Read Ahead Documents for Webinar

[lordmonar]

John,

I have got to say...the main objection I have to your plan is that it complicates our command and control structure not simplifies it.

We need to have a single chain of command and only at the top should we be answering to more than one master.

By placing us under the NGB and the individual TAGs we have our immediate boss at the state level...that is good as far as that goes.  But we also have a USAF mission under AFRCC and 1AF we will be putting out wing commanders in a position where they may have to piss off one boss to please the other.  Also it opens to door to back dooring or going around regulations by going to the agency that will work the best for you.

I have seen these sorts of things working AD Joint Operations.  And they have resulted in DEATHS not to mention the PITA it is to coordinate all the different regulations and operations.

If we go under the NGB....then taskings come to us through the NGB.  If our primary master is the USAF though AFRCC and 1AF (I am all for us getting away from AU) then we should stay with that chain of command and state taskings go up and then back down.

[A.Member]

I have got to say...the main objection I have to your plan is that it complicates our command and control structure not simplifies it.

Looking this over briefly, I have to agree. 

I applaud the effort to think about change but I've got to believe there is a way to do so without going the route of the NGB.  There is a great deal of complexity in doing so.  The association with USAF, our established relationship, should be built upon and we should look for creative ways to work with and build upon that foundation. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

John,

I have got to say...the main objection I have to your plan is that it complicates our command and control structure not simplifies it.

We need to have a single chain of command and only at the top should we be answering to more than one master.

By placing us under the NGB and the individual TAGs we have our immediate boss at the state level...that is good as far as that goes.  But we also have a USAF mission under AFRCC and 1AF we will be putting out wing commanders in a position where they may have to piss off one boss to please the other.  Also it opens to door to back dooring or going around regulations by going to the agency that will work the best for you.

I have seen these sorts of things working AD Joint Operations.  And they have resulted in DEATHS not to mention the PITA it is to coordinate all the different regulations and operations.

If we go under the NGB....then taskings come to us through the NGB.  If our primary master is the USAF though AFRCC and 1AF (I am all for us getting away from AU) then we should stay with that chain of command and state taskings go up and then back down.

Pat:

I agree with you, but again, such is the real world of the National Guard.  Good, bad, or indifferent, ever ANG commander deals with the headaches of the dual chains of command.  If they can do it, we can do it.

AFRCC taskings are time critical, and have to go directly to the wing.  There's no way around that.  1AF taskings should go through TAG to preserve the ANG command and control relationship, which gets us out from under the Posse Comm. Act.  State taskings would be rare, and be when a disaster struck, but then being an integral part of the ANG puts us higher on the food chain and reserves the Unity of Command principle for the TAG.

Consider yourself for a moment the commander of the 69th Fighter Wing of the -- Oh, say South Carolina National Guard.  There you are, sitting in your office, looking at all those shiny Vipers lined up under the bright blue Carolina sky... Life is good.  Then your phone rings.  The caller could be:

1.  NORAD.  Scramble your fighters, there is an unidentified group of aircraft that are approaching the ADIZ and they are not squawking.

2.  Asst AG Air, SC.  By order of the President, your unit is alerted for callup into federal service.  Pack your gear, you are heading to someplace ending in "__stan."

3.  Asst A.G. Air, SC.  By order of the Governor, you will deploy the 69th Security Police Squadron and the 69th Civil Engineer Squadron immediately to Myrtle Beach to provide disaster relief in the wake of a killer tornado that has just struck.

Or... any two of the above in combination.

This proposal does not ask more of our commanders than is asked of Guard commanders.

[flyguy06]

So, how would this effect my Squadro? We dont do ES at all. No interest. But we stil want to be able to use the aircraft for O-rides and "honest" proficiency flying.

If you have no interest in ES, then what "honest" proficiency flying are you referring to?  We're not a flying club. 

As a CAP pilot and as an Orientation pilot, I need to keep my proficiency up. I am carrying some of the most precious cargo known to man. Your Kids.

Its arrogant to think that only ES pilots need proficiency. As CAP pilots, we are supposed to be the example of good General Aviation pilots. I am deeply opposed to using CAP as a flying club. You can read my posts on here to see that. Your comment just proves my point that too many folks here believe that ES is the "primary" mission of CAP and they put CP and AE off to the side and not so important but just there.

CP is a primary mission and all orientation pilots need to be proficient. As well as Form 5 check pilots.  We are more vital than a SA/DR pilot in my opinion. We are carrying cadets onboard.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

[A.Member]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

Exactly.  CAP has 3 primary missions, not 1 or 2.  If you're squadron is not utilizing the aircraft in support of all 3 missions, one has to question if having an aircraft there is the best use for that resource.  I'd suggest that it may not be.

[wingnut]

John Check this out
The California State Military reserve is part of the Army Guard and Air National Guard. All Volunteer unless called to duty by the Governor

If you're a veteran with experience, a professional with skills, or someone with a passion to serve, the California State Military Reserve (CSMR) might be your opportunity. We're an all-volunteer State Defense Force whose primary mission is to support the California National Guard in its Homeland Defense and Homeland Security missions.
Members of the CSMR volunteer a minimum of 200 hours annually. Part of that time is spent at Unit Training Assemblies (drills or meetings), which are usually eight hours on one Saturday each month. These are used for training sessions, mission coordination, and to work with your National Guard counterparts.

In addition, there are continuing education requirements including attendance at CSMR School Houses and online distant learning courses. Finally, in the event of an emergency, you could be called to State Active Duty for weeks at a time.


Contact one of our units at http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/unitcontacts.htm
and consider becoming a Soldier or Airman in the California State Military Reserve.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Wingnut:

The California unit you are talking about is a class of unit that is called "State Defense Forces" which can best be described as the non-federal component of the National Guard.

The law recognized that governors would still need a military force for riots or disasters, even if the NG were called up into federal service.  The SDF's are the extension of the "Home Guard Militia" that existed in the Civil War; units, sometimes made up of less-than-fully-fit members, that were exempt from federal levies on the militia.  I used to serve in the Ohio SDF (Called the Ohio Military Reserve) and that is one with a battle history from the Civil War.

RiverAux has discussed the SDF's at length, and is much more knowledgeable on them than I.  California, however, is one of a minority of states with an air element to their SDF.  I understand that Virginia is another.

Only about half the states avail themselves of the provision in the militia act that authorizes an SDF.  Florida had one, but disbanded it a few years ago.  The members tried to keep it alive as a corporation, but that effort failed.

I quit CAP after 9-11 because I was frustrated with the "Corporate types" who seemed to be able to find any number of legalistic-sounding excuses to NOT perform any mission but SAR on behalf of the USAF.  I was angry about the attack on our country, and I knew that certain medical conditions rendered me unqualified to return to active military service.  I joined an SDF, and ended up commanding an MP battalion.

I returned to CAP after I moved to Florida, since there was no SDF here.  If I can't do battle with the terrorists, I can at least do battle with the timid souls that suck the life out of a time-honored organization and try to turn it into a bastardized civilian corporation with uniforms.  A cross between a flying club and a social service organization.

I want to bring CAP back into the Air Force.  The fact is we've been AWOL for the first 5 years of this war.

 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Wingnut:

I checked that website, but I can't find an Air National Guard element to the California SDF.  All I can find is an Army aviation brigade attached to their infantry division.

And, as we all know, rotary-wing aircraft are the work of the Devil.

[capchiro]

Let me just say that I am a composite squadron commander.  I am not looking forward to trying to plan and serve two different masters at the same time.  You can't compare us to a NG unit as out missions are different.  I am looking at serving the NG for disaster preparedness and ES and the Air Force for Cadet programs and aerospaced education?  Now, which one of them is going to take hindseat to the other?  Excuse me Mr. NG, but we have a cadet encampment that weekend? Or Excuse me Air Force, but we are too busy training for ES to work on aerospace?  I am an unpaid part-time (4-12 hours a week) volunteer, running a two dimensional (cadets and seniors) three prong program (cadet, emergency services and aerospace education) at the present time.  I don't think I need the additional headaches of trying to keep another master happy.  The one piece of sanity in the past has been the consistency of the CAP program.  Now, we have seen nothing but change, beginning with uniforms and ending with whatever tomorrow brings.  It is hard to recruit for a program that we are getting ready to make sweeping changes in, but we aren't sure what they will be and the squadron commanders always seem to be the last informed.  CAP is and has been a great program.  Let's not jeopardize it by constantly and loudly screaming for severe changes that in essence will create a new program and do away with the old.  JMHO, but a very experienced HO.. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Harry:

I understand your frustration.  I commanded a cadet squadron, and I frankly don't know how one manages the multiple missions of a composite squadron.  I've noted that before, when I noted that AE is usually the first to be tossed out of the lifeboat.

What are the alternatives?  The "Serving two masters" is already the case, since we have both an Air Force identity and a Corporate identity with respect to ES missions.  In fact, the discussions I have seen INCREASE the number of "Masters" because we talk about "Being responsive to our customers," like we're the Home Shopping Network, or something.  The alternatives are to establish MOU contracts with FEMA, with NGO's, with EMA's, with various state departments, and with the Swiss Navy.   

If anything, the proposal I have endorsed here consolidates missions under a single umbrella, regardless of funding.  The AG can channel Title 10 funds to us from 1AF, and can also provide Title 36 funding, either from his own budget or through the budgets of other state agencies. The only time that ES would respond outside the AG chain is for direct taskings from AFRCC, which happen now, anyway.

The Cadet and Aerospace Education programs will be unchanged by this new command alignment.  I specifically structured the proposal to relieve TAG's from the responsibility to supervise programs with which they have no experience, and less interest.

Your regulations will continue to be approved by the NB, the National Commander of CAP will still be your leader.  When a mission happens, you will still move at the order of a CAP Incident Commander.

So, exactly what, at the unit level, will be different for you?

[A.Member]

California, however, is one of a minority of states with an air element to their SDF.  I understand that Virginia is another.

The New York Guard is another. 

Such a structure gets very complex rather quickly.

[flyguy06]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

We are a Composite Squadron because thats how it ws chartered 20+ years ago. Demographics changed over the years and priorities changed. I am a current Mission observer and a former GT Leader. When I ws a cadet in the same unit, I was very active in ES. But like I said over the years people change. Being a composite squadron has nothing to do with wheather you are active in ES or not. I know Cadet Squadrons that are active in ES. So I dont understand your comment about being a Composite squadron and how thats related to ES.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Flyguy, I don't have a problem with proficiency flying, and I don't have a problem with you flying only O-flights.  I just wonder why your unit is organized as a composite squadron when it seems you are exclusively committed to the cadet program to the exclusion of ES.

We are a Composite Squadron because thats how it ws chartered 20+ years ago. Demographics changed over the years and priorities changed. I am a current Mission observer and a former GT Leader. When I ws a cadet in the same unit, I was very active in ES. But like I said over the years people change. Being a composite squadron has nothing to do with wheather you are active in ES or not. I know Cadet Squadrons that are active in ES. So I dont understand your comment about being a Composite squadron and how thats related to ES.

Well, in theory, Composite Squadrons are supposed to be where all three missions are blended, and a mix of officers and cadets, organized under two deputy commanders, accomplishes them.  I realize that there is a huge gulf between theory and practice, however.  I have, in the past, inspected units organized as composite squadrons that, like yours, are almost exclusively oriented around the cadet program.  I usually suggest submitting a reorganization request so that your charter reflects the reality of your unit's focus.

[ZigZag911]

Please see attachment for my introductory thoughts for Thursday's discussion

[Al Sayre]

This was the only thing I saw that gave me a bit of heartburn:

   Squadron CC – minimum 1 year as 2 Lt, Level 2 completed, 2 years staff experience, 2 years current & continuous CAP service

While this would be really nice to have, it would exclude a lot of relatively new people that are willing to step up when no one of higher rank will.  (BTDT got the commanders pin)

[ZigZag911]

This was the only thing I saw that gave me a bit of heartburn:

   Squadron CC – minimum 1 year as 2 Lt, Level 2 completed, 2 years staff experience, 2 years current & continuous CAP service

While this would be really nice to have, it would exclude a lot of relatively new people that are willing to step up when no one of higher rank will.  (BTDT got the commanders pin)

I understand your position....I was a group CC for six years, I know what a headache it can be finding unit commanders.....however, that same experience as group CC convinces me that we are doing no one, member or squadron, favors forcing inexperienced people into command.

If we firmly establish some intractable rules, hopefully it will leverage the BTDT got the T-shirt crowd into doing what they should, which is minimally step up to the plate and accept command for the 6 to 12 months (arbirtary number) needed for 2 Lt Newbie to become fully qualified, make that individual a deputy, and mentor her or him thru this period.

[lordmonar]

I whole heartedly agree that we should be selecting the best people for the jobs and it is a gread idea to have people expeinced with the CAP way of doing buisness to stand up and take the job.  But let's get down to brass tacks here.  What do you do if you have not "qualified" people who are willing to take the job?  What do you do in the case of new units where there are no experinced officers at all?

Making new rules is not going to fix this particual problem.  In fact it may make it worse.  Let's say you have a new member who has the abilities to run and manage a squadron but has only been in CAP for six months or so.  This rule will force you to either have a gap in command or it will force you to ignore your own rule.

Closing squadrons for lack of leadership is not the way to go.

[Major Carrales]

This will be a long RANT... Lots of BAGGAGE that explains why I think and am the way I am as a CAP Officer.

This is my second round as Squadron Commander, my first was along the lines of being railroaded. 

Backstory...

Its 1998, I joined CAP in a situation where the nearest unit was 80 miles and the next was 100 or so.  I of course joined the one that was 150miles because the then web indicated this was the only unit with a website.  I made that Tuesday communte for a few months until it was pointed out to me that there was a nearer unit.

When I got there I was basically treated as an outsider.  I was told that they were not there to "babysit" anyone and that, since I wasn't a pilot, I was on my own.  I chose PAO as a Spec track and drifted into helping with the Deputy Commander of Cadets...(PAUSE)

What many people fail to realize is that there are some of us that just want to serve.  Some of us that, no matter how corney this sounds, think CAP is the most wonderful and unique form of Communtiy service...I mean, you don;t see very many air raid wardens or aircraft spotters around these days, but CAP thrives.  No one could understand nor would help me find my place.  Because of this I will be [darn]ed if any squadron member comes to the unit and is allowed to languish in inactivity.  Everyone will be "babysat" if need be so that they might find their most effective place as a CAP officer.(PLAY)

The cadets met on Saturdays and there was little interaction between the Aviation Side (flying club) and any other element of CAP including COMM, AE you name it.

Then some changes, some rumors and some real, in the 60 Series regs.  The Aivation section collapsed as members fled active status.  There were like 15 to 20 cadets  , no one to service them, and several COMM guys.  ELTs we burdensome in that only one or two Officers did them.

In 2002 our long time commander, who himself was thrust into the center seat, had to step down for personal reasons.  I got a call from the GROUP commander.  He said either I took command of the squadron or it would be disbanned and its members divided among neighboring (scoff...nearest unit was 150 miles away) units.  I had no choice, in my then mind, so I took it totally inexperienced.

I will say that it was too much for me.  A cadet collpased at a meeting from a heart related issue where I was the only one in attendance (it was while we were waiting for parents to pick up cadets after a cancellation), only two Seniors would attend, ELT call outs came down from Group and the GROUP CC railed at me when I could not leave my teaching job to address these missions.

Finally, I had to resign.  The though of even looking at the uniform was such a burden...CAP was no longer fun.  I ran from it for two years!!!  And the unit DIED!

When I returned to the unit in 2005 I was crushed to see that it was reverted to two or three people taking about the glory days.  There was a unit inspection where the only thing they could offer was excuse after excuse....  We don't have a plane so we have no pilots....We don't have pilots because we don't have a plane...

I felt responsible because I had done nothing for two years to remedy that and I resolved to have a renewed passion for CAP.  That we would make it happen.  We would build a momentum and keep the momentum going!!!

We will take it as far as we can.  If we fail it will be the failure of having exausted every possible alternative.  It will be a personally destructive one for me, but a failure where I know that the unit's officers gave it all and tried with all possible might to build it back and take it to new hights.  It will be the failure's whose crater will be that of my heart.  but if we succeed!!!

If we succeed it will be GLORIOUS.  And it will be our SUCCESS!!!  Yours and mine because when a CAP unit succeeds it betters us all.

There are some that ridicule my attitudes on CAP.  There are some that think I'm some sort of primadonna or idealistic hack, but I need your help and guidance!!!!  [darnit], I believe in the Civil Air Patrol.

I would like to thank Bosshawk, Al Sayre, John Kach, COL H and the others who give me advice.  Advice I do cherish and apply.  That is the only purpose I see in forums like this.  Knowledge exchange and friendship for the betterment of CAP.

So when ENEMIES of CAP post here, they should expect little support from me.  When people come here with agendas negative to the betterment of CAP, they are to expect no support form me.  Those with workable ideas that simply need Devil's Advocacy or tweaking (be they uniform topics or not) to  make them proposable, expect input from me.

[ELTHunter]

This was the only thing I saw that gave me a bit of heartburn:

   Squadron CC – minimum 1 year as 2 Lt, Level 2 completed, 2 years staff experience, 2 years current & continuous CAP service

While this would be really nice to have, it would exclude a lot of relatively new people that are willing to step up when no one of higher rank will.  (BTDT got the commanders pin)

That is part of the problem.  Many times those willing to step up are not the ones with the CAP background to be in a command position.  I'm not saying you are/were one of them, but it does happen.  We need to get out of the mentality that we should put someone in a command or staff job just because they are willing.