CAP Talk

General Discussion => The Lobby => Topic started by: DNall on January 05, 2007, 04:40:03 AM

Title: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: DNall on January 05, 2007, 04:40:03 AM
READ BEFORE YOU POST:
This thread is for collaboration in an effort to develop a paper for publication based on the conversation from the 4Jan Conf call.

The objective is to produce a unified vision for CAP for the consideration of outside sources (NB, AWC, Air Staff, NGB, AF publications, etc - then ultimately on to interested members of congress). Please limit discussion to the topics at hand. That being where CAP belongs (strategic partner(s)); scope & nature of missions possible & sought; internal change to membership to function within such missions; accountability/consistency/leadership... governance structure & how it flows from the rest. We will present a picture of what we for the most part agree on, and then a series/spectrum of options for things we vary on.

STAY FOCUSED!!

Contributions are welcomed, regardless if you were a presenter or not, or if you've been in 30 years or 30 days, just stop for a minute, think it thru, do your research, THEN post positive professional contributions. There's a lot of other threads for other things, leave them off this one - if you have a point of order, take it to another thread or leave it be -> STAY FOCUSED!!

That said, let-er roll. I'd like to give chance to comment for the people that didn't get a chance to participate, then John, Nick, & I will come in, then we can all teamwork this thing out... we'll set a deadline, but I'm thinking a week.

The resulting paper will go to heavy hitters in & out of CAP as well as a wide range of active & retired people of several services (Active, Guard, Reserve). Please keep in mind that we will be presenting CPA in a good light & trying to drive conversation toward positive change. We all look forward to the outstanding contributions of our fellow professionals!!!! Please don't be shy!
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 05, 2007, 01:33:38 PM
I would recommend that the paper be as specific as possible when making recommendations.  For example, if you're going to recommend that CAP members receive federal job protections, you include a copy of the current federal codes that would apply along with your suggested changes that would add in CAP.  The same would go for changes in CAP/AF or other regulations. 

Each recommendation, or subrecommendation, should be numbered and/or lettered.  If the recommendation is to "Increase professionalism of CAP Officers" that would be Recc #1 and if there were 10 specific changes to implement this they would be 1a, 1b, etc. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: DrJbdm on January 05, 2007, 09:35:40 PM
 The information presented last night was very informative. Here's my thoughts:

  DNall, both you and John are very close on this issue and it boils down it seems to who has main control over us, NGB or 1st AF.  I know we are currently under AETC, and while that may make some sense for the AE or CP programs, it makes no sense for our operational programs (ES/DR) but neither AE/CP is the main focus of CAP nor should they be. Our main focus is ES/DR or at least it should be. That being said we need to put a study group together to study the jobs/missions that 1st AF and NGB/ANG does, and what jobs with in that framework can we augment with them. Then we need to first define our image and our standards to meet those jobs before presenting ourselves to either entity.

  I personally think that Johns plan works best for us, simply because NGB already has an innate understanding of the duality that we face. i.e.: Title 10 and title 36 missions and they might be more willing to accept us more readily. The NG accepts to some degree or another their SDF, and yes the SDFs at least here in Texas had to raise their Officer standards a lot higher and so they decided to adopt the same standards (including age restrictions) as the NG in order to start getting some acceptance. So it seems to me that if we would raise our image and our professional standards to at least 50% or better yet 75% of ANG they would probably be a bit more willing to accept us and work with us as partners then say 1st AF. (1st AF would take a lot longer to accept us, then ANG in my opinion. look at our past screw-ups with AF for proof of that fractured relationship.

  The other issue on why I think Johns plan is a bit better for us is in part thanks to the fantastic relationship that Iowa wing has built with their NG...the framework has already been started. My squadron has a fantastic relationship with the NG here in Austin; it wouldn't take much to convince them to give us a shot. Besides being with NGB might make it easier for us to receive the same federal job protections that the ANG enjoys.

  As for structure; I think the BOG is a great idea, But they need to be given more oversight authority and they should really in my opinion replace the NEC. The NB should be the idea people who present proposals for change to the BOG i.e.: uniforms, policy, procedures ect. The NB should be made up of the Wing Commanders and a 1st SGT type elected rep from every Wing. Rework the concept of region commanders; I'm not sure they would be a huge asset to us under Johns plan except maybe as the go between for CP or AE between Wing and National. They would only get in the way if they also covered ES/DR. The Structure in my opinion would work as such:

        SecAF

          BOG

          NB
         
         National CC...................
                                              .
                                            Staff
          WING

         Group

         Squadron

    Sorry, if it's a bit confusing. in a sense the BOG reports to SecAF and crafts his wishes or desires into a functional mission for CAP. The BOG would be made up of reps from AF/CAP/NGB. The BOG is responsible for setting qualification requirements for General Officers as well as for Colonels. The BOG should also confirm all appointments to those positions as well as perhaps confirm all initial field grade officer promotions.

I may have missed a few things but this covers my thoughts on it fairly well. Hope it helps.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on January 05, 2007, 10:32:31 PM
I was a cadet for several years then went to college and was an AFROTC cadet. Got medical'd out (cancelled waiver) and am now back in CAP as a 1LT-SM -Ive got SLS etc, but Im just 21. So Im young, stupid and rash. :)
---------
Now I know AFROTC doesnt count for much but even in the few short years I learned more about leadership and effective communication then I EVER did in CAP. point being:

1)    CAP should have an updated program for seniors in regards to pme both in house and out of house --(even with the footnotes the old ECI13-AFIADL 00013 is so out of date and poorly written a retired Army Command Sar. Maj. in my squadron refused to believe it hadnt ben corrected and wanted the Sq/CC to order him the 'corrected edition' -- for myself: as someone who dearly would have loved to have been on active duty, I value that the AF is allowing us the ability to enroll in SOS ACSC etc...

I am not openning up the old "what is CAP can of worms" For the  sake of this thread i will simply say that we are a "professional organization staffed by vollunteers". -Point being Corporate side or AF side regardless our Professionalism should have strong roots in training/education programs be they military OR a civilian college stype class in bus. managment.
A) Personally Id like to see CAP develop a course whereby we conduct an in house -corporate like sls/clc- course restructured to include sections specifically geared to bus. managment AND the FEMA/ESDA course :"operations and leadership in nonprofit/vollunteer organizations"

This will be done in a weekend or 2 as SLS/CLC are done now. Pair it up with a revised course 13 - possibly rewritten by the USAF-CAP staff or possibly assigned as the first project of the" NCO corps" -again not trying to start something, just an idea: it would give this group a defined mission to give it birth.

2) NATIONAL VISION: It is my understanding that There is no PUBLISHED vision statement. I however feel that this should not only be tasked to the MG in command but a joint statment by MG pineda AND the USAF-CAP CC
This would allow a statment to be made to the effect that NOT ONLY do we the CAP membership and other organizations know where we are headed BUT would allow the USAF Col. to state precisely HOW the USAF (and 1st AF) will utilize this vision to their advantage.
Example : CAP CC: "CAP will strive to exploit any opportunities in expanding our use to HLS missions".  USAF CC: "To this end the CAP-USAF team is working with 1st AF to make others more aware of your abilities."

3) EXPANDED OPERATIONS IN RELATION TO OTHERS
To this end increase the authority we have in relation to events . Im NOT suggesting self deployment or anything BUT, what abot something like Katrina? Is there a plan in place in NHQ or FEMA or anywhere that would DESCRIBE a process of alerting and deploying members nationwide/cross country?  To that end:
A) CAP Ops will study notification/deployment options availible to other organizations.  
B) An Effort is needed work to update the ops task guides to reflect new ICS procedures, and other intra-organizational measures. (Such as radio procedures commonly used by groups we might come in contact with)
But also invite a group of AD ES experts to the table to review and suggest updates.

4) ASSISTANCE TO AD/ANG/RESERVE UNITS: I reviewed AFI 10 2701 but I cannot find any information in regs (or KB) as to what assistance CAP can give to the USAF outside of SAR etc.. specifically I once heard that CAP SMs have served as assistants at AF recruiting stations (cant find reg) I know that CAP Chaplains have served military units as chaplains. (found info on KB but no reg)
POINT BEING: INCREASE OUR USE TO THE AIR FORCE: I once read the following in a previous thread on warning orders:
Quote:
Per Titles 10 and 36, USC; CAP members on AFAM (Air Force Assigned Mission)status are assets deemed an instrumentality of the United States Air Force by the Secretary of the Air Force. AFAux-CAP is authorized, (when directed by the Secretary of the Air Force) to fulfill non-combat mission of the Air Force.  ( USAF Doctrine Doc 2-10; 21 March 2006, Joint Publication 3-26, Joint Doctrine for Homeland Security).

A) Why not expand our use (to units) other then just chaplain and recruiting support? Is there any way we can get CAP IGs and Personnel Officers in to assist with Military IG and Personnel Flights etc? I know that CAP maintains a comm net and wonder if it is possible for CAP Comm Officers to asssist with Base Comms etc... do you see where Im going with this? Now I am NOT saying all of us are qualified for this, and Im not saying I am. But develop a training program stating how I could and Ill tackle it immediately.

B) THE USCG-Aux. (Im a member and Division staff officer) Grants a security clearence to its members (after a background check etc) and Ill be the first to admit its a basic clearence.( I had to chance to serve on a cutter as an EMT for several months...wish Id taken it) They also have better exchange/commissary privileges then CAP does. AND THEY WEAR AD CG ribbions.
I know that CAP established a FOUO PPT slideshow etc. But that is hardly the same thing. (Im guessing here, Im not involved in HLS, CD etc)   So I encourage that our Clearences and 'X' privileges be increased. I ALSO ask that CAP be authorized to EARN/Wear AD AF ribbions examples: (from an earlier thread: posted by Dnall)
How about the other end of this, the recommendation thru CAP-USAF to SECAF for award of AF decorations for service to the AF by CAP members?

These are awardable to civilians for non-combat AF missions:
Aerial Achievement Medal (this is roughly the non-combat version of the air medal)
AF Achievement Medal
AF Outstanding Unit Award (for something like Katrina where CGAux got a presidential unit citation - the AF version requires combat)
AF Organizational Excellence Award (same sort of thing as above)
AF Recognition Ribbon (for something like national senior member of the year)

These also are non-combat, but specify AF personnel, but you could argue a case for CAP members on AFAM if you wanted to & some are appropriate:
Airman's Medal
Meritorious Service
AF Commendation Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal
Military Outstanding Volunteer Service
Note: I didn't put Distinguished Service or Legion of Merit on the non-combat list cause those really seem off the page IMO. I could see some of these other ones though.

I am sorry, Im not good with reg searches and I apoligize for this being long and somewhat helter skelter; I am new to this board.
Thank you for your time, and let me know how I can improve/streamline this post.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 05, 2007, 10:54:57 PM
Just to be clear, the CG Aux does not grant security clearances.  All members undergo a basic background check done by DHS similar to that undergone by CAP members.  Some CG Aux members are required to do a more extensive background check similar to what people undergo when they join the military.  If everything checks out you receive a "favorable determination".  That in itself is not a clearance.  However, if you are in a position, say augmenting a CG Cutter, for which a clearance is required, it is fairly simple for the CG officer commanding the unit to request that you receive an actual security clearance.   
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on January 06, 2007, 12:20:56 AM
Thank you for the clarification.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 12:37:55 AM
Your post was just fine, Lieutenant.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: DNall on January 06, 2007, 01:31:16 AM
Sorry long.... try to cover a lot of subjects. Be patient with this one.

Security Clearence
Anyone in the mil or familiar w/ clearances would understand this better. Basically CGAux does a very basic "pre-secret" level investigation, which is barely more than what you do to join CAP/CGAux now - I think you list some references, where you've lived, job history; they call your refs is about all. Now in the mil if your clearance expires & you need it to do your job, start a school, or some such, then your commander writes a letter that grants a temp clearance on his word till the formal comes thru. That's basically what CGAux is doing is just enough investigation that a CG unit commander can sign a letter on you to cover while you're doing the work. Basically he's taking personal responsibility under his clearance that you won't sell the freqs to China or something. The investigation (if you can call it that) just gives him enough cover to do that. Something very similiar would be appropriate for CAP, especially since we deal with cadets.

Ref our OPSEC course... should adopt AF's new IAAP in addition to that.

PD/PME: Force Transformation  (this is a side issue falling under tools to accomplish the big picture we're discussing).
AFIADL13 is not terrible. I wish I could show you the Pre-RCOT (res commissioned officer trng - OTS for Docs & such) online material. It's moved around somewhere now, maybe behind a password, I haven't found it again after they moved it... anyway, it's basically the same thing as AFIADL13, a touch better in some places, not as good on comm I don't think, but that's cause they spend so much time on comm in the actual in-res course. Lot better presentation format though. AFIADL13 is not bad, it just need to be updated & slammed into a totally revamped Lvl 1 that everyone needs to take...

Now if you talk to me any longer then that, you'll find I think that should be the standard to move you from AB when you join to Amn. Modified version of our existing senior program moves you up thru TSgt - work w/ our new CCM to make sure Real NCOs are satisfied with those standards & the progression system. MSgt to CMSgt goes to prior service -OR- member elected 1Sgts who work like an adult version of CAC. Top national guy in that program is CCM & sits on BoG.

For officer... start with a BS (waiver w/ associates -AND- prior-service/EMT/Pilot/hamm/etc -OR- 2yrs business/supervisory exp similiar to staff functions); write an essay, & 3-5 letters of rec... send that package to a 5 man board (incl state director rep'ing for AF standards)... that gets you into the training....

Aux OTS would run at your pace but min one year. Combination of DVD/online modules & close mentor guidance. Modules based on real OTS as much as possible (video of real classes, real online content, etc), sub in the CAP-specific for the AF-specific (we don't need to know how WAPS or APRs, can skip some UCMJ, etc). When you & your mentor feel like you're done, then submit back to that same board to concur & make you 2Lt.

After that it runs real close to AF... CAP Basic Course kind of like ASBC... point being to convert the theory stuff to that warrior/mission-centric/motivated can-do attitude & actually leading people. That & a tech plus 18 months gets you 1Lt. Capt is pretty automatic also, all these get signed off by the board, not your Gp/Wg/Reg CC so hopefully de-politicize it a bit. Then SOS, ACSC, AWC run thru the field officer grades. All these TIGs linked to AF progression standards. I don't know yet if we should limit the number of slots in each wing at each grade. I wouldn't think overall numbers to people get blocked out unless senior officers leave, but maybe a limit per year in each grade based on per capita of the Wg. It needs work in a joint-study group w/ AU & CAP.

The overall goal here being to make these officer real leaders, who are 80% as capable as real officers, & able to be interoperable with real officers in say a disaster ICS model,  where it's concievable (once we're NIMS compliant) that a CAP officer might be in a superior ICS staff position giving tasking orders to say paid emergency responders or NG teams out in the field - the same kind of position you'd expect to see a guard or reserve officer in now. Once you transform to that kind of force, then the limits of the missions we're handed & the confidence in us to do VERY important things becomes exponsential.

Vision:
That's what this whole process is seeking to define. Let me be VERY clear in saying we are not allowed to define the vision for CAP. What we're doing is putting some heads together & producing a series of articles to the CAP & AF community asking for them to think about the subject & begging that they come together as a team at the command levels that do have those responsibilities & produce a unified document that they then communicate to the troops so we can get on board & push to those objectives with all our might.

Increased role w/ AF - AND - Mission Expansion
Not to be repetitive, but my feeling is that our mission, throwing back to our WWII efforts (more than just sub-patrol) & our cold war Civil Defense focus, lays primarily in Homeland Defense in the post 9/11 world.

To that end I'd tell you about chem/bio/nuke/rad detectors between the seats of a cessna w/ external probe weighs 50lbs including laptop, all dev at Sandia National Lab (Chem/Bio sensor is designed for UAV); package is pretty cheap. We can overfly ports, trains, freeways, borders, stadiums, etc. Also comes in handy for assisting local HAZMAT, & some other cool concepts. Equip 380-odd planes (leaving the 172s off to start) is not so expensive, but that doesn't even matter cause DHS wants to pay for it... prob being the above prof dev issue - the govt doesn't trust "volunteers" off the street to protect the country. We need to change our image & make our people deserving of the job we want & the country NEEDS us doing.

I also want to pop some light weight off the shelf FLIR on some birds. Operator trng already avail from mil w/ free online modules supplemented by training up some internal instructor cadre. Again this is relatively inexpensive & Cesna installs at the factory right now for border patrol & other such customers. Start running some night CN flights on the border. You gotta know that stuff is handy for SaR, I don't know how we fly SaR w/o it. Even those highly technical missions like Mt Hood a few weeks back where we don't have mountain climbing rescue teams, we could still fly around w/ a FLIR looking for targets. You know they desperately need this stuff in CO & KS flying those blizzards. We need it bad for our Firewatch missions here in Texas. Again with this the cost is not that much more than something like SDIS & at less than 5-10% of what ARCHER costs we can run it on a lot of planes. Again - who's going to trust that investment or that complex gear in the flying boy scouts that we're more worried about hurting themselves than where we can use them to save the world.

I'm sure many of you have other excellent ideas. Point being, if we can earn the trust & respect of AF then we can do some big time stuff... which may or may not be so readily avail to us under the guard, but is a 1AF mission... anyway we need to be indespensible to the AF.

If you've been watching lately, AF added Cyberspace to their mission statement, and stood up 8AF to combat cyber terrorism. There's a story out of - what Joint Defense or something wasn't it? - talking about the possibility of starting a whole new civilian Aux based on CAP to partner w/ industry & help fill that mission... sounds like something we can incorporate if you ask me.

There's also augmentation, like CGAux does, but on steroids.... Got chaplains in a big role already.... Can slide some other professional degreed folks in behind. Legal/CPA aid to families & military personnel for instance, maybe something more direct that saves on outside contractors, who knows how far you can take it, Medical is being talked about at high levels right now.... CGAux takes a role w/ assisting reruiters, which CAP members have done informally before & there used to be some kind of MOU that auth them to ask for help. I think CGAux, at least they used to, has a big before you go to CG Acad come work with the Aux during your senior year of HS, at least that's how I understand it; CAP has a superb badazz exceptional relationship w/ AF Acad. Can at least work much closer w/ liaison officers (which I hope you cadet programs officers are doing anyway, but we can help them too).... You can look at SDFs & what they do to stand in for guard members under certain circumstances (like CGAux they work to certify in a limited number of career fields & then go work under supervision)...There seem to be a lot of places we can help if we are able to step up (see again the prof dev angle).

Disaster Response:
This is a big one people like to look at after Katrina, but that doesn't happen too often & those of us in high risk disaster zones tend to be better prepared for those contengncies than say Montana. Let me address this issues though.

Problem happen you got local authorities. When it gets too big for them then they'll tap mutual-aid (which must be 100% NIMS compliant); when none of their neighbors can help, then the state comes in... now if you're Iowa & your state is short of resources then you might see a space for CAP, if you're Texas & the state has 3 times as many light aircraft as the Wing does, plus theirs have FLIR & trained full-time professional crews (LE, parks/wildlife/etc), well there's less space in there... that's also a real short span before FEMA declares it a federal disaster area (economic or other impact beyond the stateline). I have no problem flying for state/local, we do that now on Federal money via AFNSEP mission numbers.

Once a disaster goes federal, Active Duty Army (1st Army & 5th Army, who in their day job supervise the ANG & ARNG training for their federal combat missions) takes charge of Military Assistance to Civil Authorities. That means their Brigade Commanders step in to take charge of directing guard/reserve/active units of all services to assist in SaR/DR activities. The Governor at this point tends to take care of restoring order (law enforcemnt). On the AF side AFNSEP coordinates with them to deliver AF resources. 1AF is the designated Air Component Commander for all military & civilian aircraft in the disaster airspace & the operational commander of any AF resources AFNSEP makes avail to help civil authorities.

I'm of the opinion you want to stand real close to 1AF in that equation, but there are pro/cons on both sides of the equation. The trump factor I think is just one little side focus of our big picture ES mission, and because it's an Army assigned function it stays secondary to things like HLD. That's up for discussion though. Ultimately you need to understand though that CAP as a whole (and certainly not us) doesn't get to decide this stuff. We can put some ideas out & generate discussion, but ultimately AF & Congress are going to do what they think from their perspective is best for them.

AF Decorations (side issue)
We had another thread going on this before. Point being a LOT of AF decorations are awardable to civilians, particularly when serving w/ or at the direction of AF. Many of these are currently awarded to contractors for sustained or singularly excpetional service - big story a couple months back about a contractor got an ariel achievement medal for maint test flying over a period of years. Chris Arnold on here was telling a story about a CAP pilot that had an engine failure on AFAM in Katrina & landed on the hwy between to semis w/ no damage to the plane - try that w/ an F16 & see what they give you for your time. There's also some that say awardable to military personnel that are very appropriate to CAP personnel & we'd like them to mod the rules or rather just mod the interpretation that that applies to CAP personnel on AFAM. The Volunteer Service Medal & Humanitarian Service Medal for instance.

The point of this aspect goes two ways. One it gives AF an opportunity to recognize contributions by CAP members to the AF & its missions. Which in turn breeds respect, trust, & appreiciation by rank-in-file AF personnel (which if you'll ref above, leads to more important mission possibilities). The second aspect is for our members also serving with the military it gives them some extra juice & recognition that may help their careers along.

Governance:
We ALL accept that the system we have is broke. It was broke before the 2000 changes come in, and the NB/NEC aspects were not updated to work w/ the 2000 changes. We need an overhaul.

The concensus is to create ONE governance level with a vertical command structure underneath it. That means BoG is in charge. They have hire/fire auth over paid NHQ staff now; they should be the ones to pick Nat CC (maybe from a list of recommended condidates). How far past you that you take it is up for debate. I think we need to re-eval our need for regions at all. What we talked about on the call was to retain the NB as a Conf of Wg CCs to act as an advisory board to NatCC & BoG, and for them to internally elect their own executive cmte, as well as additional study/advisory panels to address issues. Understand now that in reality since 2000 they have not been a governing body & they don't need to go on acting like one. Far as the rest of the Col slots, those need to be at least confirmed (advice & consent like the senate confirming presidential nominees) by BoG.

Remember now I also got the top guy in that member elected CAC-like 1Sgt system as CCM & sitting on BoG.

Partner
This is necessarily at the end cause it has to flow from the rest.

You got National Guard, and there's nothing wrong with them. If you're talking just about disaster response then there's minor advantages to being under the guard in that space before federal aid can be put in under existing rules. However, there's some states that don't need us, and some that do. They also have little interest in our other missions, so those get deprioritized cause who's paying the bills & standing right over our shoulder sets the priorities. There's good & bad poitns to it. I won't slight the perspective, but I think we can accomplish all of that under one national MOU w/ NGB & 1AF that states will have the option to sign on to if they want to utilize CAP in that way in exchange for the level of involvement & support Iowa is getting.

If you do it under an MOU then that frees you to keep our operational control & broader range of mission options udner 1AF. You also get to keep our day-to-day mgmt (ADCON) under AETC who is in the best position to help us with our prof dev issues & to look after our AE & CP missions.

By the way, Cadet Programs is NOT a sideshow. If we didn't haev CP & AE & ES all in a pile together we'd ahve been shut down 60 times in the last 65 years. It takes the whole package working in concert to keep us a viable investment for the government, we just aren't that big a deal otherwise. I think that's important to emphasize to our members that you can't lean on one mission & think that's good enough. You have to depend on our fellow specialist working each differnt angle or we're dead. You don't fly ES missions unless the AF sees that plane as useful to get CAP & AFROTC cadets flown also, otherwise it's not worth it to them.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 02:33:27 AM
Dennis:

I like your idea of degrees for officers and selection by a board.

I think, however, that OTS (AOTS) must be a resident course. 

The reasons are:

1.  The intensity of the training.  Having a TAC officer in your face is a lot different than watching R. Lee Ermey in your living room.

2.  Bonding and networking.  The candidates get to know one another, and that starts them having a wing-wide personal support network.  I still get e-mails from guys I was in OCS with, and we graduated in 1978.

3.  Drill.  These folks may never have marched in their lives.  Putting them together and teaching them drill is the most effective way to learn it.  Its a psychomotor skill done in a collective environment, and as such it is not amenable to passive learning techniques.

Also, unless you plan an "Up or out" system, it isn't fair to limit promotions to certain numbers of certain grades.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ncc1912 on January 06, 2007, 02:40:49 AM
It is very interesting that I found this post.  I was just thinking about this while I was cooking dinner this evening:

Governance:
I am fond of the idea of eliminating autocracy in CAP.  Yes the system is broke.  A fundamental changes is needed.

Option 1)  [autocracy]  No change:  BOG is impotent.  NEC and NB remain puppets.
Option 2)  [oligarchy] Place the BOG in charge by selecting the NatCC and use the NB in an advisory role.
Option 3)  [militaristic]  Put the AF and/or NGB in direct control by selecting the NatCC.  No BOG.
Option 4)  [parliamentary/republic] 

I am sure there are many more options, but the latter two are more appealing to me.   Option 4, I have not heard mentioned before.

Comments?
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ricwalters on January 06, 2007, 03:28:23 AM
From the perspective of a fairly new member who has ascended to the lofty position of Squadron Commander:

There are indeed plenty of changes needed to make CAP more functional and useful.  I spent 24 years in the military (Army, Army NG, ANG and AFRES), and expected to find similitarities in CAP and the military that I haven't found, as well as some (mostly unpleasant) that I have.

I like ncc1912's Option 3, putting us back under direct AF control, but, as I understand it, weren't we there before? And didn't we wind up a 501c3 corporation because the AF didn't want us "under their wing", taking up one of their MG slots? If they took us back today, what would prevent this from  happening again in 10 years? 

Frankly, since we Texans don't get any state funding (because someone is ticked off, from what I've heard), I don't want to be tied to the ANG as a red-headed stepchild. Despite the great relationship we have with them here in Houston, I cannot imagine that to be the case everywhere else. Working side by side with them - absolutely. We can do so much to assist them, not only with our "professionals", but with our planes and pilots.

If I were able to make things happen "my way", I'd reinstate the AF's control over CAP, kill off the corporation, and change the chain of command so that the Nat'l Commander reported directly to the 1AF Commander (a 1 star to a 3 or 4 star).  We'll never get very far if we don't return to professional leadership - which would mean that the Nat'l Commander becomes a 3 year, paid position, subject to military justice as well as military performance standards. (not a criticism of any leaders, past or present - just an observation) Also, the Nat'l CC would be selected by a board of CAP senior officers and approved by the 1AF CC. The selection board would only meet to select the Nat'l CC, and once that was completed, disband. None of its members would be eligible to serve on another selection board. Board members would be selected through a process where they applied to the 1AF CC, and were notified of their selection no more than a month prior to the Board meeting.  I believe that would take the politicking, arm twisting, "good ole boying" out of the process.

Full time staff would be kept essentially the same, but there'd be enough of them to perform the mission without overworking them.

Regions and Wings would remain the same. Geographic commands work best. I spent time in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. When I started, we had geographic commands. After the reorganization in the early 90's, we were aligned with the individual AF Major Commands, and our command and control went the way of the biplane. OSI Region Commanders now have responsibility for units that may be located from San Antonio to Yemen, etc. It only makes sense to keep the command structure "local".


Parts of ncc1912's option 4 make a lot of sense, tool, especially the suggestion that the BOG sit as a judicial branch, and the requirement for investigations by outside agencies - not our IG, but someone else (maybe our own OSI type of agency that is shielded from command influence).

There is also much to agree with in D'Nall's suggestions regarding A/OTS, etc. Adding that element would improve our professionalism, as well as show the AF that we're serious about being "officers". Right now, those AF members who do know about CAP think we're "just pretending to be officers". Having an OTS would go a long way towards changing that perception.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ELTHunter on January 06, 2007, 03:35:11 AM
Can anyone outline the CAP structure as it was initially, and then in the 50's through the 1999 change?  My history only goes back to 1998/9.  It would be nice to understand the organizational history and what was right and wrong.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: A.Member on January 06, 2007, 04:27:25 AM
Quote from: ricwalters on January 06, 2007, 03:28:23 AM
...I don't want to be tied to the ANG as a red-headed stepchild. Despite the great relationship we have with them here in Houston, I cannot imagine that to be the case everywhere else.
I couldn't agree more.  This is one of the huge shortfalls of the NGB proposal - so much so that it kills it in my mind.  Because of vast differences between states, CAP may thrive in some and die on the branch in others.

Quote from: DrJbdm
...it boils down it seems to who has main control over us, NGB or 1st AF.  I know we are currently under AETC, and while that may make some sense for the AE or CP programs, it makes no sense for our operational programs (ES/DR) but neither AE/CP is the main focus of CAP nor should they be. Our main focus is ES/DR or at least it should be. 
And I disagree with this statement.  AE is at the core of the organization.  It's why we were founded.  Next came the cadet programs.  And finally, ES.   One can not over-emphasize the value/impact the cadet program has on the organization and the community.  It's the key selling point of the organization.  Without it, I'm confident we wouldn't exist today.  As for AE, it continually gets thrown to the backseat - but it shouldn't be.  There is a ton of opportunity there but it's not utilized.  Long story short, we have 3 missions.  All are appropriate and deserving of equal attention...but not all are paid appropriate attention.  That should change.

Another observation, based on the few members here that wish to comment on such topics, it appears that there is overwhelming support for improved officer training, ie. OTS, even if there isn't necessarily a concensus on what specifically it entails.  That is encouraging because, in all these discussions, it's one thing that we can control within the organization, even today, and it would go a long way towards improving a number of issues.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 06, 2007, 04:36:04 AM
QuoteIt's why we were founded

Well, really they formed CAP as a civil defense (i.e., emergency services) organization.  Only later did they get into cadet programs/AE.  I would be surprised if you find any real external AE mandate until the corporation itself was formed after the war. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: A.Member on January 06, 2007, 05:07:42 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 06, 2007, 04:36:04 AM
QuoteIt's why we were founded

Well, really they formed CAP as a civil defense (i.e., emergency services) organization.  Only later did they get into cadet programs/AE.  I would be surprised if you find any real external AE mandate until the corporation itself was formed after the war. 
Yes and no.  It's off-topic so I don't want to debate it too much here but in every country that was overrun by the Axis powers, civil aviation was eliminated.  Paraphasing a bit from AFIADL, but even in countries not yet overrun by the Axis, civil aviation was either drastically curtailed or eliminated - this was also true for the U.S.  It was a result of these actions that civilian "aviation enthusiasts" became concerned about it's future.  They came to the realization that:

1.  The nation's air power had to be strengthened [for a possible conflict with the Axis powers]

2.  Civil aircraft flights in the United States might be eliminated for the duration [of the war]

They felt that civil aviation could play a roll and wanted to serve their country and set out to convince others likewise.  The civil defense solution was an approached that was offered.  And throughout the war, CAP conducted pilot training.

So, to your point, defense was certainly a critical factor as well.  The point I was simply trying to make was that all 3 missions still have great value.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: flyguy06 on January 06, 2007, 05:12:10 AM
What conference call on Jan 4? I didnt hear anything about a conference call
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: DNall on January 06, 2007, 07:00:19 AM
Hey Captain Walters isn't it? Think I sat across from you at the Gp Christmas thing last month. Welcome aboard.

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 06, 2007, 03:35:11 AM
Can anyone outline the CAP structure as it was initially, and then in the 50's through the 1999 change?  My history only goes back to 1998/9.  It would be nice to understand the organizational history and what was right and wrong.
I'll do the best I can with it, feel free everybody to correct me where I'm off on the timeline...

You got the founding thru war part right, civilian CD org... taken over by AAF for sub/border patrol, etc & cadet program founded to prep & recruit for Army pilot candidates; AE to get strong AAF funded...

War ends, hangin out attached to AAF but obselete & waiting for the cut. Congress likes the cadet program & AE in the guns to butter conversion helps civil aviation develop so we'll be more ready for the next war, so CAP corp is founded...

At this point you join as enlisted, can apply to be officer, pilots/education/etc get it & get command positions. Professional standards between CAP & AAF of the day are about the same.

Seperate AF is created... Before they worry about getting blue uniforms they go lobby Congress to make CAP the perm & forever more Aux, Congress agrees (but strangely doesn't revoke the title 36 corp status when ammending titile 10)...

CAP-USAF established w/ a Brig Gen commanding, CAP structure reports to CAP-USAF just like it was any other AF unit... CAP-RAP (Reserve Assistance Program) puts active & inactive reservists w/ CAP units as advisors for retirement/promotion points.

Structure is streamlined, CAP-USAF CC takes second hat as CAP Nat CC...

Cold War is on. CAP spins up to civil defense mission (lot like that era's version of CERT), SaR in the background. This is the era where the reserves are weekend warriors keeping up quals to fill the void in case of war & be the last line of defense... CAP is viewed much the same way (nice poster from that era on CAPBlog). Not to last though, AF is getting more educated folk & gunning up the PME cycle, soon to leave CAP in the dust. Unforms are almost exactly like AF (ex- blue slides w/ CAP)

That goes along for quite some time. Then Congress in the budget cutting years decides they don't need to pay for a general slot to command CAP - was that during or just after Vietnam? Anyway, Nat CC becomes a volunteer CAP member (Brig Gen), still reports to CAP-USAF CC (now a Col), CAP-USAF CC becomes Executive Director in command of full time NHQ staff (which is mostly AF personnel & a few support civilians in a single staff).

The corporate vs Aux era begins. Adult enlisted grades are cut we go all officer, CAP/CC makes himself a Maj Gen w/o AF consent. AF kicks & screams here there wanting to reassert control of CAP, they get pissed by an uppity CAP/CC or two, we get marron epaulets.

Cyclical slide back & forth between acting like we report to AF & dad can't tell me what to do... series of problems gets more & more out of control... varrious AF IGs try to investigate but don't have auth to bring charges, but the issues get solved & it gets dropped.

Things go well for a while, we get really good at SaR, stay real busy, org back to cold war era 80k, we get gray epaulets in recognition of how retarded maroon looks on an AF uniform our good work. Congress moves from giving us old trainers to buying Cessnas.

More scandals, lots of bad feelings on the AF side. AWC puts out a paper from a former CAP member then AF officer, says keep CAP as AF Aux, but move ADCON to DoT & OPCON to AF (just like CG to the Navy). Other Agencies get discussed - NTSB, etc, Army expresses an interest since they control disaster & like the cadet program to feed their Warrant Officer Flight Trng pgm. CAP command puts out to members to lobby the crap out of Congress, which they do. AF looks around at all these other people that want CAP & suddenly don't want to lose it so bad - never got out of the study phase anyway.

This is mid-90s now retention sucks but total floats close to 70. Investigations closing on critical mass, no good way to fix things before they get big. Around 96/7 SER has conf w/ AF funds on a cruise ship... pretty shady, but they spent money the same way they would if it was at a hotel, least that was word at the time. Popped a fat investigation though in which lots of other not so legit stuff came up. AETC IG get's slammed for investigating things AF doesn't have control over (corporate status strikes again), pissed off AF starts OSI investigation, that's a mess. AF goes to Congress & askes to take back direct command of CAP or don't hold them responsible for the mess. Congress orders a less biased GAO investigation, most of the original problems AF found are solved by then, but new stuff is found. CAP agrees to fix some not others, cries about AF bein the bully.

House Armed Services Cmte agrees & writes a bill that gives AF full auth over CAP & orders SecAF to appoint all Wg/Reg/Nat CC slots. Bill gets argued about for a while, issues what auth Congress has to order around this suposedly private corp.

Bill finally comes up in 99, kicked around on the floor, cmte version get shot down, new version gets wrote on the floor. Creates joint CAP & AF cmte (BoG) to excersice all the powers AF was asking for. Orders SecAF to fix it. Makes the Aux status temp so AF not responsible for day-to-day.

GAO doesn't like CAP (non-Gov) appointing members of this board that has control of congressionally appropriated funds, says that's illegal, all members of such boards have to be appointed by Congress or a Congressionally Confirmed govt officer, or have to be confirmed by Congress themselves. They fight about that a bit, SecAF in the end assures GAO they don't have a strong case & AF will solve the problems with strong appointments of theri own & not tolerate BS from CAP anymore.

CAP continues with the same structure as before w/ NB/NEC acting like there is no such thing as a BoG. CAP hires private Exec Director. to manage all civilian staff, CAP-USAF becomes just a monitoring agency for oversight & compliance. CAP-USAF liaison officers & NCOs at Wg (AF retired like AFJROTC, DoD employees at prior-mil pay rate) become CAP employees (state directors) paid by AF, Region stays reservists - till this year or two a lot of their personnel got cut out in a non-CAP related change by AF on the budget.

That brings us to now. Still same sorts & volume of investigations that started this mess going back 10+years cause no one has authority to stop things when they're small. Don't get me wrong, I blame Congress pulling AF back out of direct command to save money, & in doing so not coming up with some other way for AF to have authority over the other aspects of CAP & be able to fix things. Some in Congress see the situation & are fed up, want to just cut the thing & get on with it, others love the idea of CAP & want to fix the Aux status, still others want to preserve the civilian identity & just tweak a little to get on a few more years till a better idea comes along - all of the above with the very best of honorable intentions.

Lay over the top 9/11 comes in, BIG BIG homeland defense need for CAP to step up, but no one (AF included) knows what to do... takes forever to get DHS created & define everyone's role. Part of that process is creating NIMS to standardize training standards for all emergency responders in the country - CAP doesn't remotely qualify & if you look at those standards for SaR operators they're pretty scary to a lot of CAP members, lots of intense tiem consuming training, there's a wildland firefighter style PT test, it ain't no game & you can't get missions unless you qual. Also, can't get fed funding for manmade/natural disaster or homeland defense (especially DHS grants) unless you comply fully. Same time, new ELT tech is in transition w/ new system that databursts GPS w/ a code that IDs the owner so AFRCC can wake them up & tell them to turn the crap off. That cuts the 90% of our missions that were non-distress signal search, that transition is in progress to be complete by 2009.... Deal there being we need to evolve now before someone figures out we're obselete again just like when there were no more subs to chase. Need to go big to Homeland defense where the country needs us, and that requires BIG BIG changes on our part.

Okay, sorry that's a touch long & some of the details might be off a touch here or there, everyone else feel free to correct, but lets get it & get back to focus on topic.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Earhart1971 on January 06, 2007, 09:24:10 AM
You guys are going nuts typing.

Since I have a little Insomnia, how about a few quick points.

1. All, of you make this so Complicated, nothing will ever come of this.

2. I don't understand the National Guard concept, the National Guard to me is just another State Supported Organization, that lacks for money to operate.

How we would benefit by trying to get support from (another poor man on the street) is beyond me.

3. I don't know why we are so dependent on the Air Force and what they will think, but that goes back to we have no Vision, and we want to consult with the Air Force about that.

The Air Force has a vision, but unless they have control, they would prefer just to spend money on what they can control like AFJROTC.

I like the spirit of CAP, and the seperate Corporation, we have all the tools, to get more money, but it appears we have no saleman to get the job done.

Why would an Air Force General make any recommendations on CAP, just bringing up CAP, could make them look bad.

4. You avoid the hard truths and the reality of - WE JUST CHURN MEMBERS!

People join for benevolent reasons, get in and then, they leave, and we start all over.

Solutions:

1. Make CAP a lot less complicated.

2. Narrow the Missions

3. Determine a viable way for CAP to gain good Visibility and more members.

4.And the final Thought.

5. Make CAP rewarding enough that we interview new membership rather than bring people in with the sales pitch, and then reality sets in, they leave.

Let us focus on costs:

We have 30 Million in budget from Congress each year, we save the Federal Budget Half a Billion or so by what we do in SAR, and Homeland Sec.

Can anybody here agree we are doing this at the expense of our members?

Go ahead argue with me, but I calculated from the Air Force Cost of doing SAR with their Aircraft.

I know the costs of Law Enforcement Aviation, because I am close to Law Enforcement, they operate at a minimum of $400 per hour.

Leadership:

We have none, part of the problem is we are focused on compliance, and focused on spending money on admin cost and equipment cost. It would be nice to have a budget that projects growth of our organization.

Once we elect a National Commander, do we really have a Commander? Can he make decisions?

Read the minutes of the Board meetings, everything is based on no budget impact. Nobody, makes any hard decisions.

And we accept that we have to do everything so cheap, it kills our membership off.

Which goes back to, a theory I have about loss of equipment, misappropriations and the Accounting of the late 90s.

If we in fact churn members, the ones going inactive are probably carrying away some of our assets as compensation for their services.

And by the way anybody who flys CAP Missions should be a Commercial Pilot, therefore, the pay factor would be legal, in any case the FAA or Congress would waiver that with the right lobby effort.

How about this for a recruiting poster, join us for the best part-time job in America, serve in the CAP, Fly, or work as a Ground Team member.

Pay, benefits, points toward retirement, education, while serving in the NEW Civil Air Patrol.

Points toward retirement, man, thats a great idea!

Lets become an Organization that gets paid like the National Guard.

Then we interview and select members.



Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 02:13:11 PM
Dennis:

Your historical analysis is pretty much right on.  Except a few details:

The cadet program was created in 1942.  We needed pilots, and many were washing out of flight school because the rapid transition from civilian to soldier was too much for them.  It was believed by Arnold that a high-school military training program would better prepare pilot candidates.

AE came about as the Air Force came into its own.  They realized that they would need to spend HUGE amounts of money to develop new techologies for the new jets coming out, and having a knowledgeable Air Force presence in communities was felt to be needed to keep the taxpayers supportive.

The corporate structure was established so that CAP would not only be a permanent fixture (We were the only military auxiliary to see actual combat, and the only military auxiliary from World War II that survived beyond the early Cold War.  If you don't believe me, go down to the USAF recruiter and tell them you want to join the Ground Observer Corps.)  but also to allow us to contract with state and local governments who might need our light-plane assets. 

The Vietnam War and the anti-military social turbulence that it created is what hurt the CAP far worse than any of our recent scandals.  The "Corporate uniform" was not designed for us larger flyers, it was adopted to accomodate the long-hairs that refused to look military.  THAT is when CAP started taking its own path away from the Air Force.  Now we're lost in the woods.

Also... in the Cold War we didn't have "Blue slides."  We wore khaki uniforms then.  Shade 505 and 1505.  The 1505 had rounded tips on the collars.  Officers wore metal rank, but still wore the miniature cap piece on the flight cap in lieu of rank device.  The CAP identification was, for officers, a red, white, and blue patch that looked like a Pepsi-Cola label over the right pocket.  Cadets had a blue and white patch.  These were changed to metal badges in 1966.  Shoulder slides didn't come around until the late 70's.
 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 06, 2007, 03:21:01 PM
QuoteThe corporate structure was established so that CAP would not only be a permanent fixture (We were the only military auxiliary to see actual combat, and the only military auxiliary from World War II that survived beyond the early Cold War. 

Incorrect.  The CG Auxiliary was created 2 years before CAP and is still going strong. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: jayleswo on January 06, 2007, 03:29:08 PM
Just to add a few thoughts to the discussion:

1. We need to get away from everyone is an officer. Officer grade above 1st Lt  should be reserved for sitting unit commanders. Commanders would receive temporary promotions to Capt (Squadron), Major (Group), Lt Col (Wing), Colonel (Region), MGen (National) with their deputy/vice one grade below. They revert to their permanent grade after their command tour (3-4 years) is completed. This avoids the confusion over who is in charge we create by awarding grade based primarily on completion of training and TIG.  I think an organization where,  for all practical purposes, 2d Lt is the entry level grade isn't taken very seriously, even by our own membership, much less other agencies. Everyone would join as an E-1 and only after training and time (TIG) would be advanced in grade. Maybe a better organization to compare ourselves to is LE. Would you expect to be promoted to lieutenant in the Highway Patrol after completing basic training and doing your job for six months? No, of course not. Perfectly ok  for you to start off as a Patrolman, or whatever they may be called. It could be 20 years and many tests and lots of training before you get to lieutenant and those positions are competitive and come with command responsibilities.

2. Exceptions to the above for members receiving professional appointments: a) only for those specialties that are recognized by USAF for officer grade, AND b) have a significant role to play in CAP AND c) are actively assigned to and performing that role. The only one's I can think of relevent to CAP are Chaplain and Legal. Educators, CPA's, etc don't meet all of the above criteria (namely commissions in USAF for being a teacher, CPA, etc.). Regardless of training, experience and education, all professional appointments start as 2d Lt and are promoted once TIG is reached and satisfactory performance up to Captain and stops there. If they step down from their position, they revert to a permanent grade of E-1 unless they are otherwise eligible for advanced grade by completing promotion requirements appropriate to that grade (see #3 and #4)..

3. Reinstate Warrant Officer grade for other mission related skills that we need to recruit and retain people to do, such as pilot. Everyone would start as WO-1 regardless of level of certificate and would then be advanced based on time in grade and mission participation. Certificate level (CFI, for example) could waive some training/experience, but not TIG. An A&P could be advanced, for example, to an advanced enlisted grade after appropriate TIG, without completing any other training as long as they are performing a job requiring that skill in CAP.

4. Everyone else starts as enlisted. Again, specific skills could waive training requirements, but not TIG so everyone promotes at a reasonable rate. Top enlisted grade would be E-7 (to avoid aggravating any Air Force chief's out there in the top two grades).

5. Not sure what training program to use, but existing Level 1-5 could be adapted as well as AF PME courses, in addition to other ongoing discussions on this board which have been proposed.

6. Lastly, Officer of Armed Forces promotion: how to address issue where someone was a General in USAF and joins CAP as an E-1... Well, two ways. 1) Point out grade structure looks like USAF, but is NOT the same thing. Or 2) allow former officers to continue wearing their last grade held BUT get approval from USAF to have them wear their USAF uniform while serving in CAP. They would be placed in a special membership category like Advisor. They could hold any/all CAP positions, but senior officers would be assigned to HQ units. Distinguish them from active duty by having them wear a badge, similar to what AF JROTC/ROTC Officers/NCO's wear. CAP-USAF (liaison regions) would have to approve assignments of former USAF Officers/enlisted joining CAP in this capacity. That should take care of that, except not sure what to do with Army, Navy, Marine etc officers/senior enlisted.

7. Phase-in period of 2-3 years during which existing members can retain current grade in CAP and complete training as appropriate to the new structure. New members, or those transitioning sooner, would wear new grade insignia. Maybe we can get different colored epaulets to denote members holding grade under the new program, then phase out the gray?

John Aylesworth
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 06, 2007, 04:11:44 PM
jay, I would go along with almost all your proposals. 

Your solution to the prior-service officer problem is one that I haven't heard before and is definetely worth thinking about.  One issue that I can see is prior-service officers who no longer even come close to the active/reserve physical requirements for uniform wear.  The services will probably not want the 75 year old former Lt. Col. who is 50 pounds overweight wearing one of their uniforms.  One solution would be to tell prior service that they can keep their old rank and wear their service's uniform only if they meet the service's height/weight requirements.  If they can't they would have to join and start out like everybody else. 

Having these folks wear their actual service uniforms could possibly lead to confusion among the public as to whether they are acting as a CAP member or as a member of their service.  A reporter might wonder why somebody in a Marine uniform is flying a CAP/USAF Aux airplane on a mission. 

One solution is to get very parochial and just let former AF officers continue to wear the AF uniform.  After all, we are the AF's auxiliary. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: jayleswo on January 06, 2007, 04:40:26 PM
River, understand about the USAF allowing former officers/enlisted to wear their uniform if they don't meet current requirements. I think AFI 36-2903 has criteria for retired and veterans wearing USAF uniform. We would just ask USAF to allow service in CAP to be added to the list of circumstances they can wear it, again, with CAP-USAF approval for each individual. I am sure something in their regs allows for AF JROTC/ROTC aerospace instructors to wear AF uniform, so we would be going for something similar.

The thing I also wanted to mention about some of the feedback to the excellent proposals I have been reading from John and Dennis and others.... I've got quite a few years in management and the best way to never achieve a goal is to go for the 100% solution that encompasses all of the edge cases. I think an 80% solution should be workable and implementable. It's the last 20% that usually takes the most time to resolve and some of those issues are just never resolvable. So, don't worry about the last 10-20% beyond a certain point. Move forward! I really like the positive and constructive flavor to what I am reading on these threads towards an improved CAP. Thanks!

John Aylesworth
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 04:44:29 PM
And I remembered that right after I posted.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Chaplaindon on January 06, 2007, 05:26:23 PM
Friends, I appreciate all that you are trying to do CONSTRUCTIVELY to effect change: I pray that it is not Quixotic -- CAP needs to change.

As a long-time member, I would endorse a move to the NGB both for its inherent understanding of dual-role service ... even though the Bible has Jesus preaching that you cannot serve two masters (money and God) ... we do it all the time in CAP (and sometimes more than 2 masters/"customers" -- prehaps that's why the NOC always seems so muddled?). The NG likewise does this multi-mastered-service routinely and understands its complexities. Furthermore, they are state-identified entities, just as are CAP WG's and eschelons below. The NG and CAP --although national in scope and deployable all over-- really are "neighbors serving neighbors (and neighbors serving along side neighbors).

It's a good marriage.

One additional comment that I would make has to do with requirements for grade. I strongly believe that "commissioned" officers (those 2nd Lt and above) in CAP should possess a bachelors degree or above, from an "accredited" university (transcript required).

Doubtless, there would be a place for prior-service officers (up to Lt Col, as before and professional appointments IAW USAF, ANG, AFRES practices --e.g. RN's w/BSN, MD's, JD's, clergy). All of these already possess at least a 4-year degree.

If "warrant" grades are reintroduced (which I doubt as they are too dissimilar to the USAF, ANG, or AFRES) those individuals should possess normatively a 2-year degree as well as a needed technical/operational skill (e.g. private pilot --with mission/orientation pilot-level experience (or higher), communication technician --beyond amateur licensure, medical (non-BSN RN or maybe Paramedic).

Others (e.g. Basic EMTs or Paramedics w/o 2-year degree, LVNs, amateur radio operators, private pilots lacking adequate experience for SARDR or O-flights or sufficient post-secondary education --see above--, etc.) all would be assigned to the "enlisted" grades --perhaps with some advance placement to, say, E-5 or so.

Those lacking any such skills/education would start at E-1. It seems incongruous to me to promtote them otherwise. They would have no useful operational skill. They have a general education and they have no prior service. They are pure "potential" yet to be realized. Pinning a "bar" or stripes on that person would be silly.

Earn as you learn is the right way.

Officer and enlisted/NCO advancement would involve USAF or NGB as well as CAP PME (for example to make O-5, I suggest one complete ASCS, and for O-6, AWC non-residence). Who knows, with a closer relationship with our state ANG, maybe our officers could take the PME seminars with the ANG RLO's. Currently CAPR's prohibit all but the dreary correspondence ones.

Furthermore all entering personnel would receive some basic training consistent with their background (prior service or not ... for example) and their intended position and duty. All would receive some degree of security screening and a REAL ID card.

Although higher education does not fully define a person, by any means, I have seen/heard CAP O-6's --WG Kings, no less-- who spoke and or wrote like hillbillies. CAP will never be seen as professionals with its leaders appearing illiterate or uneducated.

To be seen as professionals we need not only wear the uniform correctly, but we need to speak and write and present ourselves as professionals, whether officer, NCO, enlisted. To that end, education matters.



Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Chaplaindon on January 06, 2007, 05:30:47 PM
I meant "ACSC" not ASCS ... sorry.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2007, 08:11:39 PM
Thank you for your kind words, Chaplain.

Your proposal for use of warrant grades (We have flight officers now, so I don't see it as a major organizational shift) is precisely what the Army does with respcet to warrant officers.  Commissioned officers are managers the warrant officers are technicians.  I'd like to see if that would work.

So, we'd run it like this:

Commissioned officers:  Bachelor degree + Officer Training School = 2nd Lt.
(Could we live with 2 years of college + 2 years responsible full-time work and approval of a board as being the same as a BS/BA?  That might give us some flexibility when we are short of commissioned officers.)

Warrant Officers:  Pilots, Paramedics, RN's, Communications technicians, and A&P mechanics with less than a BS/BA/BSN.  They would also go through OTS, and follow along with the same PD requirements, except that they would advance in the warrant ranks (W-1 through W-5) unless they achieved a degree.  Get a degree... lateral to the appropriate commissioned rank as determined by your PD level.

--  I would include in this category former cadets who have the Mitchell or higher.  We got to take care of our own!

Enlisted:  Everybody else, except that once past a basic training period, EMT's and other needed civilian specialties would get SSG.

Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 06, 2007, 09:55:18 PM
OK, folks, since we're talking grade structure, I am attaching a paper I wrote during the letter months of 2006....it expresses ideas I've been kicking around and developing with some CAP colleagues (including a retired USAFR officer and a retired USAR E-9) for about 5 years.

Some of the courses mentioned, particularly those for NCOs, do not exist and would need to be developed.

This is a starting place for discussion, not a perfect plan engraved in stone!
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Chaplaindon on January 06, 2007, 10:37:29 PM
John,

I'll concur with your modification (2 yrs versus 4) but with a caveat --something to, hopefully motivate folks toward further education-- a commissioned officer would be limited (e.g. a "Limited Duty Officer" if you will) to no more than 1st Lt --perhaps Capt-- w/o a 4 yr degree.

Otherwise I think your on to something. Mind you, one bugaboo of mine is that non-operationally qualified pilots NOT receive special consideration for grade. They may have a PPL but w/o suffient hours PIC, etc., to fly as PIC on SAR/DR ops or O-Flights they are of very limited use to the organization.

Just having a PPL (or EVEN an A&P license) shouldn't automatically equal 2nd Lt (or more).
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: TDHenderson on January 06, 2007, 10:44:45 PM
My $.02 in regards to the Grade Stucture is to leave it alone and concentrate on increasing the quality of our Professional Development and Emergency Services training so we can provide the Nation with a better product.  I also believe that targeting recruiting along with improvements in new member screening will lead to a better CAP.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 07, 2007, 12:50:18 AM
Trevor.

I thought that's what we were doing.  Unless we have our officer strength that exhibits the quality approaching a military commissioned officer, we're spinning our wheels trying to catch up.  Part of that is raising the standards to earn CAP officer rank.

And, Chaplain, I suggest warrant grade for all pilots out of tradition.   
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: BillB on January 07, 2007, 01:05:03 AM
This looks good except, I can see we will have a pot full of people in the Flight Officer grades.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: arajca on January 07, 2007, 01:23:43 AM
Too ES based.

If you're not into ES, you stop as SrA.

Mission Manager does not exist. Do you mean Incident Commander? If so, you'll have a bunch of low grade folks because CAP's requirements for IC are such that only a handful per wing would qualify.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 07, 2007, 02:49:21 AM
Quote from: BillB on January 07, 2007, 01:05:03 AM
This looks good except, I can see we will have a pot full of people in the Flight Officer grades.

Bill:

OK, I'll grant you that.  Is that a problem? 

W/O's in the Army can command small units within their specialty, why can't our F/O's?

For groups/wings/regions/CAP overall, why would we not expect to have a college graduate if our goal is to improve our officer corps?

Bill, I got your e-mail.  I can hear your brain hitting the walls of the box all the way here in Viera.  The plan I came up with for the units is completely out of the box.  Forget the current senior/cadet/composite arrangements.  These units are based on function, not personnel.  The have to be mutually supportive, and as such, the stand-alone squadron has to go.  Follow my thinking for just a moment.

Our situation:

We are basically not doing much of anything CAP-wide in AE, other than the cadet program.  Congress made that one of our missions.  We can't just abandon it because we're too busy and can't think of anything to do.

Some units are doing fine on the cadet program.  Others are "Composite" units with 4 cadets.  How does one run the cadet program and give leadership experience when there are 4 cadets?

Some units excel at ES, some pencil-whip the standards, some ignore the program altogether. 

Then, between wing and NHQ, we lay a ton of administrative burdens on a local commander, such that we have trouble finding people with the time and the stomach for the job.  We end up giving command of a unit to 2nd Lt. Soccermom, and tell her to read the regs, because she was dumb enough to accept command without knowing what she was getting into. Then, she burns out, leaves the program, and dumps the problems on the next fool.

My goal in suggesting a change to the way we organize units is to reduce the admin. burden on commanders, and let commanders focus on 1 mission, relying on their sister units to provide training and resources for the other missions of CAP.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 07, 2007, 03:03:06 AM
You know we might take a page from the CG Aux here.  They actually have way, way more programs that they can be implementing than does CAP.  They have just about as many staff officers per flotilla but in most of those cases the staff officer is actually implementing a fairly unique program.  So, there is exactly the same potentiall for over-burdening the leadership with varioius reports. 

You know how they solve it?  There really aren't any unit-level reports required.  Instead, each CG Auxie is supposed to report any time spent participating in any of the programs.  All of this is input into a national database and anytime someone wants to know how many classes have been taught, boats inspected, etc. they can pull it up from the database. 

How does this work at the unit level?  Well, basically if the guy in charge of the Marine Safety program is doing something and reporting correctly it shows up in the database.  If he isn't doing anything  or isn't reporting it correctly or if there isn't anybody else doing it in that flotilla there is a big goose-egg in that column of the database. 

So, what happens is that similar to CAP each CG Aux flotilla focuses on different things depending on the interests of its members which may change over time.  There is some pressure to put people in each slot, but if they aren't doing anything EVERYBODY knows it.  There isn't any duty on the part of the flotilla commander to send in a report for the marine safety department to the Division. 

The other thing to realize is that each CG Aux member may be participating in and reporting their activities in multiple programs.  So, even if there isn't a Marine Safety staff officer in my flotilla, if for some reason I do some Marine Safety activity it would be my responsibility to report those hours. 

Now, mostly the system only reports hours of effort.  For some program there are concrete task accomplishments entered into the system. 

Would this work for CAP?  Probably not very well since quite a few CAP reports are those that need to be done, and if by no-one else, fall on the commander.  However, I expect many could be reduced to check boxes on a web-based form that could be done very quickly.   
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Chaplaindon on January 07, 2007, 12:31:31 PM
John,

I basically concur with your suggestion " ... warrant grade for all pilots out of tradition" provided that they possess either full operational (SAR/DR or O-Flight) level flying experience --- say a PPL + 200 hours PIC minimum (a completed CAPF-5) and at least a high school diploma.

I know thast presently the USA wants some college (40-60 hours min, I think) to qualify for WOC status.

CAP Pilots with PPL but below 200 hours PIC w/o 40/60 hours post-secondary educational experience would be SSgt. However, as soon as the pilot either obtains 200 hours PIC or a minimum level of post-secondary education, and a current CAPF-5, they are eligible for an immediate promotion to WO1.

A 200+ hrs SAR/DR-level pilot without a high school diploma (or equivilency) would also be a SSgt. Perhaps we could, as did the Army in (briefly) in WWII --and as did the RAF-- and allow for a few "flying sergeants."

This would encourage pilots --like everyone else-- to become qualified and operational and to keep learning and training. It would also reinforce that education ... not just PME ... matters; in the military, in CAP and in the world.

I am also a pliot (below 200 hrs PIC, too) and concerned that if we allow too much leeway for pilots (just because they are pilots regardless of whether they can/will actually fly a CAP aircraft or possess adequate experience and qualifications to be operationally useful to CAP) it will establish a precedence that will "slide" toward an open (qualifications not needed) officer corps -- and we'll be right back where we are now ... Level-1 and 6 months and you're a 2nd Lt: regardless of whether you are literate or qualified/competent to do anything except sign a check for your yearly dues.

John, thanks for all you're doing to try and improve CAP.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 07, 2007, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 07, 2007, 12:31:31 PM
John,

I basically concur with your suggestion " ... warrant grade for all pilots out of tradition" provided that they possess either full operational (SAR/DR or O-Flight) level flying experience --- say a PPL + 200 hours PIC minimum (a completed CAPF-5) and at least a high school diploma.

I know thast presently the USA wants some college (40-60 hours min, I think) to qualify for WOC status.

CAP Pilots with PPL but below 200 hours PIC w/o 40/60 hours post-secondary educational experience would be SSgt. However, as soon as the pilot either obtains 200 hours PIC or a minimum level of post-secondary education, and a current CAPF-5, they are eligible for an immediate promotion to WO1.

A 200+ hrs SAR/DR-level pilot without a high school diploma (or equivilency) would also be a SSgt. Perhaps we could, as did the Army in (briefly) in WWII --and as did the RAF-- and allow for a few "flying sergeants."

This would encourage pilots --like everyone else-- to become qualified and operational and to keep learning and training. It would also reinforce that education ... not just PME ... matters; in the military, in CAP and in the world.

I am also a pliot (below 200 hrs PIC, too) and concerned that if we allow too much leeway for pilots (just because they are pilots regardless of whether they can/will actually fly a CAP aircraft or possess adequate experience and qualifications to be operationally useful to CAP) it will establish a precedence that will "slide" toward an open (qualifications not needed) officer corps -- and we'll be right back where we are now ... Level-1 and 6 months and you're a 2nd Lt: regardless of whether you are literate or qualified/competent to do anything except sign a check for your yearly dues.

John, thanks for all you're doing to try and improve CAP.

I don't have figures to support this, but I strongly suspect you will not find very many private pilots with educational levels somewhere south of high school.  High school dropouts normally do not find themselves in jobs that provide an income sufficient to pay for flying, and those who lack the endurance to make it through high school would similarly lack the endurance to complete the pilot training curriculum.

I'll have to disagree with you on the pilot qualification.  "Flying sergeants" have not been around anywhere since the late 50's I think.  I would grant F/O rank along with wings:  Private ticket+OTS+Form 5 ride = Flight Officer.  As F/O pilots, they can work on their 50 hours XC to qualify as transport mission pilots, and build time toward O-Flight and mission qualification.  In the meantime, they can train cadets in aerospace topics and assist at O-flights by walking cadets through the pre-flight inspection, so its not like they're totally useless.

And, considering the economics of aviation (Sometimes I wish I developed a cocaine habit instead of a flying habit... cocaine is cheaper and there is less government interference!) we are talking about a very small group of people who would be pilots with less than 2 years of college.  Unless they are former cadets, in which case they would get F/O anyway on their Mitchells.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 07, 2007, 04:59:59 PM
You know I have seen a fair number of new pilots come into CAP with 50-100 hours of time but I don't think any of them have ever actually accumulated enough time to become mission pilots yet. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 07, 2007, 05:17:57 PM
Quote from: arajca on January 07, 2007, 01:23:43 AM
Too ES based.

If you're not into ES, you stop as SrA.

Mission Manager does not exist. Do you mean Incident Commander? If so, you'll have a bunch of low grade folks because CAP's requirements for IC are such that only a handful per wing would qualify.

"Mission Manager" is used as a catchall term for ICs, Ops & Planning Section Chiefs, AOBD/GBD, Finance-Admin Section Chiefs, Comm Unit Leader, Safety Officer, Mission IO, Flight Line Supervisor, Mission Chaplain....I think that about covers it.

The plan does not envision (or require) everyone being "into" ES, but does stress that all adult members  should have certain fundamental qualifications to enable them to assist in a broad-based disaster situation (terrorist attack aftermath, Katrina-type natural disaster).

Not everyone needs to be involved in ES all the time....but I would rather not have people as members who were unwilling (to the extent of their ability) to pitch in when really needed.

Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 07, 2007, 05:46:41 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 07, 2007, 04:59:59 PM
You know I have seen a fair number of new pilots come into CAP with 50-100 hours of time but I don't think any of them have ever actually accumulated enough time to become mission pilots yet. 

Right, River.

But the discusion was on basic standards for officer rank.  If a person had an Associate degree or two years of college, he/she would have achieved the threshhold for comissioned rank, according to our plan.  This would be regardless of pilot status.  A person with less than two years of university education, but with a technical skill such as pilot, would be brought in (after OTS) as a Flight Officer.

Chaplain Don's contention is that only 200+ hour pilots should be given flight officer status.  My contention is that all pilots with a private license be brought in as F/O's, regardless of number of hours.  Former cadets with Mitchell and higher would also be appointed as F/O's, so the persons who earned their wings as cadets would not be effected.

So the discussion centers around a population group of low-time private pilots with less than 2 years of college who did not come through the cadet program.  I contend that such a population group is so small as to not warrant serious regulatory attention.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: arajca on January 07, 2007, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 07, 2007, 05:17:57 PM
Quote from: arajca on January 07, 2007, 01:23:43 AM
Too ES based.

If you're not into ES, you stop as SrA.

Mission Manager does not exist. Do you mean Incident Commander? If so, you'll have a bunch of low grade folks because CAP's requirements for IC are such that only a handful per wing would qualify.

"Mission Manager" is used as a catchall term for ICs, Ops & Planning Section Chiefs, AOBD/GBD, Finance-Admin Section Chiefs, Comm Unit Leader, Safety Officer, Mission IO, Flight Line Supervisor, Mission Chaplain....I think that about covers it.
You need to define it in your document.

QuoteThe plan does not envision (or require) everyone being "into" ES, but does stress that all adult members  should have certain fundamental qualifications to enable them to assist in a broad-based disaster situation (terrorist attack aftermath, Katrina-type natural disaster).
I disagree. The plan does require it if a member wants to progress above SrA. Table 1 - Basic NCO & 101 qual. Flight Officers and Commissioned Officers also have the "and one 101 qualification" requirement in the notes.

QuoteNot everyone needs to be involved in ES all the time....but I would rather not have people as members who were unwilling (to the extent of their ability) to pitch in when really needed.
If you're not into ES all the time, your quals will lapse. What do you about the ES folks who don't want to do CP or AE? Or do you just discriminate against those who don't want to do ES?

On to other comments:
Communications - 911 Dispatchers should come in a lot higher than amateur radio operators. Their training is more intense and more applicable to CAP's communication sytems than amatuer radio. I'd recommend at least FO, if not TFO.

Emergency Medical - Swap EMS 1st Responder and ARC 1st Aid/CPR/AED Instructor. 1st Responder is more applicable to CAP than the instructor. Drop ARC restriction and add nationally accepted certified, there are several different certifying agencies that can be used.

Health Services - Put BS level health professional at same level as RN and MS level at NP/PA

Educators - Licensed teachers and counselors came in at FO or TFO? The table allows for both.

Mission Related Skills/Professional Appointments - Need to have the member contribute their skills to CAP.

Here are some ideas I came up with:
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: arajca on January 07, 2007, 06:03:03 PM
More for my idea:

There are four more documents, however, they are too large (even zipped) to post here.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 07, 2007, 06:23:37 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 06, 2007, 09:55:18 PM
OK, folks, since we're talking grade structure, I am attaching a paper I wrote during the letter months of 2006....it expresses ideas I've been kicking around and developing with some CAP colleagues (including a retired USAFR officer and a retired USAR E-9) for about 5 years.

Some of the courses mentioned, particularly those for NCOs, do not exist and would need to be developed.

This is a starting place for discussion, not a perfect plan engraved in stone!

Dang, ZZ, you're tough!

I'd go with a bachelor degree as the basic qual for 2LT, assuming completion of a CAP OTS. 

Chaplain Don had a plan that was good, fair, and sounds simple to administer.  Pilots, former cadets with Mitchell and higher, and selected other technicians stay in the FO grades, unless they have degrees.  BS/BA and higher go to commissioned grade.

Unskilled volunteers without college stay in the enlisted grades.

But... Under your plan, would GES count as "One 101 qualification?"

And, why the additional rank for ATP?  CFI's and CFII's we can use.  ATP is just another pilot once he's out of his jet and flying a Skyhawk.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 08, 2007, 02:54:07 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 07, 2007, 06:23:37 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 06, 2007, 09:55:18 PM
OK, folks, since we're talking grade structure, I am attaching a paper I wrote during the letter months of 2006....it expresses ideas I've been kicking around and developing with some CAP colleagues (including a retired USAFR officer and a retired USAR E-9) for about 5 years.

Some of the courses mentioned, particularly those for NCOs, do not exist and would need to be developed.

This is a starting place for discussion, not a perfect plan engraved in stone!

Dang, ZZ, you're tough!

I'd go with a bachelor degree as the basic qual for 2LT, assuming completion of a CAP OTS. 

Chaplain Don had a plan that was good, fair, and sounds simple to administer.  Pilots, former cadets with Mitchell and higher, and selected other technicians stay in the FO grades, unless they have degrees.  BS/BA and higher go to commissioned grade.

Unskilled volunteers without college stay in the enlisted grades.

But... Under your plan, would GES count as "One 101 qualification?"

And, why the additional rank for ATP?  CFI's and CFII's we can use.  ATP is just another pilot once he's out of his jet and flying a Skyhawk.

GES is NOT sufficient.....MSA/MRO/FLM/GTM/UDF 9to cite a few examples) would be.
I was thinking of the ATP as a resource person for training, safety instruction, and so forth.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 08, 2007, 03:16:45 AM
Quote from: arajca on January 07, 2007, 05:58:22 PM


If you're not into ES all the time, your quals will lapse. What do you about the ES folks who don't want to do CP or AE? Or do you just discriminate against those who don't want to do ES?

On to other comments:
Communications - 911 Dispatchers should come in a lot higher than amateur radio operators. Their training is more intense and more applicable to CAP's communication sytems than amatuer radio. I'd recommend at least FO, if not TFO.

[/quote]

I read through your documents, you have some interesting thoughts, many of which I feel are not that far from what I've proposed.

Some differences include your six (seven counting Warrant Trainee) WO grades; presently the active military only has five WO grades, not sure we need more.

As for ES, I want every CAP member in a leadership role to have some basic mission qualification.....I understand it might lapse from lack of use....but it is a lot easier to refresh/restore quals for which the training has already been accomplished than to start from scratch.

I understand that many, if not most, CAP members 'specialize' in one area....again, I feel that those who would exercise leadership roles need to have a familiarity with and some fundamental training in all three missions.....so in that regard, you are 100% correct, at some point in the promotion progression the Yeager AND the Training Leaders of Cadets Course ought to be required.

I anticipate many people "topping out" at Senior Airman under my proposal, in fact, that is part of the point....as things stand now, members get 1 Lt without too much trouble....the AFIADL CAP Officer course tends to be an obstacle for many....if part of the purpose is to ensure the training and commitment of CAP leaders, we need to make getting stripes/bars/leaves more demanding.

In fact, I would see SrA grade as veery much equivalent to the role you describe as CAP Instructor....I know some other cadet programs have that position....perhapos we need it....but for most of the jobs you describe, i feel those filling the posts should be in the chain of command.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 08, 2007, 03:25:36 AM

[/quote]



On to other comments:
Communications - 911 Dispatchers should come in a lot higher than amateur radio operators. Their training is more intense and more applicable to CAP's communication sytems than amatuer radio. I'd recommend at least FO, if not TFO.

Emergency Medical - Swap EMS 1st Responder and ARC 1st Aid/CPR/AED Instructor. 1st Responder is more applicable to CAP than the instructor. Drop ARC restriction and add nationally accepted certified, there are several different certifying agencies that can be used.

Health Services - Put BS level health professional at same level as RN and MS level at NP/PA

Educators - Licensed teachers and counselors came in at FO or TFO? The table allows for both.

Mission Related Skills/Professional Appointments - Need to have the member contribute their skills to CAP.

[/quote]

In 911 dispatchers -- OK, did not know level of training...certainly realized their responsibility

EMS 1st Responder & ARC Instructor -- open to discussion

BS level health professional -- much more limited potential contribution than NP/PA, can't see changing it

Teachers/counselors:  less than 5 years experience OR bachelors only - FO
                                 5 + years experience AND masters = TFO
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: arajca on January 08, 2007, 05:10:55 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 08, 2007, 03:25:36 AM
In 911 dispatchers -- OK, did not know level of training...certainly realized their responsibility
Average six months, 40 hrs per week using computers (with hand and foot input devices), answering phones, dispatching, making status checks, tracking many pieces of equipment and personnel, EXTREMELY high stress level at times. They can handle as much traffic in 1/2 hour as a typical MRO does in two days on a SAREX.

QuoteEMS 1st Responder & ARC Instructor -- open to discussion
CAP does not require certified training, just first aid training. Just about any EMT, 1st Resp, etc can do it. Add to the mix the CAP Instructor Program being developed and the HSO/Instructor specialty.

QuoteBS level health professional -- much more limited potential contribution than NP/PA, can't see changing it
Given the restrictions on Health Services personnel, any HS Prof. with a BS can do as much as a RN, or MD for that matter. Depending on legal issues, that may or may not change. One avenue being looked into is having the AF assume medical liability for HSO performing their duties for CAP - ot sure how far it has gone or will go.

QuoteTeachers/counselors:  less than 5 years experience OR bachelors only - FO
                                 5 + years experience AND masters = TFO
Again, these things need to be spelled out.

The top levels of each track (enlisted, WO, CO) are your experts/god-like beings. What they don't know about CAP isn't worth knowing. I know the CMWO is not a military grade, but I tried to keep the WO grades tied to PD levels and I needed one more for the WO track expert.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: flyguy06 on January 08, 2007, 05:27:08 AM
I think we should leave everythig as it is. You cant require someone to have a colleg edegree to be a CAP officer. A CAP officer is not the same as a commissioned officer. I know many good seniormembers that have hgh school diplomas and they do a good job as senior members. Its about dedication, not degrees.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on January 08, 2007, 05:48:36 AM
I would agree that a Bachelors degree would not be necessary. HOWEVER I feel that SOME college credits or post-HS education/technical training would be.   As for myself: I was AFROTC in college but the AF cancelled the medical waivers for everyone in my category. ( I had asthma as a kid) When that happened my scholarship went away and I had to leave school. When that happened I became involved in EMS.  And as far as speaking of Paramedics/EMTS/Dispatchers. I am both an EMT and a dispatcher. There is definately alot of work involved. (And if I work a day shift as an EMT and a night shift dispatching odds are I never sleep)  But within the realm of Comm duties, I can handle my dispatch board just fine. BUT I might be hard pressed to manage a radio at mission base if its one Im not familiar with. - All my dispatch duties/systems are controlled by computers. 

EMT vs Paramedic. I know medics have more training. But I run half again as many BLS calls AT LEAST as any ALS medic in my area.

I apoligize, I know it was a bit off topic.
 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 09, 2007, 02:21:16 AM



QuoteTeachers/counselors:  less than 5 years experience OR bachelors only - FO
                                 5 + years experience AND masters = TFO
Again, these things need to be spelled out.
.
[/quote]

It was quite clear....take another look at the chart
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: arajca on January 09, 2007, 02:00:48 PM
OKI. I stand corrected, although when I printed it out, I didn't see that.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Dragoon on January 09, 2007, 08:29:51 PM
Posted at the request of John K.

One possible structural change could include the elimination of USAF grade in favor of a CAP grade system that would be formally recognized by USAF.

Justification - a huge amount of debate, both here, and at the National Board, goes in to "who deserves to hold what grade in CAP."  Only real military NCOs can hold NCO grade, but cannot be promoted.  Any member can hold officer grade, even if they were never real military officers.  Real military officers can keep their existing grade, but only through O-5.  CAP grades above that level are held for those who have successfully held certain CAP positions, regardless of the grade they held previously.

In addition, while CAP grade is virtually identical to USAF grade, it is not used in the same way.  USAF grade denotes pay, authority and responsibility.  CAP grade denotes longevity and training.  CAP members are not required to obey orders from those of higher grades.  CAP Officers of any grade may hold CAP command authority over CAP members of higher grade.  CAP officers have no responsibility as the "ranking officer present" to take charge of situations and correct problems.

USAF staff and command positions are coded by grade, and with some limited flexibility officers and NCOs are assigned according to their grade.  They are not normally assigned to positions far above or below their grade.  In CAP, this is a common occurrence.  People assume and relinquish responsibility and authority based on not only on ability, but how much they are willing to contribute at any point in time.  In fact the latest CAPR 20-1 doesn't even assign grades to positions except commanders, and even then allows anyone to serve in those positions.

The effects of these differences are far reaching.  CAP Grade looks like USAF grade, but isn't.  It is more like an award for attending certain classes.  As a result the quality of CAP officer varies greatly, some of whom bring great discredit upon the organization from outsiders who expect a certain level of professionalism from a CAP officer, when we can neither prepare nor train the officer to that standard given our limited time and resources.


Nevertheless, CAP grade is used to motivate members to participate and train.

Proposal:  Create a unique CAP grade system such as "Flight Officer", using distinctive grade insignia.  Get it formally approved by USAF and inserted in appropriate USAF publications.  Make it clear that this is an internal system for use in CAP, and that CAP members fall completely outside the USAF grade system.  A CAP flight officer is no more superior or subordinate to a USAF officer than a USAF civilian is.

Possible extensions of this proposal would be to work with USAF to allow this grade insignia, along with some distinctive CAP identification badge/patch, to be the only major differences between the USAF and CAP uniforms. (i.e. eliminate wing patches, non-subdued name tapes, etc).  Work with USAF to eliminate weight and grooming restrictions (within reason) in USAF uniforms, as it would be extremely clear that we were accelerates, and not military personnel.  (NOTE: The whole issue of being a "part time" auxiliary would have to be resolved in order for this part to occur.)

This effectively bring us closer in image to USAF, but clearly identified as different from the warfighters.  This eliminates the endless arguments about what grade to bestow on prior service members.  It eliminates the stigma of being "wannabee officers" and allows us to build a strong image based on our unique contribution to the USAF mission.  It gives us unique grade that is used in the unique CAP way - not to identify authority, but to identify longevity and training.


Possible Addendum:  Commissioned Grade could be kept for serving CAP leaders and staff officers.  Such grade would be temporary (as the National Deputy Commander's Brigadier General grade is).  Upon leaving the position, the member would revert to flight officer grade.  One possible implementation would be as follows:



Set up a 5 step "flight officer" (or perhaps warrant officer) program.  We'll call the grades FO-1 through FO-5.  Pick whatever titles make you happy.

These become your permanent grade.

Level of the Senior Member Program = your grade.  Finish Level 1 - you get FO-1.  Finish your Certificate of Proficiency (Level 2), get FO-2.  Etc. Etc.

Now, certain jobs in 20-1 would be coded for a maximum commissioned officer grade.  For example, Squadron CC's would max out as  majors, Deputy Squadron CC's and a few key staff officers as captains, with a smattering of 1st and 2nd Lt Billets.  Group and Wing get the Higher Grades.

Now here's where the magic occurs.  Commissioned grade is temporary, and is based on the the lower of:

1.  The max commissioned grade of the position you are serving in.

and

2. The level of the senior member program you've completed.


For example:

A relatively new member (FO-2) gets thrust into command of a squadron.  The position is coded for up to a major (0-4).  But he's only completed level 2.  So he only gets to wear 1st Lt bars (0-2).  If he completes Levels 3 and 4, he can now wear major's oak leaves (0-4).

If that same person, now a level 4 qualified  squadron commander wearing Major (O-4) oak leaves, decides he wants to step down and just be an observer for a while, with no staff job, he reverts to FO-4)

An FO-5 decides to take the Wing job of Stan/Eval, which is coded for a Major (0-4).  Even though he's a level 5 guy, the max of the slot is 0-4, so that's what he wears.  If he later takes over as the Chief of Operations (coded for an 0-5, he now is "promoted" to Lt Col)

When he goes back to a squadron to be an Aerospace Ed Officer (coded for an 0-2), he reverts to 1st Lt.




ONE CAVEAT - to keep folks from buying lots of mess dress shoulder boards, for social occasions (like Dinings-In) the member may wear the grade insignia of the highest grade ever worn, along with a pocket badge identifying the person as a "former officer' (sort of like what CGAUX does)

Advantages -

1.  This system rewards professional development for all members, even those not in any position. But it gives the best rewards to those who compete all training AND work in the tough jobs at the high levels.

2. It gives commanders a powerful accountability tool - if you don't do a good job, I replace you and you give back your cool rank.

3.  It limits commissioned rank to those currently serving as leaders and staff officers in the organization.


Disadvantages

1.  There would still be some grade inversion - if a Level 1 person was a squadron Commander, he could be a 2d Lt in charge of some Captains.  But there will be much less of this than there is today.

2.  Ego - some folks have a problem accepting a grade commensurate with their low level of contribution, and will want to keep the oak leaves that they've "earned" by completing some weekend courses that no one ever fails
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: MIKE on January 09, 2007, 08:43:20 PM
^ CGAux anyone?
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Dragoon on January 09, 2007, 09:10:08 PM
The temporary commisioned grade is a very CGAUX kind of thing.  But the FO part is uniquely CAP.

In CGAUX, last time I checked, you don't wear any grade when working with the CG. (so no one gets confused).  You just wear collar insignia identifying yourself as a generic auxiliarist.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: MIKE on January 09, 2007, 09:23:38 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 09, 2007, 09:10:08 PM
The temporary commisioned grade is a very CGAUX kind of thing.  But the FO part is uniquely CAP.

It's not always temporary... There is the Past Officer Device, so you can wear insignia that does not reflect your current office. The insignia is also very similar to the USCG insignia while still being distinctive... It's the titles that are different. 

Quote from: Dragoon on January 09, 2007, 09:10:08 PMIn CGAUX, last time I checked, you don't wear any grade when working with the CG. (so no one gets confused).  You just wear collar insignia identifying yourself as a generic auxiliarist.

When afloat, yes... but not necessarily ashore, per AUXMAN.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 09, 2007, 10:47:16 PM
I like Dragoon's basic plan, but I would not have any commissioned insignia.  A variant of the "Command Badge" that we use for squadrons and groups could be designed to add command of wings, regions and National.

Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 09, 2007, 11:55:39 PM
There are all sorts of non-military organizations that use the US military enlisted and officer rank insignia system.  So long as the local volunteer fire dept is using it I don't see any reason why CAP shouldn't.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 10, 2007, 01:52:01 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 09, 2007, 11:55:39 PM
There are all sorts of non-military organizations that use the US military enlisted and officer rank insignia system.  So long as the local volunteer fire dept is using it I don't see any reason why CAP shouldn't.

I don't think USAF is concerned about people mistaking a volunteer FD for them!
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 04:35:00 PM
CAP does not currently an officer program with the same "teeth" as an military officer, but I am proud of the rank I have reached. And I've made a point of legitimately meeting the requirements for each grade. So, yes, I dislike the idea of being "busted down".

That being said, if officer standards did increase, I would actually make it a goal to meet those requirements. I think that we need to upgrade our officer "accession" (and maybe we need to start calling it that, the military does). Granted I don't need to be taught to march, I think after 18 years in various uniforms, I would have that down. However, everything CAP specific I had to learn on my own. We need to get away from that self paced learning. OJT should be after initial training, not the initial training itself. CAP is testing an Instructor Program, lets put it to use. (http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5790&print=1)

Requiring ES qualifications for advancements otherwise automatically disqualifies those that aren't into ES, or can't do it. Who here wants to tell the guy in the wheelchair or the blind member that he can't get promoted because he can't or is uncomfortable with working at a mission base? Not to mention, someone may find it reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. And it would be a justifiable one in the end.

Restricting advanced grades based on positions is a troublesome concept. There will always be politics in this organization, just as any other, and it would kill many peoples chances of making those ranks. Also, returning people to lower grades after they hold the office is not the way to praise them for a job well done. And I don't care how much you try to sell the concept of a decoration, or "self satisfaction" as being sufficient, I won't buy it. And neither will a lot of others.

For officer training, we need to give people self confidence in the duties they will be performing. And that requires training. Period. We need to make better officers, not elitist figures based on positions.

As far as application to the current officer grades, there are really only two choices: grandfather existing ones, or freeze those in current grades until they meet the current requirements. For those who have topped out at LTCOL, they can be frozen at unit or group level only, no wing/region commands or staff positions. A grace period would have to be put into effect for the existing wing staff positions, but that would be the only exception.

Two more things: One, we are not the CG Aux, we are CAP. The  system they have may work for them(and it seems to work well), but it's their system. We need to find our own path.

Two, there are also many that have stated that they didn't come in to meet the same requirements as military officers. To be blunt, that's completely irrelevant. Anyone that sees you in the uniform is going to expect it of you. You may not like that idea, or try to argue it, but it is fact. You do a disservice to yourself and CAP by telling them that you don't, and that they shouldn't expect it of you.

I don't think we need 18 month OCS/OTS or four year academies, but we need a lot more than what we have. We aren't taken seriously by many of the military personnel that we are working alongside now. We need to earn their respect. Instead of revamping the entire grade structure, lets put "teeth" in what we already have.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: jayleswo on January 10, 2007, 05:22:35 PM
Hawk,

Just a few observations in response to your post...

You said "there are also many that have stated that they didn't come in to meet the same requirements as military officers." Ok, that's fine. Join CAP and contribute your skills, but as an enlisted member. I agree, not everyone is going to have the time nor inclination to be an officer. As far as CAP is concerned, officers should be our leaders. The best way to avoid staying top heavy is to promote people to earned grades (enlisted and warrant/flight officer) based on training and skills. Then *temporarily* promote to an appropriate officer grade, if they meet training and any other requirements, when assigned as a unit commander or deputy. Even Dwight D Eisenhower was only a permanent Lt Col when he was given the temorary grade of General during WWII. There's precedent. Give former unit commanders some other bling to hang on the uniform for serving. They already get the Command Service Ribbon, is that not enough recognition? It is for me. I'd be ok with stepping back down into my permanent earned grade after serving as a unit commander.

This kinda changes the game for us. It makes the rewards (officer grade) not only commensurate with level of participation, skills and training but also responsibility. Up until the 1970's, CAPM 20-1 had officer grade allocation tables for units which stipulated maximum grades for each position held in the unit. Seniors still had to complete Level 1-5, but could not promote unless they were filling a billet appropriate for the officer grade they wanted to promote to. The officer grade allocation tables were done away with to improve retention and because people would simply "game" the system and step into a position with a higher maximum grade allocation to get promoted for the minimum time, then step down and keep the grade.

This would return us to that concept, albeit only for command positions, but make the officer grade temporary to avoid the "gamesmanship". So, instead of making officer grade the reward, let's come up with *other* ways of rewarding achievement and contribution.  Use of enlisted and warrant grades would allow us to still use promotions as a reward, but restrict officer grade to commanders. Would it not be just as rewarding to promote from Airman (E-1) to Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) or Warrant Officer (WO-1) to Chief Warrant Officer (WO-5)? Do we all have to be Lt Col's?

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 10, 2007, 05:36:54 PM
John:

We are planning a comprehensive paper, and unabashedly stealing ideas from all of you.

You have proposed a plan which was first proposed by ZigZag911.  Please consider the alternative plan I proposed, in which:

CAP remains an "Officer" force, but inreases the educational requirements for commissioned grade.

Most CAP officers will wear Flight Officer rank.

NCO's from the military will retain the option of staying at NCO rank.

"Soccer Mom" members will remain enlisted, with minimal requirements.  They will wear rank that is similar to AF rank, but with our triagle-prop design instead of a star.  Their rank progression will top out at SrA.

The program calls for selection of officer candidates at a wing board, and an OTS program which includes SLS.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 10, 2007, 05:46:52 PM
John:

Sorry, I forgot...

A more detailed version of my rank proposal is at "Clarification of Officer Ranks in the New CAP" Page 1, near the bottom.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Dragoon on January 10, 2007, 05:55:15 PM
My big concern is:

I think the key issue that needs to be resolved with an "Officer force" is what do you do when that person isn't serving in an Officer billet of the appropriate grade.

As long as I can be a Lt Col, regardless of how I earned it, and only serve as a squadron asst transportation officer (basically changing oil in the van), then my rank is pretty worthless.

And if you separate "flight officer work" from " commissioned officer work,"  does that that means you shut down a unit if there aren't adequate officers to fill the slots (You sure as hell aren't going to tell me I can't get a commission because of my lack of a degree you sure as hell aren't going to make me do the job anyway and not get the bars!)

Unless you can solve this kind of stuff, our grade cannot easily be tied to levels of responsibility or authority, the key enablers of a workable military grade system.    

Our grade would remain an honorarium, basically an award you wear on your shoulders instead of over your left pocket.  And in that case, let's just give everyone a general's star for each level of the program.... ;)
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Dragoon on January 10, 2007, 06:04:57 PM
One last thing - kind of the summation - what does grade get us as an organization?  And no, I don't think "it makes us more like USAF" is good enough.  At least of third of USAF doesn't wear grade.

If we figure out why we need grade, and what we expect it to do, it will be easier to invent the right system.

Some cynics (including my dad, an Army officer when I was a cadet) believe that CAP grade exits primarily to bribe members to join so they can be "military officers."  I have been told, but cannot confirm, that the reason everyone in the Commemorative Air Force is a Colonel is a direct shot at CAP's grade system.

I think grade CAN be valuable - as both an incentive to train AND an incentive to take the "tough jobs" - if it's worked correctly.  Really low on my totem pole of priorities is making "feel good Lt Col's" who don't do Lt Col work.  Because we truly need more dedicated land talented leaders and staffers above the squadron level.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
Quote from: jayleswo on January 10, 2007, 05:22:35 PM
You said "there are also many that have stated that they didn't come in to meet the same requirements as military officers." Ok, that's fine. Join CAP and contribute your skills, but as an enlisted member. I agree, not everyone is going to have the time nor inclination to be an officer. As far as CAP is concerned, officers should be our leaders. The best way to avoid staying top heavy is to promote people to earned grades (enlisted and warrant/flight officer) based on training and skills. Then *temporarily* promote to an appropriate officer grade, if they meet training and any other requirements, when assigned as a unit commander or deputy. Even Dwight D Eisenhower was only a permanent Lt Col when he was given the temorary grade of General during WWII. There's precedent. Give former unit commanders some other bling to hang on the uniform for serving. They already get the Command Service Ribbon, is that not enough recognition? It is for me. I'd be ok with stepping back down into my permanent earned grade after serving as a unit commander.

This kinda changes the game for us. It makes the rewards (officer grade) not only commensurate with level of participation, skills and training but also responsibility. Up until the 1970's, CAPM 20-1 had officer grade allocation tables for units which stipulated maximum grades for each position held in the unit. Seniors still had to complete Level 1-5, but could not promote unless they were filling a billet appropriate for the officer grade they wanted to promote to. The officer grade allocation tables were done away with to improve retention and because people would simply "game" the system and step into a position with a higher maximum grade allocation to get promoted for the minimum time, then step down and keep the grade.

This would return us to that concept, albeit only for command positions, but make the officer grade temporary to avoid the "gamesmanship". So, instead of making officer grade the reward, let's come up with *other* ways of rewarding achievement and contribution.  Use of enlisted and warrant grades would allow us to still use promotions as a reward, but restrict officer grade to commanders. Would it not be just as rewarding to promote from Airman (E-1) to Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) or Warrant Officer (WO-1) to Chief Warrant Officer (WO-5)? Do we all have to be Lt Col's?

My primary concern is the "yo-yo" effect. If someone gets a rank through position, then loses it when done, that's what you end up with. Yes, I know the CG Aux does it. If CAP folded for some reason, I would end up there. But going in I would know that, and wouldn't have any issue with it. They do have their past officer device, and it seems to be effective with them.

How many people will join up if they know they only have the improbable potential of making those higher grades? I don't know many.

Another problem with reducing grade is that you would have people taking issue with making level 4, meeting the same requirements as someone serving in a LtCol position, but not being eligible for the same grade as the person that's slotted as one. Can you honestly tell me that it would be equitable? Personally, I think that if someone earns something, they should get it. It shouldn't be conditional.

On that note, you may get people that choose not to advance in Professional Development for those reasons. They would simply say, "What's the point in that stuff? I'm never going to be a major or lieutenant colonel anyway." How would you answer that?

What about people that tend to literally serve in one of those slots til they die? It will happen. People will get those and find waivers, or just completely ignore directives to set a term limit.

A minor issue, but how many pieces of rank insignia do you want to keep lying around? This week I'm a LtCol, next week I'm a 1Lt. That would annoy me.

All the above are issues that will be brought up. If you can show me reasonable logical argument to the above issues, I may buy off on what you present.  You may feel that you don't have to convince me, and you would be right. But you will have to convince someone.

All in all, I have serious doubts that anyone at National is going to sign off on "positional" grade. I doubt that anyone would have any issue with improving training. We raise standards, and apply them. Simple enough to do with the current system. Getting new tires is one thing, re-inventing the wheel is another.

BTW, I guess I have a reputation for being overly blunt. If it seems like I'm being venomous, I do apologize. I'm simply posting an opposing point of view, and I appreciate when others bring their views in as well. Please, don't take it personally, it's not intended as such.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Dragoon on January 10, 2007, 07:59:49 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
How many people will join up if they know they only have the improbable potential of making those higher grades? I don't know many.

Hawk it's a good point that recruiting would suffer.  On the other hand, the people we get would be work focused, rather than rank focused.  This might be good for us.  But we WILL lose members if we raise the standards, either by adding training requirements that not everyone can pass, or requiring folks to actually do tough jobs.   


Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
Another problem with reducing grade is that you would have people taking issue with making level 4, meeting the same requirements as someone serving in a LtCol position, but not being eligible for the same grade as the person that's slotted as one. Can you honestly tell me that it would be equitable? Personally, I think that if someone earns something, they should get it. It shouldn't be conditional..

If rank is an award (like a Commander's Commendation), you're absolutely right.  You earn it, you keep it.  But if rank reflects your job (like an ES qualification), you use it or you lose it.

There is equity - it's sweat equity.  Do the job and wear the rank.  If I want to rest on your my laurels and contribute at a lower level, then I would have to accept the fact that others now outrank me. I think they deserve to - as they're the ones leading, and I no longer am.

Of course, I could still strut my stuff at a Banquet.  With the appropriate past officer badge.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
On that note, you may get people that choose not to advance in Professional Development for those reasons. They would simply say, "What's the point in that stuff? I'm never going to be a major or lieutenant colonel anyway." How would you answer that? .

Simple.  Each level of the PD program would be designed to prepare you for that rank.  If you never plan on being a Lt Col or doing a Lt Col job, there would be no reason to take level 5.  In today's military, not everyone makes it to the War College.  They don't need to.  If all you're going to do is work in a squadron, Level II should be all you need.


Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
What about people that tend to literally serve in one of those slots til they die? It will happen. People will get those and find waivers, or just completely ignore directives to set a term limit.

It would be up to the boss.  If you had a guy working for you in a Captain's job, and he was doing great work, why replace him?  But if he wasn't peforming, you'd now have the option of giving his bars to someone else.  That might just motivate folks to do a good job.  Right now, there's very little penalty for doing a poor job at Wing, since there normally aren't a bunch of folks hungry for your job.  A little competition might help improve performance.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
A minor issue, but how many pieces of rank insignia do you want to keep lying around? This week I'm a LtCol, next week I'm a 1Lt. That would annoy me.

I think that's a very valid point (especialy buying from Vanguard).  Hopefully, folks wouldn't be changing jobs every week.  I hope we'd use a single kind of pin on insignia that could be worn on all uniforms, to limit the cost.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
All the above are issues that will be brought up. If you can show me reasonable logical argument to the above issues, I may buy off on what you present.  You may feel that you don't have to convince me, and you would be right. But you will have to convince someone.

All in all, I have serious doubts that anyone at National is going to sign off on "positional" grade. I doubt that anyone would have any issue with improving training. We raise standards, and apply them. Simple enough to do with the current system. Getting new tires is one thing, re-inventing the wheel is another

BTW, I guess I have a reputation for being overly blunt. If it seems like I'm being venomous, I do apologize. I'm simply posting an opposing point of view, and I appreciate when others bring their views in as well. Please, don't take it personally, it's not intended as such.

You've raised some very valid points.  No venom at all.

I don't think this would every pass if subject to a vote. Simply because CAP was built on "join up and become an officer in 6 months with very little effort.  And if you if you can pass one correspondence course and hang around a couple of years, you'll be a major in no time!"  Lots of members will circle the wagons to protect their right to " be an officer" without actually having any responsibility.  And THAT is what truly seperates us from USAF.

The only way this would work would be for a truly top down approach.  And, as folks have pointed out in this thread, the current NB/NEC structure doesn't really allow this to occur.

But call me crazy, I believe in a military where everyone salutes the commander.  Not the other way around, as occurs in many squadrons.

And wouldn't it be great if you had 6 folks applying for every wing job because they'd like to actually be officers?  As opposed of taking the one incompetent guy who just doesn't want to back to his squadron?

In the military, Officer's Rank is not an award or a reward.  It's an outward symbol of authority and responsibility.  And you can't give either of those up until you separate from service.  If CAP really wants to be more military, they need some variation on this theme.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 10, 2007, 08:41:30 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 04:35:00 PM

Requiring ES qualifications for advancements otherwise automatically disqualifies those that aren't into ES, or can't do it. Who here wants to tell the guy in the wheelchair or the blind member that he can't get promoted because he can't or is uncomfortable with working at a mission base? Not to mention, someone may find it reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. And it would be a justifiable one in the end.


There are very few people who could not qualify as Mission Staff Assistant or Mission Radio Operator.

Naturally any proposal would need to pass legal muster, this being thhe Age of Litigation.

I would state again that the purpose is not to compel members to become engaged in ES on an ongoing basis, but rather to ensure that those in leadership roles have at leas some minimal training to apply in a crisis situation.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 10, 2007, 08:58:39 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 10, 2007, 06:04:57 PM
One last thing - kind of the summation - what does grade get us as an organization?  And no, I don't think "it makes us more like USAF" is good enough.  At least of third of USAF doesn't wear grade.

If we figure out why we need grade, and what we expect it to do, it will be easier to invent the right system.

Some cynics (including my dad, an Army officer when I was a cadet) believe that CAP grade exits primarily to bribe members to join so they can be "military officers."  I have been told, but cannot confirm, that the reason everyone in the Commemorative Air Force is a Colonel is a direct shot at CAP's grade system.

I think grade CAN be valuable - as both an incentive to train AND an incentive to take the "tough jobs" - if it's worked correctly.  Really low on my totem pole of priorities is making "feel good Lt Col's" who don't do Lt Col work.  Because we truly need more dedicated land talented leaders and staffers above the squadron level.

Dragoon:

The CAF's "Colonel" titles harks back to when they were called the "Confederate Air Force" and everybody was a "Confederate Colonel."  Admittedly, it loses something once they allowed political correctness to dictate what they are called.

I say bust them all to private.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: jayleswo on January 11, 2007, 12:23:59 AM
Ok John, you got it. Posted my edited version of your proposal back over in the Clarification of Officer Ranks in the New CAP topic.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 10, 2007, 07:59:49 PMHawk it's a good point that recruiting would suffer.  On the other hand, the people we get would be work focused, rather than rank focused.  This might be good for us.  But we WILL lose members if we raise the standards, either by adding training requirements that not everyone can pass, or requiring folks to actually do tough jobs. 

Not sure I totally agree to "work focused" rather than "rank focused". As for standards, it would be fool hardy to enact a system to deny people advancements (which a proposal of position based rank is). I'm certainly not looking to have people doing "tough" jobs, just more moderately challenging.

There was a commercial in the seventies: "Long hours, low pay, difficult language, join the Peace Corps." They had to turn people away in droves. People actually seek out challenges, lets accomodate them.

QuoteThere is equity - it's sweat equity.  Do the job and wear the rank.  If I want to rest on your my laurels and contribute at a lower level, then I would have to accept the fact that others now outrank me. I think they deserve to - as they're the ones leading, and I no longer am.

Even military wise, rank is just as much an indicator of advanced training, as it is authority. How many majors and colonels in the military do you know that haven't completed Squadron Officer School, or another service equivalent?  A retired general may not have a command, but you would be foolish to discount his past accomplishments.

QuoteSimple.  Each level of the PD program would be designed to prepare you for that rank.  If you never plan on being a Lt Col or doing a Lt Col job, there would be no reason to take level 5.  In today's military, not everyone makes it to the War College.  They don't need to.  If all you're going to do is work in a squadron, Level II should be all you need.

I have major hesitations on a development program that has a lot of emphasis on "You don't need to take it, because you probably won't need it." Some folks may be turned off by this. I don't need it, but I'm going to attempt to get my Level 5 in the PD program anyway. Will we discourage people that want to do that? Or will we just not permit them too? I want to move up. Even National has seen that. A few years ago, they were considering a Level 6. Seems like some people like continuing challenges.

QuoteIt would be up to the boss.  If you had a guy working for you in a Captain's job, and he was doing great work, why replace him?  But if he wasn't peforming, you'd now have the option of giving his bars to someone else.  That might just motivate folks to do a good job.  Right now, there's very little penalty for doing a poor job at Wing, since there normally aren't a bunch of folks hungry for your job.  A little competition might help improve performance.

You didn't answer the question. If that job never becomes available to someone else, because the boss is satisfied, it is still denying someone an opportunity to advance. And not unreasonably, what if someone that wants to advance is actually better than the person holding it? By your reasoning, noone would ever know.

As far as poor jobs at wing level, I've seen that at every wing I've ever wing I've been in. That is an issue that should be dealt with, not included to justify a permanent incumbent program.

QuoteI think that's a very valid point (especialy buying from Vanguard).  Hopefully, folks wouldn't be changing jobs every week.  I hope we'd use a single kind of pin on insignia that could be worn on all uniforms, to limit the cost.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people would change jobs from week to week, more like someone finishing out a year or two tour as a LtCol, and going back to a 1Lt position. But it would still be annoying. If position based ranks would include retaining a higher rank after a job well done, I would probably be a little more open to the idea.

QuoteYou've raised some very valid points.  No venom at all.

I appreciate hearing that. My best friend and I have had some knock-down, drag-out debates on some things, but we're still best friends. And I personally think that those debates allow us to be better friends because we understand the reasoning behind each others viewpoints.

A lot of folks take my challenges personally, but they are rarely intended that way. I just have no desire to create enemies, that's pointless. I think that there are a lot of people here that I could easily call "friend" if I knew them in some other manner than just a handle on a forum. That's where people enrich your own life. As long as no one calls me "crazy", "insane", "psychotic" or "stupid", I rarely take anything personally.

QuoteI don't think this would every pass if subject to a vote. Simply because CAP was built on "join up and become an officer in 6 months with very little effort.  And if you if you can pass one correspondence course and hang around a couple of years, you'll be a major in no time!"  Lots of members will circle the wagons to protect their right to " be an officer" without actually having any responsibility.  And THAT is what truly seperates us from USAF.

I see that point. And maybe I am crazy, but I think I should have more challenges as a CAP officer. We challenge our cadets on a weekly basis, showing them that their standards increase. I think it may appear disingenuous for us not to follow suit. (A lot of cadets may not now what "disingenuous" means but I'm sure they are familiar with the concept behind it)

I think that there are a few people that would take any new training to stay abreast to the current officer standards. They might do it happily, or begrudgingly, but they would do it. Either way, you see people improving themselves.

QuoteThe only way this would work would be for a truly top down approach.  And, as folks have pointed out in this thread, the current NB/NEC structure doesn't really allow this to occur.

Not much I can really say about this, other than I agree. Just didn't want you to think I ignored it. It's a legitimate issue.

QuoteBut call me crazy, I believe in a military where everyone salutes the commander.  Not the other way around, as occurs in many squadrons.

I outrank my commander, and he makes a point of saluting me, especially when cadets are present. He's setting an example for them, and it would be unprofessional of me to set a poor example. Even when it's a little wierd when the boss salutes you. Which is one reason why I'm going to do a serious push on his promotion when it's time, and a good personnel officer wouldn't do any less.

QuoteAnd wouldn't it be great if you had 6 folks applying for every wing job because they'd like to actually be officers?  As opposed of taking the one incompetent guy who just doesn't want to back to his squadron?

It would be great to have the competition, then hopefully you get the best and brightest. I think there should be posted job announcements for wing positions, and there should be "telecommuting" options for a lot of them. There's little reason I should have to drive to wing to do personnel actions when I can do it via email and phone call.

As far the guy that doesn't want to go back to his squadron, that's an obvious issue. If he really wants to be a CAP member, he could find another unit. In one wing, I drove 26 miles to my squadron when there was one 4 miles up the road. Why? Because the one I drove to was the one I started with. It was only later that I moved, but still commuted to that unit. I don't see why someone couldn't drive a few miles, if they really wanted to be in. And I was considering driving almost 40 miles to a unit, but one happened to form locally.

QuoteIn the military, Officer's Rank is not an award or a reward.  It's an outward symbol of authority and responsibility.  And you can't give either of those up until you separate from service.  If CAP really wants to be more military, they need some variation on this theme.

It may be a matter of semantics, but I partially disagree with the "not an award" concept. As I said above, the higher rank indicates training, experience, position and authority. In this case, you can't just drop the parts you don't want to use if you want CAP officers to parallel the military. You can't promote in the military without required training, we should look at that.

As far as mirroring the military, there is no precedent in the present uniformed services of "positional rank", at least not as far as I have seen. It may have in the past, but I don't think it holds now.

It's one thing to create a uniform item with precedent in history. A uniform is supposed to be a fairly static concept (yes, I do know that there have been loads of changes lately). Military structure and leadership isn't. It tends to move forward, we should too.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 06:42:24 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 10, 2007, 08:41:30 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2007, 04:35:00 PM

Requiring ES qualifications for advancements otherwise automatically disqualifies those that aren't into ES, or can't do it. Who here wants to tell the guy in the wheelchair or the blind member that he can't get promoted because he can't or is uncomfortable with working at a mission base? Not to mention, someone may find it reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. And it would be a justifiable one in the end.


There are very few people who could not qualify as Mission Staff Assistant or Mission Radio Operator.

Naturally any proposal would need to pass legal muster, this being thhe Age of Litigation.

I would state again that the purpose is not to compel members to become engaged in ES on an ongoing basis, but rather to ensure that those in leadership roles have at leas some minimal training to apply in a crisis situation.

I still see it as people being compelled to do something. ES is not the be-all, end-all qualification of CAP. There are people in higher levels of CAP with no ES experience, and I don't think they should be required to do something that is of no interest or no use to them.

Airborne qualification is not mandatory for all personnel in the Army, but there are people that believe it should be. Just an example. And yes, there are people that do legimately believe that. Most of them seem to have such qualification.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 12, 2007, 07:12:46 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 06:42:24 PM
I still see it as people being compelled to do something. ES is not the be-all, end-all qualification of CAP. There are people in higher levels of CAP with no ES experience, and I don't think they should be required to do something that is of no interest or no use to them.

Airborne qualification is not mandatory for all personnel in the Army, but there are people that believe it should be. Just an example. And yes, there are people that do legimately believe that. Most of them seem to have such qualification.

Some see CPPT as needlessly compulsory, or uniform regulations, or the chain of command....where does it stop?

Your use of the airborne analogy is excellent....jumping out of perfectly functioning  aircraft would be properly described as an "advanced combat skill".

Firing a weapon, cleaning a weapon, finding cover & concealment all could well be described as 'basic combat skills'...and if I'm not mistaken EVERYONE in the military (with the exception of chaplains) gets this training.

Serving as an Incident Commander, mission pilot/observer, ground team leader or member -- these are certainly "advanced ES skills", and I completely agree that it would be unreasonable to expect all members to pursue this training.

However, learning the fundamentals of ES procedures & rules, learning how to operate a radio or perform mission related clerical functions, strike me as 'basic ES skills', which ought to be required of all senior leaders, and, in my opinion, all cadet officers.

Part of CAP's problem is higher echelon commanders (group, wing CC & above) who only know their own narrow area of personal interest.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 12, 2007, 07:12:46 PMSome see CPPT as needlessly compulsory, or uniform regulations, or the chain of command....where does it stop?

Anyone that considers CPPT as "needlessly compulsory" doesn't need to be around our program. Period. I will not debate that.

Uniformity is not only a military thing. I have to wear a uniform at work, and it doesn't remotely look like military. And there are people that have been sent home for not shaving.

Chain of command is how we run business, it's integral to our structure, ES is not.

QuoteServing as an Incident Commander, mission pilot/observer, ground team leader or member -- these are certainly "advanced ES skills", and I completely agree that it would be unreasonable to expect all members to pursue this training.

However, learning the fundamentals of ES procedures & rules, learning how to operate a radio or perform mission related clerical functions, strike me as 'basic ES skills', which ought to be required of all senior leaders, and, in my opinion, all cadet officers.

I have problems with "ought to be required". A military base (or post, or air station) commander doesn't necessarily know how to fix an airplane, run a telephone line, or install a toilet. I don't see how a CAP wing commander should be any different.

QuotePart of CAP's problem is higher echelon commanders (group, wing CC & above) who only know their own narrow area of personal interest.

I agree to a point. If you say "ES" and your wing CC gives you a blank look, yes there's a problem. But I don't think he needs to know how to run a radio. For that matter, not everyone needs to.

It's another example of the ES snobbery that tends to run rampant in CAP. AE doesn't get done in a lot of units because they're ES based. Or you have cadets that got their first stripe a year and a half ago because they had to have it to be on a ground team, and haven't promoted since.

There are three missions to our organization. We don't need each single member qualified in everything. The idea that everyone should have intimate ES knowledge isn't fitting. It doesn't provide something useful to everyone. And if there is a good number of people that it isn't useful to, it's elitist.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: jayleswo on January 13, 2007, 12:13:15 AM
I am reading broad consensus that we need a more professional, better trained and indoctrinated CAP officer corps... while at the same time read concerns expressed about setting standards and requirements. How do you raise overall standards without some entry level standards?

We simply do not have the kind of training material and curriculum and resources needed to turn someone starting at zero into a leader and an officer. And, even if we did, who would have the time to go through all of it? That's a reason for the college degree. However, if we did institute an Officer Training School and enhanced officer training, that's great. It doesn't sound like the people we select to be unit commanders would be required to go to it. You just go if you want to be an officer. So we end up with potentially under-trained members leading units-same as today. Today, all you need to be a squadron commander is Level I+CPPT and UCC for a grand total of maybe 20 hours of training. Out of that, maybe 60 minutes on Leadership. We need something better.

Problem: So, under the new plan with a beefed up OTS, what about all the people left out who do not have the time, nor the inclination to be officers? Solution: that's where enlisted (non-NCO grades) and warrant/flight officer grades come in.

I can see that the idea of positional grade isn't going over well. I'll live  :).Maybe using military grade is the hang-up with this idea, but CAP Officer grade would signify nothing more than temporarily granted authority which is given up once you have stepped down from command. Obviously a hard concept to grasp, or perhaps to agree with?  Just to be clear, I am a CAP Lt Col today with 27 years in, hundreds of hours on missions, CAP Pilot, former cadet, etc. and would be fine with reverting to my permanent "earned" grade once my tour as unit commander is up in 3 years. Why, because whatever my "permanent" grade is, I've earned it, and have pride in that accomplishment. Under the positional grade system, I haven't "earned" that grade - it's given to me temporarily while I am a commander. When I am done, I give it back. Very different from today and maybe that's why people don't like it.

So, bottom line is: either we raise standards or we don't. If we don't, we have the status quo that nobody in particular seems happy with.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 13, 2007, 05:55:51 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 09:23:48 PM
Part of CAP's problem is higher echelon commanders (group, wing CC & above) who only know their own narrow area of personal interest.

I agree to a point. If you say "ES" and your wing CC gives you a blank look, yes there's a problem. But I don't think he needs to know how to run a radio. For that matter, not everyone needs to.

It's another example of the ES snobbery that tends to run rampant in CAP. AE doesn't get done in a lot of units because they're ES based. Or you have cadets that got their first stripe a year and a half ago because they had to have it to be on a ground team, and haven't promoted since.

There are three missions to our organization. We don't need each single member qualified in everything. The idea that everyone should have intimate ES knowledge isn't fitting. It doesn't provide something useful to everyone. And if there is a good number of people that it isn't useful to, it's elitist.
[/quote]

You are absolutely right, there are indeed three missions, and I strongly feel that those in command (at least wing & group CCs to start, preferably squadron CCs as well) need a familiarity with all three programs....which, to my mind, means a minimal ES qualification.

I don't expect everyone to chase ELTs or run to SAREXes  all over the wing....but it is part of our mission, we are at war, and, frankly, I feel every senior member and cadet officer should be available in time of urgent necessity (another Katrina or 9/11).

I have equally sparse patience with those who refuse to contribute in any way to the cadet program (not everyone is going to be an encampment TAC officer or squadron DCC....but everyone should be willing to instruct the cadets in the home unit on one's specialty)....as well as with those who have no interest in AE.

I'll let you have the last word on this if you wish, but I think you & I are going to have to disagree on this one!
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 13, 2007, 06:31:42 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 13, 2007, 05:55:51 AM
You are absolutely right, there are indeed three missions, and I strongly feel that those in command (at least wing & group CCs to start, preferably squadron CCs as well) need a familiarity with all three programs....which, to my mind, means a minimal ES qualification.

I don't expect everyone to chase ELTs or run to SAREXes  all over the wing....but it is part of our mission, we are at war, and, frankly, I feel every senior member and cadet officer should be available in time of urgent necessity (another Katrina or 9/11).

I have equally sparse patience with those who refuse to contribute in any way to the cadet program (not everyone is going to be an encampment TAC officer or squadron DCC....but everyone should be willing to instruct the cadets in the home unit on one's specialty)....as well as with those who have no interest in AE.

I'll let you have the last word on this if you wish, but I think you & I are going to have to disagree on this one!

I don't really see this as an argument, or having the last word. I'm just not quite getting your reasoning for everyone to be ES qualified. You could run a couple of hours "familiarization" of ES, I think it would actually be a good idea. There are many people in CAP that really have no idea what "Emergency Services" means.

Instructing in ones specialty I don't see as necessarily being "involved" in the cadet program, I see it more as interacting with my fellow members. Anyone that thinks that cadets aren't worth talking to (and I have run into this too) is being needlessly discriminatory, and is obviously not a team player.

I think the idea is actually something that we should look into as part of our programs. At least for cadet and composite units, anyway. Knowledge is one thing you can share without losing anything. Not sharing it is very stingy.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Dragoon on January 16, 2007, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
You didn't answer the question. If that job never becomes available to someone else, because the boss is satisfied, it is still denying someone an opportunity to advance. And not unreasonably, what if someone that wants to advance is actually better than the person holding it? By your reasoning, noone would ever know.



Hey, that's how it works in the real world.  If the big boss is happy with someone's performance, he's not going to kick him out just so you "have an opportunity to advance."  You wanna advance - convince the boss that you'd be better.  That's right - perform.  Be so good at what you do that the boss realizes you can help him out in a position of greater responsbility, and maybe it's time to let the incumbent move on to some other opportunity.

On the other hand, if you are the boss, it would be nice to be able to have 3 hungry talented guys after your key staff slots.  It would certainly help keep the incumbent on his toes.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
As far as mirroring the military, there is no precedent in the present uniformed services of "positional rank", at least not as far as I have seen. It may have in the past, but I don't think it holds now.

There's also no modern U.S. military precedent from moving down from Group Command to an assistant squadron staff officer in the same chain of command - and we do it all the time in CAP! 

And that's the heart of the problem - if I can get all the benefits of advanced grade without actually having the responsiblities, why should I volunteer for the tough jobs?

And we need more competent guys in the tough jobs.

Military grade is a symbol of authority and responsibility.  The military will give folks the best training they can for the job, but they can (and do) waiver all kinds of training requirements when things get tough.  The key is to put the best guy in the command slot and make him the highest ranking guy in the unit, so that he has the outward symbol of authority to back up his position. 

If we really want to do it the way the big boys do, we can't ignore that.  Of course, if we want to "earn" our grade through correspondence courses and skip the whole "responsibility" thing, we're already there!  :)
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: davedove on January 16, 2007, 07:23:26 PM
What if a system was put in place that combined the current system with positional grade?  You keep the current duty performance structure.  Maintaining the grade from any special promotions would require the member to keep performing that job to keep the grade.  For example, if a member accepted a Group Commander position, if his grade were lower than Major, he would be promoted to Major.  Then, when he stepped down from that assignment, he would revert back to the grade for which he would normally be qualified through duty performance advancement.  For instance if he were 1st Lt. and took the job, he would be made a Major.  When he relinquished that position he would revert back to 1st Lt, unless during this time he had completed the requirements for Captain, in which case he would become a Captain.  Time spent in the special promotion would be counted as time in grade for the duty performance progression.  This would eliminate the "all or nothing" approach of just positional grade.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 16, 2007, 05:33:51 PMHey, that's how it works in the real world.  If the big boss is happy with someone's performance, he's not going to kick him out just so you "have an opportunity to advance."  You wanna advance - convince the boss that you'd be better.  That's right - perform.  Be so good at what you do that the boss realizes you can help him out in a position of greater responsbility, and maybe it's time to let the incumbent move on to some other opportunity.

OK, hypothetical situation. Someone, at a squadron, wants to move into a wing staff position that's say, a major position. He's a 1Lt. He is actually better than the incumbent. How does he convince the wing commander that's he's actually better in an honorable manner? By that I mean he doesn't engage in character assination of the incumbent, or blow his own capabilities out of proportion.

QuoteOn the other hand, if you are the boss, it would be nice to be able to have 3 hungry talented guys after your key staff slots.  It would certainly help keep the incumbent on his toes.

That I will buy. But there is still the issue I mentioned above. Of course, there is always the concern of people that might live three hours from the wing. They can't reasonably dedicate the time. Driving to a meeting an hour away is one thing, three hours to the wing is another. How do we accomodate that?

Quote
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
As far as mirroring the military, there is no precedent in the present uniformed services of "positional rank", at least not as far as I have seen. It may have in the past, but I don't think it holds now.

There's also no modern U.S. military precedent from moving down from Group Command to an assistant squadron staff officer in the same chain of command - and we do it all the time in CAP! 

That I can agree with. Not much I can say otherwise, it's a valid point.

QuoteAnd that's the heart of the problem - if I can get all the benefits of advanced grade without actually having the responsiblities, why should I volunteer for the tough jobs?

And we need more competent guys in the tough jobs.

Military grade is a symbol of authority and responsibility.  The military will give folks the best training they can for the job, but they can (and do) waiver all kinds of training requirements when things get tough.  The key is to put the best guy in the command slot and make him the highest ranking guy in the unit, so that he has the outward symbol of authority to back up his position. 

If we really want to do it the way the big boys do, we can't ignore that.  Of course, if we want to "earn" our grade through correspondence courses and skip the whole "responsibility" thing, we're already there!  :)

There is one thing that bothers me about this viewpoint. It implies that you are only as good as your current position. Do you think former National commanders should be included in this? They have held the toughest job in CAP. Should their thanks be a reduction in grade? And it doesn't matter how many times you say they should understand, people will still view it that way.

And overall, there is a cap on grade for the most part. It is LtCol. We don't have a bunch of Cols running around. Their are fairly few of them.

Training levels also include some challenge. If it is done by only the most dedicated, you won't have a mass of the higher ranks. Even the training levels require a command or staff position. Is that not enough? Are we going to create an elite cadre of higher ranks that can only be reached by command? Command that not everyone will have an opportunity to perform?

And I do know for a fact that the training levels do inhibit people that don't do it. I knew of one group commander that had been a captain for 14 years. The reason was that he never completed ECI 13. It could have been waivered by then. But it wasn't, and so he remained a captain. He got capped in grade. Seems like the system worked there.

I'm sorry, but no matter what you do, you will create a gatekeeping system, one way or another. There are people that won't be able to move up, most through no fault of their own, just by denying them the opportunity.

There are serious problems with positional grade. It will not be fair. Yes, I know the CG Aux does it, but their people know that going into it. I don't think it's fair to compare.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Dragoon on January 17, 2007, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM
OK, hypothetical situation. Someone, at a squadron, wants to move into a wing staff position that's say, a major position. He's a 1Lt. He is actually better than the incumbent. How does he convince the wing commander that's he's actually better in an honorable manner? By that I mean he doesn't engage in character assination of the incumbent, or blow his own capabilities out of proportion.


Same way you do it in the private sector

1.  Volunteer for a job opening at Wing in your current grade (or, if you're really hungry, a lower grade). 

2.  Start performing.  Do great work. 

3.  When you are noticed, let the chief of staff now that you are interested in a position of greater responsibility should one become available.  If you're good, you'll get one.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM
That I will buy. But there is still the issue I mentioned above. Of course, there is always the concern of people that might live three hours from the wing. They can't reasonably dedicate the time. Driving to a meeting an hour away is one thing, three hours to the wing is another. How do we accomodate that?

Do we need to accommodate?  Does everyone deserve the right to be Lt Col if they aren't actually able to lead at that level?  Folks in the Guard and Reserve turn down promotions all the time to avoid having to transfer far away.  On the other hand, some folks travel several hundred miles to drill weekends in order to get promoted. 

If we treat grade as "an outward mark of authority and responsibility", then you give it to those who need that - not just as a morale builder.


Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM
There is one thing that bothers me about this viewpoint. It implies that you are only as good as your current position. Do you think former National commanders should be included in this? They have held the toughest job in CAP. Should their thanks be a reduction in grade? And it doesn't matter how many times you say they should understand, people will still view it that way.

Well, it implies that your grade represents your current position - you could be much better than that!. But it makes it clear that you owe a salute to the guy in charge, not the guy who used to be in charge but now voluntarily has decided to step down and work for you.  And it means that YOU, as a leader, get the outward sign of the authority and responsibility you hold in your job.

For past officers, I think we could have various way of recognizing them.  For example, allowing members to wear the highest grade ever held on their uniform for social events.  Also, perhaps some ribbons to commemorate former high level staff and commanders.  And having their previous high grade on their ID card.  There are a million ways to respect what someone has DONE, but I'm more concerned with improving the state of the organization by respecting what people are DOING right now.


And yeah, the only way it would work would be if it applied to all levels.  Incidentally, it applies to the National Vice Commander today - step down and take off the star.  Interesting, huh?

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM
And overall, there is a cap on grade for the most part. It is LtCol. We don't have a bunch of Cols running around. Their are fairly few of them..

And THAT is why you always have more folks applying for Wing Commander than for A4/Chief of Logistics. Because you get rank with Wing Commander, and nothing special for being a Wing Staffer.  That's part of the problem - we need to incentivise those other positons.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM
Training levels also include some challenge. If it is done by only the most dedicated, you won't have a mass of the higher ranks. Even the training levels require a command or staff position. Is that not enough? Are we going to create an elite cadre of higher ranks that can only be reached by command? Command that not everyone will have an opportunity to perform?

We would have to code staff slots as well. Just saying that a "staff position" counts isn't good enough.  It rewards Assistant Squadron AE officers equally with Wing Directors of Operations!  One should be able to gain grade by serving on higher levels staff in critical jobs.



Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM
And I do know for a fact that the training levels do inhibit people that don't do it. I knew of one group commander that had been a captain for 14 years. The reason was that he never completed ECI 13. It could have been waivered by then. But it wasn't, and so he remained a captain. He got capped in grade. Seems like the system worked there.

Here's the flip side - he was good enough to have the actual authority of a Lt Col and was doing the job.  And yet he didn't do ECI-13.  Seems to me that ECI-13 wasn't necessary training to be a good Group Commander! :)

On a serious note, I'd cap grade on a combination of position and education.  A newbie in a 0-5 job shouldn't be an 0-5, any more than fully trained 0-5 in an 0-1 job.  Tie it to both.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2007, 08:29:13 PM

I'm sorry, but no matter what you do, you will create a gatekeeping system, one way or another. There are people that won't be able to move up, most through no fault of their own, just by denying them the opportunity..

You just used the term "moving up."  This system would foster "moving up" - moving up from squadron to group to Wing and above as you get better.  This is very different from the current model of "putting on more rank while doing the same job."

As long as we view rank as just another ribbon to earn, we will be fundamentally out of syn ch with USAF.  You pin on the gold oak leaves, you do a major's job.  Period.



A few last comments

By having permanent FO grades that you revert to, we would have a way of recognizing training.  An FO-5 would be recognized as a highly trained CAP officer, regardless of position.

And icompromise approach is to make an officer grade permanent after a few years of successfully serving at that grade (which is how Colonel is handled now).  It would at least motivate folks to truly "move up" but it wouldn't neccesarily motivate them to keep serving at that level afterward.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2007, 03:31:07 PM
OK, guys, I think everybody has had their say, and I am planning to steal some of your ideas.

Before I start to write part 2, however, I want a general consensus on where the majority of you are on the issue of officer qualification.  Please consider the following plans that have been discussed, and identify your favorite plan.

PLAN A:  A board selects officer candidates from applicants.  Commissioned grades go to applicants with substantial education beyond HS, the rest go to the flight officer grades.  Flight officers cannot command units above squadron and do not need to complete level 5 of the PD, but otherwise are treated the same as commissioned grade officers.  NCO grades are limited to former military NCO's who elect the option of retaining their NCO grade. NCO's cannot command units, but otherwise are treated as officers. NCO's cannot advance beyond their military grade.  The current Cadet Sponsor member program would be revised to be an enlisted program topping out at SrA.  The participation would be expanded to permit wearing of the AF uniform, and limited participation in ES missions.  Training at the local level only, and annual promotions are automatic to to SrA.  ES and tech. level specalty track authorized but not required.

PLAN B:  A board selects officers from among applicants, those not selected enter CAP as Airman Basic.  CAP develops a CAP-unique NCO development program, and promotes through that program, essentially having an "Officer Corps" and an "Enlisted Corps."  NCO's can command units (?) (Dennis, I thought I remembered you saying that.  Correct me publicly if I am wrong.)

PLAN C:  All CAP members will serve at the rank of Flight Officer, which will be expanded to 5 FO grades..  Commissioned grades will be worn temporarily by commanders only, and then only for their tenure in command.  After relinquishing command, they will revert to FO grade.

Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ColonelJack on January 17, 2007, 04:00:20 PM
While I understand and definitely appreciate all of the work and effort that has gone into this, I can say with certainty that if any of those proposals is put into place, you'll have effectively talked me out of rejoining CAP.

Look, folks.  Rank (or grade, to use the correct term) is not the problem.  Training is the problem.  An effective overhaul of the PD system -- which is needed, don't get me wrong -- is far more important than revising the grade system.

When I was Personnel Officer for my old unit, I taught the CLC course in Personnel, and I always began the class with this simple equation:

Personnel = Payday

Is this trip really necessary?

Jack
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2007, 05:34:17 PM
OK, Jack.  We'll add it:

PLAN D:  Keep the current system as it is, but enhance the Professional Development system to make it more challenging.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ColonelJack on January 17, 2007, 06:11:59 PM
NOW you're talking!!  Chalk up one vote for Plan "D".

I would love a more challenging program -- and I've already made my rank.  When I got out in '96 I was already a lieutenant colonel.  Unless I "go wing" or something, I'm as high up the ladder as I am going to be.

Jack
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: mikeylikey on January 17, 2007, 06:36:04 PM
I support plan D. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: davedove on January 17, 2007, 06:53:26 PM
I support Plan D, mainly because I don't think there is anything intrinsically "wrong" with the structure of the current system.  Even the current Professional Development plan is good, but some more "meat" could be included in the current courses.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: A.Member on January 17, 2007, 07:02:04 PM
I'd vote "B", with a few tweaks to the plan (ex. NCO's would not command), as part of a larger plan to improve overall training and quality of members. 

Of course, improved PD is needed.  That almost goes without saying but that's just one component of several.  A revised "officer corps" with more measurable standards for acheivment adds legitmacy to the organization.  An organization can't be comprised of all chiefs and no indians.  Specifc jobs/roles should be better tied to rank as well.  Change is good. :)
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Hawk200 on January 17, 2007, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2007, 05:34:17 PMPLAN D:  Keep the current system as it is, but enhance the Professional Development system to make it more challenging.

I think D would work. From looking at the Iowa Wing model, they aren't using anything actually new. It's just Level I, COP, and the ECI 13 course being used as initial training. I think it's a remarkable idea, using the existing resources as they have.

Providing initial training in a specialty track has numerous benefits, the top one being that you're not handed a specialty track pamphlet, and told "Have fun!" You get an officer qualified in a track from the get-go. Not one blindly stumbling through, and pulling a "Klinger" (I hope most people get that one).

And the beauty of the system is that it doesn't have to be done at the wing level, units themselves can do it. I would be able to do it locally with no issues. It may be challenging by myself, but life is best when it has a few challenges.

Although since these courses are being used for accession, we could stand to up the standards for later levels. Overall, I think it gives us more competent officers from the start, and makes the continuing education into something that people can be proud of.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: RiverAux on January 18, 2007, 01:32:27 AM
John, you should post it as a poll if you want a real sense of the board. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 01:33:59 AM
Plan B (except no NCO commanders)
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Chappie on January 18, 2007, 04:58:35 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2007, 05:34:17 PM
OK, Jack.  We'll add it:

PLAN D:  Keep the current system as it is, but enhance the Professional Development system to make it more challenging.

The problem with our membership is that the vast majority of them are not pursuing their professional development.  The following stats were shared at the 2005 CAWG Chaplain Services Conference in a briefing prepared by Chaplain (Col.) Charles Sharp, Chief of CAP Chaplain Services: Chaplain Sharp shared in his briefing concerning the Levels of Training in the CAP Chaplain Services: 659 total chaplains: 593 - Level 1; 10 - Level 2; 15 - Level 3; 26 - Level 4; 15 - Level 5.  Nearly 90% of the Chaplains had not progressed past Level 1.  As a PDO for the PCR Chaplain Service, I have been engaged with conversations with others ... the stats within the Chaplain Service are not too different from Senior Members.   The major stumbling block seems to be having people get through AFIADL-13 "The CAP Senior Officer's Course".  Once they get through that everything else seems to fall into place as they participate/attend conferences and training sessions.  The professional development program needs to be stressed since many new members won't take the time to dig out the reguirements on their own. 
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: DNall on January 18, 2007, 05:21:53 AM
Sir, I think you'll find the stats for chaplains are dramatically different than the rest of CAP. Specifically cause yall get your advanced grade from your outside qualification & promote thru continued service. Most Chaplains I think would tell you the PD program is for line officers & doesn't apply to them. It's not true of course, same deal with advanced pilots, lawyers, a lot of people that get advanced promotions. Course when you're a lowly 2Lt you have to work your butt off for several years to get that far & by that point you're just in the habbit.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: Chappie on January 18, 2007, 06:24:06 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 05:21:53 AM
Sir, I think you'll find the stats for chaplains are dramatically different than the rest of CAP. Specifically cause yall get your advanced grade from your outside qualification & promote thru continued service. Most Chaplains I think would tell you the PD program is for line officers & doesn't apply to them. It's not true of course, same deal with advanced pilots, lawyers, a lot of people that get advanced promotions. Course when you're a lowly 2Lt you have to work your butt off for several years to get that far & by that point you're just in the habbit.

While it is true that the stats may be different and that the advanced grade is bestowed upon Chaplains and others (Legal and Medical), there is a problem in that there many Senior Members who have not progressed in their professional development and are content at remaining as 1st Lt/Capt/Maj.     

Unfortunately there is that attitude among chaplains that would say that the PD program doesn't apply to them...but that perception is slowly but surely changing. We have chaplains who are pursuing their professional development.  The CAWG Chaplain Service has a PDO working with its personnel.   The key is hard work...but our personnel has risen to the challenge. 

My point is that if the membership in our local squadrons are presented with the challenge to pursue their training...see examples set...they will respond -- the enhancement of the professional development program (Option D).   I know that in my local squadron, when they see the GRW on my ribbon rack, their response has been "if the chaplain can work through the professional development program, so can I."   They know that I did not get the silver oak leaf on my epaulet by simply breathing for an extended period of time...but that I had also gone through the PD requirements as well (even though it is not required by chaplains).
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: DNall on January 18, 2007, 08:13:05 AM
Sure. It's much worse with professional appointments. People that come up from the bottom tend to make it a little ways just to not be seen as the idiot new guy. Most quit, a few takea break in their progression. Really the actual PD is a joke. The TIG & command/duty part are slow but automatic. The training is a wknd here or there until you get to RSC/SOS. At that point you're looking at Major going LtCol.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2007, 05:36:38 PM
PD is a joke.

You don't need to learn to write a memorandum until SLS, and you need SLS to make captain.  Lieutenants should not be learning to be officers through OJT.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: DNall on January 18, 2007, 05:40:21 PM
especially when the OJT.. how many OPPLANS, memos, staff studies, etc do you write locally in a CAP Sq? Pretty much none? OJT working in an AF office doing officer work & surrounded by officers & NCOs would probably get you where you need to go eventually, after some serious rocky periods, but you just don't do legit work in a CAP Sq & no one else knows what they're doing either, which makes it a catch-22 & it piles up till it's tall as you are.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: Chappie on January 18, 2007, 04:58:35 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2007, 05:34:17 PM
OK, Jack.  We'll add it:

PLAN D:  Keep the current system as it is, but enhance the Professional Development system to make it more challenging.

The problem with our membership is that the vast majority of them are not pursuing their professional development.  The following stats were shared at the 2005 CAWG Chaplain Services Conference in a briefing prepared by Chaplain (Col.) Charles Sharp, Chief of CAP Chaplain Services: Chaplain Sharp shared in his briefing concerning the Levels of Training in the CAP Chaplain Services: 659 total chaplains: 593 - Level 1; 10 - Level 2; 15 - Level 3; 26 - Level 4; 15 - Level 5.  Nearly 90% of the Chaplains had not progressed past Level 1.  As a PDO for the PCR Chaplain Service, I have been engaged with conversations with others ... the stats within the Chaplain Service are not too different from Senior Members.   The major stumbling block seems to be having people get through AFIADL-13 "The CAP Senior Officer's Course".  Once they get through that everything else seems to fall into place as they participate/attend conferences and training sessions.  The professional development program needs to be stressed since many new members won't take the time to dig out the reguirements on their own. 

Chaplain,

If someone took the time to run the statistics, I think you'd find similar patterns for the other professional & mission-related appointments.

Which is why I believe an intermediate rank (warrant or flight officer) should be initially awarded to these necessary members on completing Level 1.

If all they want to do  is provide their professional/specialist services to CAP, they ought to stay in flight officer grades (with due recognition in the form of awards, qualification badges, and so forth, not to mention our gratitude!)

Commissioned grades should be for the folks who do the training AND are ready to step up into leadership roles (not just command -- group or wing chaplain, legal officer, and such)
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:46:20 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 05:40:21 PM
especially when the OJT.. how many OPPLANS, memos, staff studies, etc do you write locally in a CAP Sq? Pretty much none? OJT working in an AF office doing officer work & surrounded by officers & NCOs would probably get you where you need to go eventually, after some serious rocky periods, but you just don't do legit work in a CAP Sq & no one else knows what they're doing either, which makes it a catch-22 & it piles up till it's tall as you are.

We use OPPLANS regularly for ES training exercises, bivouac weekends, special events.....it's a way of training the event staff, and also allows higher echelons to ensure that the needed arrangements are made, safety issues considered, materiel requisitioned...
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:46:20 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 05:40:21 PM
especially when the OJT.. how many OPPLANS, memos, staff studies, etc do you write locally in a CAP Sq? Pretty much none? OJT working in an AF office doing officer work & surrounded by officers & NCOs would probably get you where you need to go eventually, after some serious rocky periods, but you just don't do legit work in a CAP Sq & no one else knows what they're doing either, which makes it a catch-22 & it piles up till it's tall as you are.

We use OPPLANS regularly for ES training exercises, bivouac weekends, special events.....it's a way of training the event staff, and also allows higher echelons to ensure that the needed arrangements are made, safety issues considered, materiel requisitioned...

You're one of the few, ZZ.

Most squadron CC's don't even know how.
Title: Re: Paper: Structural Change, etc
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 19, 2007, 05:39:55 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:46:20 PMWe use OPPLANS regularly for ES training exercises, bivouac weekends, special events.....it's a way of training the event staff, and also allows higher echelons to ensure that the needed arrangements are made, safety issues considered, materiel requisitioned...

You're one of the few, ZZ.

Most squadron CC's don't even know how.

When we ran our group, we taught 'em!

Also held monthly 'staff officer seminars'....group or wing officer sat for a couple of hours with squadron counterparts (might be comm one time, safety or CP next) giving them the scoop on 'how to'....wasn't my idea, I was fortunate enough to have a former wing CV as my PD for awhile, man that guy was innovative....never understood why he didn't et the wing eventually

Tags - MIKE