does CAP have to be "Either this Or that?"

Demand they meet standards and expectations or let them take a walk. Unit commanders are responsible for their members. If there are members who don't meet standards, they aren't allowed to be members. I believe that's what the background checks and regulations regarding age, legal problems and citizenship are for too. Simply put, we cannot afford to keep people who refuse to meet standards and expectations of the Civil Air Patrol. They don't just drag themselves down, they take everyone around them with them.

[afgeo4]

If I may, let me pose a question to the membership:
Does your unit have a Reservist assigned? Currently or in the recent past.
How has that individual made an impact?

USAF personnel or Reservists attached to our unit...I don't know what you are talking about.

About ten years ago there was a USAF Major attached to our Group.  I saw him once at a SARex we had but never again.

The last CAP-USAF person I saw was a Lt Col who came down to observe the Texas Wing DSAR graded exercise.

Ok, I think I know what he's talking about. Officially, the USAFR has an AFSC for enlisted personnel to be attached to squadrons and/or groups of CAP as liaisons. I don't now if it was ever used, but I do know it isn't used any longer. It's still in the regs, but no reservist will be granted the switch. The Air Force just can't afford to lose Airmen and NCOs to CAP and still pay them for drills. These reservists switch to this AFSC and report to CAP-USAF OIC for the Wing.

[DogCollar]

Gee Whiz!!  I knew I was going to start conversation.....I didn't expect all this!!  Good job!

For the record...
(1)  NIMS compliance will determine if CAP will be allowed by FEMA and Homeland Security to undertake ES missions.  I forsee a day when inland SAR will be directed by executive agencies of the US Govt (FAA, HS, etc...) and not USAF.  That being said, I look at the present CAP ES qualifications, and it doesn't yet appear to be NIMS compliant.  I could be wrong about this...but there appears to be essential training missing.

(2)  Please remember, that in my previous posts, I NEVER said that CAP should "ditch" it's military culture or alliance!!  Rather, what I was trying to say is that the tension between corporate CAP and USAF-Aux status doesn't bother me.  I can see a role for both "personalities."

(3)  My mistake was in overreacting to the word demand.  In my line of work "demanding" someone to behave or comply with my expectations is verboten!  I can educate, persuade, cajole.  For overreacting, I apologize.

(4)  I have no problems with the notion that joining CAP there are rules, customs, and expectations that members should follow.  Yet, I think there should be more to a members service!  I think that those who come to CAP from non-military backgrounds should be trained in the customs, traditions and expectations, but they should also be respected for what they bring to the table and are willing to offer...the pilot, the doctor, the nurse, the CPA, the teacher, the mechanic, the lawyer, the house wife who is an expert in multi-tasking, the firefighter, the police officer, etc...all bring skills and (hopefully) will to the table.  By all means, train in military customs and traditions...most will gladly comply (I know that I do), but don't expect us to act like citizen soldiers, when what we want to be is citizen servants.

[Dragoon]

I have run into people who's all purpose answer is "its in the regs" and who's first response is to ridicule when the initial person did not follow/interpret it correctly or to his liking.

It's not hard to imagine a well meaning "group" in a somewhat isolated town starting a CAP unit and being sent a "Unit Start Up kit" having little or no help from anyone.  If that Unit is kept in isolation and is fed lines like  "Its all in the regs, Dummy!" how can you expect anything resembling proper procedure.

Or, if this Unit gets off the ground and is not in an area or has personnel versed in USAF customs and military courtesy, how can you expect them to maintain the desired level of those items.

Guard and Reservists are not likely to take an active role in that unit.

What is the desired level of customs and courtesy?  Is it a realistic level?

GIVEN

1.  Many of our members have zero military background.

2.  At least some CAP units will be started with a bare minimum of trained CAP leaders to guide them.

3.  Group and Wing oversight will be limited because those folks may have to travel long distances to visit units without reimbursement (and in the evenings).  So you can't expect a whole lot of handholding.

4.  It is hard to train certain things without lots and lots of hands on training (see #2 and #3 above)

5.  Even with the proper experienced trainers available, we don't really have a lot of training time available, and we've got a LOT to get done in that time.


....how "military" can we really expect CAP members to be?

We have to set a reasonable standard, based on the #1 to #5 above, or we are doomed to failure.

And it ain't gonna be the USAF active duty standard - that would require a consistent supply of miracles.

Or...we try to could change #1 - #5 , but I doubt it.  They seem be constants in the CAP universe.

What we can do is simplify what we require (fewer uniforms, less mandatory customs and courtesies, less paperwork), and then write much clearer guidance so that even someone with no experience can read it and know what to do.

The reason that "it's all in the regs" doesn't work today is because (1) it's a lie and (2) even when it IS in the regs, it's often written rather poorly.

[DogCollar]

What we can do is simplify what we require (fewer uniforms, less mandatory customs and courtesies, less paperwork), and then write much clearer guidance so that even someone with no experience can read it and know what to do.

The reason that "it's all in the regs" doesn't work today is because (1) it's a lie and (2) even when it IS in the regs, it's often written rather poorly.

I concur with your posting.  Clarity in what presently exists as essential will be more productive than adding momre essentials.

[Eclipse]

What we can do is simplify what we require (fewer uniforms, less mandatory customs and courtesies, less paperwork), and then write much clearer guidance so that even someone with no experience can read it and know what to do.

The reason that "it's all in the regs" doesn't work today is because (1) it's a lie and (2) even when it IS in the regs, it's often written rather poorly.

TOTAL BS. - Change the test so everyone gets an "A".

You don't lower the bar because people won't do what they are supposed to, you suggest alternative service elsewhere.

[Hawk200]

The reason that "it's all in the regs" doesn't work today is because (1) it's a lie and (2) even when it IS in the regs, it's often written rather poorly.

True. It certainly isn't "all in the regs". There are people in my unit that believe its cheating to use blousing straps with BDU's, or still don't believe that you're supposed to wear a hat when outside. The reg really isn't particularly clear.

[Hawk200]

What we can do is simplify what we require (fewer uniforms, less mandatory customs and courtesies, less paperwork), and then write much clearer guidance so that even someone with no experience can read it and know what to do.

The reason that "it's all in the regs" doesn't work today is because (1) it's a lie and (2) even when it IS in the regs, it's often written rather poorly.

TOTAL BS. - Change the test so everyone gets an "A".

You don't lower the bar because people won't do what they are supposed to, you suggest alternative service elsewhere.

How is simplifying the uniforms "changing the test" ? And how is clarifying the regs lowering the bar?

"Gee, that one senior member doesn't know the various placements of insignia on our twenty three different uniforms. They need to find someplace else to go." {/sarcasm}

I think there is somthing seriously wrong with an outlook when making it easier to understand a reg is considered distasteful. Even military regs spell things out, and most of the things not in there you will have learned in boot or tech school.

Oh, yeah, that's right. CAP doesn't do initial training for seniors. (Unless you think the Level 1 course really does teach new CAP members everything they need to know.)

[sandman]

....By all means, train in military customs and traditions...most will gladly comply (I know that I do), but don't expect us to act like citizen soldiers, when what we want to be is citizen servants.

Again I ask, Why Civil Air Patrol? Why become part of a (para) military organization? I salute those that do and thank you for your service, but if not acting like citizen soldiers, what is the purpose?

There are many fine organizations around to satisfy a persons altruistic needs.

Those who don't foster the military culture of CAP will dilute it. CAP will continue on the path it is currently on, entropy takes effect without continued introduction of military like structure, and CAP becomes no more.

[Hawk200]

By all means, train in military customs and traditions...most will gladly comply (I know that I do), but don't expect us to act like citizen soldiers, when what we want to be is citizen servants.

Gets me thinking, the Air Guard refers to itself as "Citizen Airmen", and the Army Guard as "Citizen Soldiers".

Maybe I'm just not thinking ahead enough, but would it really be a stretch to call ourselves "Citizen Airmen"? We'd certainly be more so than the Air Guard, we're for more "citizen" than they are. Or maybe "Volunteer Airmen"?

[DogCollar]

....By all means, train in military customs and traditions...most will gladly comply (I know that I do), but don't expect us to act like citizen soldiers, when what we want to be is citizen servants.

Again I ask, Why Civil Air Patrol? Why become part of a (para) military organization? I salute those that do and thank you for your service, but if not acting like citizen soldiers, what is the purpose?

There are many fine organizations around to satisfy a persons altruistic needs.

Those who don't foster the military culture of CAP will dilute it. CAP will continue on the path it is currently on, entropy takes effect without continued introduction of military like structure, and CAP becomes no more.

A "Soldier" is someone who trains to and actually bears arms for the defense on ones country.  We are not charged to fight but rather to "serve" the nations other needs.  Thus I use the term Citizen Servants.

I beg of you to remember...I have not called for denying, denigrating, degrading or disemboweling the military customs and traditions from CAP!!  They add rather than detract.  I have never said that we should be like the volunteer rescue squad, or the boy scout troop.  I believe that we have an important role to play as the USAF-Aux. 

What I have said and will continue to say, is that CAP has duality to it that I personally can live with.  I would hazard a guess that most who come from non-military backgrounds also are able to live with the tension of dual indentities.

I have already apologized for overreacting to the word demand I will do so again if it moves the discussion along.

[sandman]

....By all means, train in military customs and traditions...most will gladly comply (I know that I do), but don't expect us to act like citizen soldiers, when what we want to be is citizen servants.

Again I ask, Why Civil Air Patrol? Why become part of a (para) military organization? I salute those that do and thank you for your service, but if not acting like citizen soldiers, what is the purpose?

There are many fine organizations around to satisfy a persons altruistic needs.

Those who don't foster the military culture of CAP will dilute it. CAP will continue on the path it is currently on, entropy takes effect without continued introduction of military like structure, and CAP becomes no more.

A "Soldier" is someone who trains to and actually bears arms for the defense on ones country.  We are not charged to fight but rather to "serve" the nations other needs.  Thus I use the term Citizen Servants.

I beg of you to remember...I have not called for denying, denigrating, degrading or disemboweling the military customs and traditions from CAP!!  They add rather than detract.  I have never said that we should be like the volunteer rescue squad, or the boy scout troop.  I believe that we have an important role to play as the USAF-Aux. 

What I have said and will continue to say, is that CAP has duality to it that I personally can live with.  I would hazard a guess that most who come from non-military backgrounds also are able to live with the tension of dual indentities.

I have already apologized for overreacting to the word demand I will do so again if it moves the discussion along.

Fair enough, I agree with your observation and definition . Soldiers are individuals serving in the profession of arms for compensation. Therefore, you are correct to disagree with the term "soldier" as applied to CAP.

Maybe we can work on an appropriate term for the volunteers of CAP. I'm not happy with the term "servant" as it carries a negative modern day connotation.

[Dragoon]

What we can do is simplify what we require (fewer uniforms, less mandatory customs and courtesies, less paperwork), and then write much clearer guidance so that even someone with no experience can read it and know what to do.

The reason that "it's all in the regs" doesn't work today is because (1) it's a lie and (2) even when it IS in the regs, it's often written rather poorly.

TOTAL BS. - Change the test so everyone gets an "A".

You don't lower the bar because people won't do what they are supposed to, you suggest alternative service elsewhere.

That depends on what people are "supposed to do."  We could decide that every pilot is "supposed" to fly 200 hours a year for CAP.  But that would be stupid and we'd lose most of our pilots.

We could decide all our ground team leaders are "supposed" to be EMTs.  But that would be stupid adn we'd lose most of our GTLs.

We could decide that all our CAP officers are "supposed" to meet USAF active duty height and weight standards.  But that would be stupid and we'd lost half the posters on this forum!


There's a big difference between "lowering the bar" and "setting the bar where it needs to be in order to accomplish the mission critical tasks."

Asking too much is as much poor leadership as asking too little.  Standards must be reasonable and attainable.

To demand otherwise is just putting on rose colored glasses and denying reality.