Rank based on ES training

[RiverAux]

Although I'm not the first to propose this, I don't believe its had its own thread.  How about basing adult CAP rank on your ES training?  Although I don't think its critical we argue about the specifics of which position goes with which rank, what I am suggesting would go something like this:

Incident Commanders: Lt. Cols
Section Chiefs/Branch Directors: Majors
Command Staff/GTLs/MPs/MOs: Captains
GTMS/UDFS/Scanners/MROs,MSAs, etc: 1st Lt.
2d Lt = new guys who have completed enhanced CAP entry-level training. 

Why should we do it this way?
1.  CAP was founded to perform Emergency Services missions and ES accounts for the largest majority of CAP spending at the national level.   If you believe in following the money it is clear that the AF believes our ES capability is far more important than the cadet program or aerospace education. 

2.  When CAP interacts with other agencies it is almost always in regards to an ES mission.  Since that is where most people come into contact with CAP, that is where the greatest confusion can arise about the relationship between our rank structure and our responsibility (i.e., why is that Captain the Incident Commander and telling all the Majors and Lt Cols what to do?). 

3.  Like them or not, our ES training is by far more rigorous than our senior member training program.  You actually have to demonstrate competence on a regular basis and not just attend courses and sit in a squadron job with no real evalation of your performance.  So there would be actual standards associated with these ranks.  Keep in mind that the ES training is likely going to get significantly tougher in the near future as NIMS is implemented while I doubt much will change with the senior member training program. 

Problems:
A.  Special appointments:  Max out all special appointments (mission related, prior military, pilot, chaplain, etc) at 1st Lt.   Tell these folks that they may have been a great submarine commander 30 years ago, but our rank is based upon performing CAP missions only.  I really don't think they'll mind if they see that rank is so clearly linked their usefulness in a mission.  If they are a recently retired flying squadron Ops Officer from the AF, they will probably pretty quickly move through the system and get to an appropriate rank quickly if they're any good.  If they're not, I don't mind leaving them down in the lower ranks with the rest. 
 
B.  Folks who don't do ES would feel slighted.  They're great people doing good things, but ES is our primary mission (again, the money says it is).  Most should be able to get to 1st Lt. without much problem as MSAs or MROs if nothing else.  Keep in mind that under this proposal the vast majority of CAP members will probably be 1st Lts or Captains anyway, so its not like the non-ES people will be left behind. 

C.  People who let their qualifications lapse but still maintain their membership.  I haven't really seen this happen very often.  Usually if they let their quals lapse they are leaving CAP anyway.  The ones that stay probably have age or medical issues and frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with them maintaining the highest rank they earned.  Remember, only a relatively small number of people will be above Captain anyway, so if there is a former IC that now just want to be a pilot, yes he will be the "wrong" rank, but that will be such an aberation that it won't make much difference. 

D.  This will obviously still leave the problem of having rank discrepancies in squadrons (i.e, the 1st Lt. commanding a squadron that may have a few Majors or a Lt Col).  I don't see it as a major issue.  We've got along pretty well with this situation so far.  Like I said, most of the rank confusion issues relate to other agencies seeing us during missions.  They don't come to our meetings so they won't see the "problem". 

E.  What to do with professional development.  Instead of partially basing rank on prof development, recognize these achievements with ribbons.  Each specialty track would have a ribbon with devices to indicate advanced achievement in that area.  The CG Aux does something sort of like this to recognize particpation in various Aux programs.  So, there will still be some incentive for those who really care about the incentive.  Those who just take pride in their work will continue to do it just as they have in the past.

Thoughts?   

[CAP428]

Why change?  I see the points you made, but I still don't see what's wrong with what we have.

[RiverAux]

I am one of those who believe that your rank should have some logical relationship to your position of responsibility in an organizatin, especially a paramilitary one such as CAP.  If we are going to use rank at all, it needs to mean something and I am for tying it into some sort of framework that at least makes sense when it counts - on missions. 

I could go the other way and be in favor of abolishing rank as we know it, but I agree with many others that our current system makes no sense when viewed as a whole. 

[CAP428]

The fact that a rank should have a relationship to the position of responsibility makes sense.  But limiting that to ES makes absolutely no sense.

ES is important, but it is not the whole organization.

[Eclipse]

There are thousands of members and hundreds of units that do not participate in ES.

[DNall]

ES isn't really our primary mission, and it's also a great big catch all that covers about a dozen unrelated missions.

The Air Force is going to tell you they care about cadet programs more than ES & there are cheaper & better routes to do what's assigned to us than CAP. However, they are bale to kill two birds with one stone by giving us resources that can be used for both.

Now, what exactly does ES mean? You talking about SaR, cause that's on the basis on the new technology is reducing to a point that the above formula doesn't make sense anymore. Disaster, HLS, etc....

Is the IC that's good at SaR also going to be good at disaster assessment? Cause the crews sure as hell aren't, the operations & tasks are completely unrelated. You then going to have a SaR IC LtCol that goes on a HLS mission doing a 2Lt job?

Here's the other thing. According to the federal govt (NIMS), we're not qualified to do any of these things, be it on staff or the teams in the field. You want to re-make the organization on something we're terrible at? Now, we can get on board with NIMS, but the second we do you're going to realize how dramatically different & specialized people have to be for the varrious things we do - meaning to the exclusion of others.

And how about this, in an emergency response agency, people don't come up to positions like that. They are slected to a leadership postion, trained to lead/manage, and THEN trained to do the technical job in front of them. Most CAP members aren't capable of that - hell most people in the country aren't capable of that. Why you think some people are officers & some aren't? It isn't JUST training, but even if it were you're putting rank with a position title to make it look right, not making sure the people that put on that rank are capable/competent at each more advanced level & THEN picking from that pool to train the best & brightest for operational command positions. In other words, you coming at this completely backwards & proposing something, that even if we did ONLY ES, would still be a devestatingly bad idea.

Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, that's just the way it is. And, then looking forward our operational areas are changing dramatically too... it just doesn't fit or really make sense, particularly not at this point.

[arajca]

The titles for the various positions (IC, Section Chief, Unit Leader, etc) were selected to minimize confusion between a responder's agency grade and their IC position. It is not uncommon to have fire chiefs and asst chiefs serving as unit leaders on incidents and have fire Lt's or Capts serving as section chiefs or branch directors supervising thier normal boss.

[MIKE]

Why change?  I see the points you made, but I still don't see what's wrong with what we have.

Because we need to have 50 5 page threads on senior member grade posted in January alone. 

[RiverAux]

There are thousands of members and hundreds of units that do not participate in ES.

I don't know about hundreds of units, but yes, there are many people that don't participate in ES.  They would still be officers under my proposal and would get acknowledgement of their professional development and training through the use of ribbons. 

Now, what exactly does ES mean? You talking about SaR, cause that's on the basis on the new technology is reducing to a point that the above formula doesn't make sense anymore. Disaster, HLS, etc....

Not at all, we are still going to use the ICS command structure to respond to all these other missions as well.  I expect that over time we will add some disaster-specific ES specialties and those can be accomadated under this proposal very easily.   The Command and General staff structure will be the same for the mission whether HLS or SAR.  The only thing that might be different is the type of resources being used.   

Here's the other thing. According to the federal govt (NIMS), we're not qualified to do any of these things, be it on staff or the teams in the field.

And where is that said?  None of those requirements have been set in stone so there is no way or need for CAP to comply with them yet. 

And how about this, in an emergency response agency, people don't come up to positions like that. They are slected to a leadership postion, trained to lead/manage, and THEN trained to do the technical job in front of them. Most CAP members aren't capable of that - hell most people in the country aren't capable of that. Why you think some people are officers & some aren't? It isn't JUST training, but even if it were you're putting rank with a position title to make it look right, not making sure the people that put on that rank are capable/competent at each more advanced level & THEN picking from that pool to train the best & brightest for operational command positions. In other words, you coming at this completely backwards & proposing something, that even if we did ONLY ES, would still be a devestatingly bad idea.

I don't understand this comment at all.  Are you saying that we don't pick ICs based on their ability to lead?  Or Ground Team Leaders, etc?  All these folks have undergone training and demonstrated their competence to fulfill a specific position.  Once they done that and become qualified they would be promoted to the rank selected for that position.  I've got no problem with incorporating general leadership training courses into the ES system to, for example, ensure that our ICs/Lt Cols have received the best leadership training we have available. 

Now, just because in this proposal CAP rank would be based on ES qualifications, that does not mean that you cannot also have leadership training still as part of the CAP admin side of the house.   Heck, you could probably use the same courses for both purposes. 

It is not uncommon to have fire chiefs and asst chiefs serving as unit leaders on incidents and have fire Lt's or Capts serving as section chiefs or branch directors supervising thier normal boss.

That is very true but you're fogetting that when they are not on a fire, they have a rank structure that is logical for the administrative structure they use on a day-to-day basis.  In CAP we don't have that.  I am proposing that CAP ranks be based on ES positions so that we do have a logical basis for our ranks that makes sense where it counts -- on a mission.  If we had a system like the Fire Department which had 1 Captain running the unit with a few Lts. and the rest with no rank then there would be no need for my proposal, but that isn't the case. 

CAP's current "system" does not have rank tied to position either on missions or for administatively running the organization.  We need to make a choice. 

[Chappie]

Although I'm not the first to propose this, I don't believe its had its own thread.  How about basing adult CAP rank on your ES training?  Although I don't think its critical we argue about the specifics of which position goes with which rank, what I am suggesting would go something like this:

Limiting rank to ES training is not something I would support.   Granted it is where our roots lie...there are three missions within our organization.  As a Chaplain, we can and do support all three (don't know where the ranking by ES would put the Chaplain Service whose appointments are on par with the USAF Chaplain Service).  But the rank and file member is not bound to support all three.  There are excellent Cadet Programs people and AE people whose contributions are valued...but recognition by promotions for their training and service would be denied because they aren't actively involved in ES or hold a position on the ICS?  What about all those people who are diligent in pursuing their speciality training tracks as PDOs, Historians, Logistics, Supply, PAO, Communications, MLOs, Personnel, and the list goes on?  They are to be denied promotions in rank because they too are not actively involved in ES?   Talk about a Membership Retention nightmare.

[RiverAux]

As a Chaplain, we can and do support all three (don't know where the ranking by ES would put the Chaplain Service whose appointments are on par with the USAF Chaplain Service)

A lot of members participate in all 3 programs so that isn't unique.  Chaplains, assuming they were mission rated, would probably end up as Captains for being part of the Command Staff. 

Keep in mind that no one, including Chaplains, would be receiving any professional appointments above the rank of 1st Lt in my proposal.  So, Chaplains would come in as 1st Lts. and once they became mission qualified would become Captains. 

but recognition by promotions for their training and service would be denied because they aren't actively involved in ES or hold a position on the ICS?  What about all those people who are diligent in pursuing their speciality training tracks as PDOs, Historians, Logistics, Supply, PAO, Communications, MLOs, Personnel, and the list goes on?  They are to be denied promotions in rank because they too are not actively involved in ES?   Talk about a Membership Retention nightmare. 

Thats right.  They would be recognized for their achievements with ribbons and other such awards.

Remember, under my proposal probably 1-2% of CAP members would be Lt. Cols. (ICs), maybe 10-15% would be Majors, maybe 40-50% might be Captains, and probably about 30-40% would be 1st Lts, with maybe 10-20% being 2nd Lts.  So, promotions for everybody would be very limited. 

This isn't unique in American military history.  Back in the 1800s it was not terribly unusual for officers to stay at the same rank for 10-20 years before being promoted, but they kept at it. 

The Cadet Programs and those very few people who just do AE would not be unique.  They would most likely be 2Lts and would barely be any different in rank than most of the rest of the people in their unit.  Its not like all the ES folks would be Majors and Lt. Cols. and the CP guys would be 2Lts.   

For perspective, the CG Aux does not use rank.  They do use rank insignia based on your highest administrative office held.  The vast majority of folks have probably held only positions at the lowest level and therefore the majority of folks have the lowest possible officer grade insiginia on their uniforms.  Somehow they have managed to get along just fine with this system despite having extremely limited "promotion" opportunities. 

So, if you're the average member who doesn't really care about their rank anyway, you're not going to mind the "limitations" of my proposed system. 

[RiverAux]

Problem F:  System Phase In.  My system would take effect immediately but everyone currently in CAP would retain their existing rank.  For "ideological purity" it would be better to demote them to the appropriate rank but that would very obviously drive off a lot of folks unnecessarily. 

In the short run this system would probably result in quite a few promotions as those IC Captains get bumped to Lt. Col. or the 2Lt Mission Pilot goes up to Captain. 

Over the long run (10-20 years), the upper ranks would start to thin out as Lt. Cols and Majors retired or left CAP and eventually our rank system would fall somewhere near the percentages I estimated above.  So, I don't see any short-term membership retention issues at all since all those who do cadet programs or AE and nothing else would still get to be where they are. 

Frankly, promotions would be so limited in my system that I very much doubt the CP or AE guys would feel that singled out. 

[lordmonar]

I don't think this would solve any problems either.

If all it take to be a Lt Col is to be IC qualified.....there is still no requirment for all IC qualified people to be the IC.

So we still end up with people who are qualified to take on high responsibility jobs doing low responsibility jobs.

[RiverAux]

Tell me how many ICs you know that have given up their IC status and now only run the radio at the mission base?  Probably not many.  Yes, it will happen.

Under my system there woud eventually only be a small number of field grade officers anyway.  If a few of them decide to give up their higher qualifications and do "lower" jobs, that won't throw the system too out of whack.

However, in my experience these folks are more likely to be leaving CAP for good rather than stepping down to do lower work.  In my Wing we do not have a single ex-Incident Commander that I am aware of and only a few ex-Section Chief level people.   

Every other proposal on here would result in far more people who at one time held a high job but do very little now since we do not have up-or-out rules (and shouldn't). 

With my system this woud be the exception rather than the rule.  Face it -- there is no way to solve that problem in a volunteer organization.  My proposal minimizes it as much as possible.  Its not perfect, but its better than it is now. 

[lordmonar]

Tell me how many ICs you know that have given up their IC status and now only run the radio at the mission base?  Probably not many.  Yes, it will happen.

I just came from our monthly SAREX....there are at least eight IC qualified members working our mission base staff, flying missions and one as the GOBD.

Under my system there woud eventually only be a small number of field grade officers anyway.  If a few of them decide to give up their higher qualifications and do "lower" jobs, that won't throw the system too out of whack.

Then you run the risk of not having an IC available when you need one.  We are a volunteer organisation with other commitments to our time.

However, in my experience these folks are more likely to be leaving CAP for good rather than stepping down to do lower work.  In my Wing we do not have a single ex-Incident Commander that I am aware of and only a few ex-Section Chief level people.

Qualifications are good for three years.  Are you impling that once someone becomes IC qualified they then quit?  Maybe they are over worked?   

Every other proposal on here would result in far more people who at one time held a high job but do very little now since we do not have up-or-out rules (and shouldn't). 

With my system this woud be the exception rather than the rule.  Face it -- there is no way to solve that problem in a volunteer organization.  My proposal minimizes it as much as possible.  Its not perfect, but its better than it is now.

I don't see how it could be the exception.  Someone gets IC qualified puts on Lt Col and then never works IC again.  The next year's worth of SAREX someon else is the IC or is training to be IC.  He spends that time flying or working AOBD or Planning or mission breifing.....but all this time he is a Lt Col.

[RiverAux]

Then you run the risk of not having an IC available when you need one.  We are a volunteer organisation with other commitments to our time.

How do you figure?  We would still have more or less the same number of ICs as we have now, they would just all be Lt. Cols. 

One of the "pros" of my system is that if anything it would encourage more CAP members to participate in ES (with which we are always short-handed).  In particular it would give some solid rewards to those overworked people who take on IC and upper level base staff tasks.  Very few are willing to do it.  According to the HLS resources database CAP only has 821 ICs. 

Qualifications are good for three years.  Are you impling that once someone becomes IC qualified they then quit?  Maybe they are over worked?   

No, I'm saying that most ICs don't tend to ever give up their IC qualifications -- they tend to leave the organizatin first.  This could be due to retiring due to age or other committments.   

I don't see how it could be the exception.  Someone gets IC qualified puts on Lt Col and then never works IC again.

Sure, I suppose there is some risk of that but I don't see it as a significant concern.  Keep in mind, you need pretty high level approval to become an IC and I think they would be able to spot most of the losers who might try to game the system that way.

If it was a significant problem (which it wouldn't be), you could always require a certain amount of time in position before the promotion would become effective.  For example, once you became IC-qualified you might have to serve in that position long enough to renew once before you would be promoted.  This would actually serve to spread out the promotions a little bit and might not be a bad idea.  Otherwise some one could join CAP top out in their first 2 years or so(assuming most won't move beyond aircrew/ground team level) at Captain.    This would also meet the concerns of those worried about giving them a rank that they haven't really proven they can handle.  They would need to demonstrate continued competency at the IC/Lt Col level before actually being promoted to Lt. Col. 

[flyguy06]

RivrAux,
I'm just curious, how long have you been in CAP? Your CAP is apparently different than the organization I belong to. The CAP I belong to supports cadet programs way more than they do ES. Basically you are discriminating against those who choose not to be involoved in ES and limit their climb. In your plan a guy who cant afford ES gear or who actually has a 9 to 5 job and cant spend time to get ES qualified is just out of luck.

[RiverAux]

I've had over a dozen years of CAP experience and am a former cadet. 

Basically you are discriminating against those who choose not to be involoved in ES and limit their climb. In your plan a guy who cant afford ES gear or who actually has a 9 to 5 job and cant spend time to get ES qualified is just out of luck.

How many of you have considered that the current CAP system "discriminates" against those who devote significant time to the ES program?  It is very difficult and time consuming to get and maintain ES qualifications and it is likely to get even more difficult as NIMS is implemented.

Why is it fair that an Incident Commander that may be in charge of running a dozen planes and well over a hundred members on a major mission in which somebody's life hangs in the balance might only be a Lt., while someone who has done nothing other than hold various staff jobs (which they may or may not have actually performed), took a correspondence course, and attended a few classes with no real tests could be a Lt. Col? 

What I am saying here is that our ES system is the one thing that CAP does that actually requires people to really demonstrate skills to get qualified and actually requires you to use those skills on a regular basis to maintain that qualification.   Do those skills apply to everything we do?  Not at all, and I recognize that. 

But, I think it is the fairest way of approaching the problem of matching CAP rank with level of responsibility and training that will most of the time result in higher rank people being in charge of lower rank people during missions. 

[arajca]

But, I think it is the fairest way of approaching the problem of matching CAP rank with level of responsibility and training that will most of the time result in higher rank people being in charge of lower rank people during missions. 

But will it have the same effect on our regular operations? In my experience, those folks near the top of the ICS chain tend not be near the top at the unit.

[RiverAux]

No, it would not in any way relate to our day to day ops.  But, like I said at the top, our current system doesn't relate to day-to-day ops or ES.  We have to make a choice to base our rank on one or the other if we want rank to equal responsibility.  I am choosing ES.

But, like I said, I could go with the CG Aux model where "rank" (such as it is) is totally based on your administrative offce in the organization.  I just don't think that works as well since you are going to have far more people who no longer hold high office still participating in the organization.  My CG Aux unit has quite a few people that have held high office and currently "outrank" our flotilla commander. 

Don't get me wrong, I am all for improving our current professional development and senior member training programs but just want to divorce them from the rank and promotion system. 

[arajca]

Grade inversion at missions isn't a big deal. Professional response personnel deal with it on a regular basis - see my earlier comments. Just because you're an IC doesn't mean you have to be the highest ranking person there.

So, if we go to ES based grades, what do you do about the SMWOG unit commander in charge of a bunch of officers? Does the Unit/CC not have to demonstrate leadership and apply managerial skills to keep the unit functioning so the ES Gods/Goddesses can play their games to get collar bling? Why shouldn't the Unit/CC be an officer?

[lordmonar]

Then you run the risk of not having an IC available when you need one.  We are a volunteer organisation with other commitments to our time.

How do you figure?  We would still have more or less the same number of ICs as we have now, they would just all be Lt. Cols. 

Yes...but they would not all be doing IC jobs.   So the rank hungery bling seekers...will just focus their efforts on getting IC qualified instead of all that tedious PD training.

You are not fixing anything.  You are just trading one set of promotion rules with another.  You still have the problem of once IC qualified...there is no requirment for the Lt Col to actaully be and IC.

Heck....I can run a couple of SAREX's and get 50% of my squadron IC qualified in under a month.

I've changed my mind....Let's go this route....Here I thought that I would take me years to be a Lt Col....you have just shown me a way that I can be wearing silver oak leaves in a year!

No, I'm saying that most ICs don't tend to ever give up their IC qualifications -- they tend to leave the organizatin first.  This could be due to retiring due to age or other committments. 

Okay. Thanks.  

Sure, I suppose there is some risk of that but I don't see it as a significant concern.  Keep in mind, you need pretty high level approval to become an IC and I think they would be able to spot most of the losers who might try to game the system that way.

I'm not talking about losers...I am talking about your system.

YOU say the problem is that we have officers at various levels who's rank does not match their level of respoinsibillty.  In CAP this "problem" exists because our PD program does not require you to work at any level beyond the squadron.

Now you want to do the same thing...but now the training mechnicam is just going to be the ES ratings.

You are changing nothing.  Major X is going to do his two SAREXs will all good intentions.  The next Two SAREXs will be done by Major Y and the next two by Major Z and so on and so....In fact I forsee a major incrase in exercises with mission numbers.  Group and even squadron level SAREX so that as many people as possible can be promoted to Lt Col.

If it was a significant problem (which it wouldn't be), you could always require a certain amount of time in position before the promotion would become effective.  For example, once you became IC-qualified you might have to serve in that position long enough to renew once before you would be promoted.  This would actually serve to spread out the promotions a little bit and might not be a bad idea.

You are forgetting...that you don't serve as an IC.  Your name goes on the list and they call you and tell you to deploy.  You may or may not ever use your skills.  You do your two SAREX get your rating....never get a call up and 1 year later you get promoted.  You have done nothing to reduce the number of Lt Cols who are doing LT's jobs.  In fact you have made it easier to become a Lt Col.

Otherwise some one could join CAP top out in their first 2 years or so(assuming most won't move beyond aircrew/ground team level) at Captain.    This would also meet the concerns of those worried about giving them a rank that they haven't really proven they can handle.  They would need to demonstrate continued competency at the IC/Lt Col level before actually being promoted to Lt. Col.

You are making a lot of assumptions.  There are a lot of people out there who just love to collect rateings.  And if you follow the progression.  GTM3 to GTL to GTBD to Planning Section Chief to Ops Section Chief to IC-3.

If your wing had a robust ES SAREX schedule you can be go from 2d Lt to LT Col in only 12 months.

[arajca]

You are making a lot of assumptions.  There are a lot of people out there who just love to collect rateings. 

Hey. I resemble that remark! (Senior Admin, CP; Tech Comm, AE; working on ES, PDO). Many folks are like me. We serve in many positions because that's where we are needed. After a while, we check out the pamphlet for the position and find that we have met all the requirements for the rating. So we have our PDO (me in my case) take the appropriate steps to award the rating. We've done (and usually are still doing) the work, why not get the recognition?

And if you follow the progression.  GTM3 to GTL to GTBD to Planning Section Chief to Ops Section Chief to IC-3.

You forgot the air side for Ops section chief.

[ColonelJack]

Quoting lordmonar:  You are making a lot of assumptions.  There are a lot of people out there who just love to collect rateings.

Hey, I resemble that remark!!  Before I left CAP in '96 I had:

Master:  Cadet Program, AE, Admin, Personnel, PAO
Senior:  Safety, Finance

Primarily because, in my [Yogi Bear] Smaller-than-the-average squadron [/Yogi Bear], I had to do most of those jobs at one time or another.  I realize that, under regs, I'm entitled to wear no less than three Level II ribbons, two with three silver stars and one with two bronze stars.  That, to me, smacks of overkill ... so on my rack I have one of the purple-n-whites with three silvers.  That's it.  No sense being a braggart about it.   

Jack

[lordmonar]

And if you follow the progression.  GTM3 to GTL to GTBD to Planning Section Chief to Ops Section Chief to IC-3.

You forgot the air side for Ops section chief.

You are right....a ground guy would have to get MS in there before going to planning.

On The air side...you go from MS, MO, Air Ops, GTM3, Planning, Ops, IC.

so...in fact it is harder to become an IC through the ground track than the air track.  either way.  six or seven ratings.....at one rating every other month (that is one SAREX a month) and boom your a Lt Col!

[RiverAux]

Get real.  That progression is totally possible now and I am 100% confident that it has never been done.   

And, like I said, it wouldn't be very hard to include time-in-positin requirements to provide more "seasoning" as people move through the ES positions. 

I think you're forgetting that very soon it is going to become much more difficult to get any of the Section Chief or higher positions as NIMS is implemented.

You're also forgetting that getting IC-rated is not something you can do on your own.  That requries specific approval by the Wing Commander. 

[lordmonar]

Get real.  That progression is totally possible now and I am 100% confident that it has never been done.

It's never been done...because there was never an incentive to do it.  But you tie it to rank....I can guarantee you that you will see a marked increase in the number of people who are suddenly interested in mission base staff!
 

And, like I said, it wouldn't be very hard to include time-in-positin requirements to provide more "seasoning" as people move through the ES positions. 

So you mess up the ES qualification process as well...just to "give rank more meaning".  Do you see how this is blooming on you.  The idea is to reduce the number of problems not increase them.

I think you're forgetting that very soon it is going to become much more difficult to get any of the Section Chief or higher positions as NIMS is implemented.

How is that?  The qualifications are the same.  You go to a course do your missions and you are in.  The NIMS system dose not make it harder to get the qualificaitons...it only standardizes the training.  It makes sure that the Nevada State Police Ground Ops Branch Director is the same as the NJWG CAP Ground Ops Branch Director.

You're also forgetting that getting IC-rated is not something you can do on your own.  That requires specific approval by the Wing Commander. 

Yes...the same guys who are approving the same Lt Col promotions right now.  The ones for squadron admin officers.

A Wing Commander has no authority to refuse a promotion under your system as he does in our current system.  If you complete the requirements and are actually capable of doing the job....you get promoted and there is nothing you can do about under any "task based system".

Do you see what I mean?  Any system that says...do the following tasks and you are promoted, whether it is ES, PD or outside education...means that you cannot limit the number of people who reach the highest levels.

And you are making another assumption.  You keep assuming that the motivation of an individual directly relates to his competence.  You have often referred to the guys who would do ES training just to get the rank as losers.  That most assuredly is not the case.

[RiverAux]

How is that?  The qualifications are the same.  You go to a course do your missions and you are in.  The NIMS system dose not make it harder to get the qualificaitons...it only standardizes the training.  It makes sure that the Nevada State Police Ground Ops Branch Director is the same as the NJWG CAP Ground Ops Branch Director

And there are very likely going to be quite a few more requirements than we have now so that the CAP positions match the others. 

A Wing Commander has no authority to refuse a promotion under your system as he does in our current system.

\

If a Wing Commander does not want to approve somebody's request to become an IC, even if they have met all other requirements, they do not have to do so.  The same goes for Agency Liason.  This is unlike the other ES specialties where if you have met the training requirements you get the qualification.  A Wing Commander has ultimate discretion on who their ICs are. 

You have often referred to the guys who would do ES training just to get the rank as losers.  That most assuredly is not the case.

That was in the context of your suggestion that people would earn the ES qualifications just to get the rank and would then do nothing at all ever again.  I have no problems calling those people losers as it is obvious that all they cared about was getting the rank.  Rank should be an incentive to people and I've got no problem with people doing what is required to earn it.  But, if they earn the rank and then don't perform the responsibilities associated with that rank -- for example, staying qualified and performing as IC, then they're a loser (unless they have to step down due to age or some other good reason). 

Any system that says...do the following tasks and you are promoted, whether it is ES, PD or outside education...means that you cannot limit the number of people who reach the highest levels.

Except for Lt. Col. which would only be given to ICs, which can be limited by the Wing Commander, that is true.  We have that system now.  Everyone in CAP could be a Lt. Col. if they wanted to.  However, even in our current loose system Lt. Cols are relatively rare (about 15% of seniors in my Wing). 

Even though ICs have a lot of prestige in CAP now, we are very short of them and the upper level base staffs and if my proposal does nothing else but propell more qualified people into those jobs, it will have done a lot of good for CAP. 

The problem as I see it isn't having too many people in the higher ranks, it is that the ranks at all levels are not associated with any real level of responsibility.  That is what my proposal is aimed at. 

If someone does not believe that ranks should be associated with responsibility, I'm not going to try to convince them otherwise.  There are several other methods to address this problem (some I have mentioned) and I wouldn't be horribly upset if we took one of those paths rather than my proposal. 

[arajca]

A Wing Commander has no authority to refuse a promotion under your system as he does in our current system.

\

If a Wing Commander does not want to approve somebody's request to become an IC, even if they have met all other requirements, they do not have to do so.  The same goes for Agency Liason.  This is unlike the other ES specialties where if you have met the training requirements you get the qualification.  A Wing Commander has ultimate discretion on who their ICs are. 

Partially correct. Your unit commander has to sign off on your training before you get qualified. All SQTR's have the last sign off as "Unit Commander or designee". If your unit commander doesn't think you should be a GTL, even if you have completed the training, guess what, you're not a GTL. I have seen this happen.

[RiverAux]

Good point, but what I was referring to was the actual training requirements in 60-3 which specifically list Wing Commander approval for those positions.  In none of the other positions does it specifically say squadron or unit commander approval as one of the requirements.  Obviously they thought it critical to have a final check on these most important jobs. 

 

[lordmonar]

How is that?  The qualifications are the same.  You go to a course do your missions and you are in.  The NIMS system dose not make it harder to get the qualificaitons...it only standardizes the training.  It makes sure that the Nevada State Police Ground Ops Branch Director is the same as the NJWG CAP Ground Ops Branch Director

And there are very likely going to be quite a few more requirements than we have now so that the CAP positions match the others.

So it adds more requirments...but the qualification is still basically the same.  Someone mentors your...you read a few regulations, sit in the hot box for two SAREXs with someone watching over you and your are in.  You may have to know more...but let's face it...it's not rocket sceince it's just resource managment. 

A Wing Commander has no authority to refuse a promotion under your system as he does in our current system.

\

If a Wing Commander does not want to approve somebody's request to become an IC, even if they have met all other requirements, they do not have to do so.  The same goes for Agency Liason.  This is unlike the other ES specialties where if you have met the training requirements you get the qualification.  A Wing Commander has ultimate discretion on who their ICs are. 

The wing commander would not allow you to enter the training in the first place (as per the SQTR) if they did not want you to be and IC.  My point being....once you had the training, the commander could not just say no...I'm not going to promote you.  He must have a "cause"....even if it, "I don't have confidance in your abilities to work at this level."  Wing commanders are supposed to be doing that now.

That was in the context of your suggestion that people would earn the ES qualifications just to get the rank and would then do nothing at all ever again.  I have no problems calling those people losers as it is obvious that all they cared about was getting the rank.  Rank should be an incentive to people and I've got no problem with people doing what is required to earn it.  But, if they earn the rank and then don't perform the responsibilities associated with that rank -- for example, staying qualified and performing as IC, then they're a loser (unless they have to step down due to age or some other good reason).

My point is that your attitude towards people's motivation is detrimental to your abilty to lead.  At no time did anyone ask why I joined CAP....and guess what it's not your buisness.  People should be judged on actions not motivations.  Also how do wing commander's identify the "lossers" who are only in it for the rank and those who are in it for the "right" reasons? 

Any system that says...do the following tasks and you are promoted, whether it is ES, PD or outside education...means that you cannot limit the number of people who reach the highest levels.

Except for Lt. Col. which would only be given to ICs, which can be limited by the Wing Commander, that is true.  We have that system now.  Everyone in CAP could be a Lt. Col. if they wanted to.  However, even in our current loose system Lt. Cols are relatively rare (about 15% of seniors in my Wing).

Then why are you complaining about haveing too many Lt Cols not doing the work at the appropriate level?  One of the reasons why you only have 15% of your wing as Lt Col is because it is reltibly hard to get there.  It takes a 10 years to make Lt Col on the current system.  Even if the member was in it only for the rank....and his commander has not getten tired of him in all that time...I don't think you can say he is a looser.

Hence my orignal statement...is that basing rank on ES rateing is not a good idea.  You would make it easier for the rank hounds and not harder.  

Even though ICs have a lot of prestige in CAP now, we are very short of them and the upper level base staffs and if my proposal does nothing else but propell more qualified people into those jobs, it will have done a lot of good for CAP.

We are short of all Mission Base Staff...because it is hard, boring, thank less work and you don't get to fly or go out into the field.

I think your plan will get more people to do ES....but it will not help your preceived problem of having Lt Cols out there doing LT and Capt jobs.   

The problem as I see it isn't having too many people in the higher ranks, it is that the ranks at all levels are not associated with any real level of responsibility.  That is what my proposal is aimed at. 

So you are saying...that since you are qualified to do a Lt Col's job (as an IC) then it is okay that you wear the rank but never actually perform that job beyond the training period.  And that is different than the PD system in what way?  In theory...haveing spent all that time on staff, and getting a master rateing in some specialty...you are qualified to do the lob of a Lt Col....so wear the rank...even if you just working at the squadron level.

If someone does not believe that ranks should be associated with responsibility, I'm not going to try to convince them otherwise.  There are several other methods to address this problem (some I have mentioned) and I wouldn't be horribly upset if we took one of those paths rather than my proposal. 

Rank should be base on the level of respoinsibilty the individual is qualifed to work at....even if he is not working at that level.  And that is exactly what we have today...and would have if you got ES levels as a means of promotion.

[RiverAux]

lordm, its obvious I'm not going to convince you, and thats fine.  I'll wait till somebody new chimes in....

[lordmonar]

lordm, its obvious I'm not going to convince you, and thats fine.  I'll wait till somebody new chimes in....

No...you have convinced me.  I know exactly what you are talking about.....it is you who does not see that THIS "fix" is not going to fix the problem of rank vs. responsibility.

Once you train the guy to the job.  There is no guarantee that he will actually do the job and no requirement for him to do so.

The only fix that will correct the rank vs responsibility mismatch is temporary rank or an "up or out" sort of system.

So choose your poison.  No one likes temporary rank, no way could we live with an "up or out" rule...so we have to live with the fact that any rank system based on open requirements (as opposed to billets and a merit based selection process) will result in a rank heavy organization.

[Major_Chuck]

Is this really feasable in a world where the GA aviation safety record is way better then it was when we were tasked with THREE main missions.  In addition we live in a world where we tend to be tapped last by local sheriffs or not at all. 

Sometimes I feel that we talk a big game about how important in the SAR world we are when we spend most of our time chasing down ghost ELT's for AFRCC.

Attaching grade to ES qualifications is a nice idea, but what if you don't have any interest in emergency services?  The folks on the Cadet Programs side of the house will make the same arguement for their program while the AE folks lobby for grades associated with their program.

[SJFedor]

And if you follow the progression.  GTM3 to GTL to GTBD to Planning Section Chief to Ops Section Chief to IC-3.

You forgot the air side for Ops section chief.

You are right....a ground guy would have to get MS in there before going to planning.

On The air side...you go from MS, MO, Air Ops, GTM3, Planning, Ops, IC.

so...in fact it is harder to become an IC through the ground track than the air track. either way.  six or seven ratings.....at one rating every other month (that is one SAREX a month) and boom your a Lt Col!

Not to totally backtrack, but I believe you can go UDF-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC. Unless I've misread the 60-3, GBD requires either GTL or UDF.

Just in case you wanted to cut some more corners....


I've read over it, and everyone makes good points. But basing our promotion program based just on one side of the 3 sided house doesn't make it fair to the other 2 sides. Some want to join just to help with CP or AE, some live, breathe, and eat ops (myself).

It couldn't hurt to intertwine all of them, if you really want to make it feasable. You could offer grade incentives towards those that get higher level ES quals, but I wouldn't tread past Major for it. However, you need to give those same incentives to the other houses, so everyone's happy. Otherwise, CAP will need to buy a rather large bottle of asprin.

Grade means nothing in CAP anyway, why's it matter if you get more pretty meaningless bling on your collar, other then a little more stuff to stroke one's ego with.

[ZigZag911]

[so we have to live with the fact that any rank system based on open requirements (as opposed to billets and a merit based selection process) will result in a rank heavy organization.

Which is exactly why I want to reinstate enlisted and warrant/flight officer grades....start people a bit further down the food chain, and space out the steps a bit more

[RiverAux]

My proposal will not make everyone happy.  No proposal will, so I'm not going to worry if a few folks don't like it very much.  For those who really don't care about rank, then my proposal won't bother them anymore than any other system we have. 

The thing is that our current system really ignores all of our actual missions and only rewards achievement outside of CAP or doing some relatively minor level of administrative work associated with running CAP as an organization. 

Lets face facts.  Those involved with the "action" will always be promoted faster than those that are not.  Go in the real military and you will find the same thing.  Is it fair that the fighter pilot will probably promote faster than the guy that runs the fighter pilot training school flight safety program?  No it isn't, but its a fact of life.  In CAP, ES work is the equivalent of the combat arms specialties -- it is what we are most recognized for doing and accounts for the majority of the money spent on CAP. 

Is there were a realistic way to promote folks soley based on their contributions to AE or Cadet programs?  I haven't heard of one.  Is the guy coming up with a great squadron level AE program for the cadets a couple of times a month doing good things?  Sure, but I don't see any way to base a rank system on such contributions that makes sense.  If somebody knows a way to do so, please start a thread and lets see what people think. 

[Pylon]

I've had over a dozen years of CAP experience and am a former cadet. 

Basically you are discriminating against those who choose not to be involoved in ES and limit their climb. In your plan a guy who cant afford ES gear or who actually has a 9 to 5 job and cant spend time to get ES qualified is just out of luck.

How many of you have considered that the current CAP system "discriminates" against those who devote significant time to the ES program?  It is very difficult and time consuming to get and maintain ES qualifications and it is likely to get even more difficult as NIMS is implemented.

Why is it fair that an Incident Commander that may be in charge of running a dozen planes and well over a hundred members on a major mission in which somebody's life hangs in the balance might only be a Lt., while someone who has done nothing other than hold various staff jobs (which they may or may not have actually performed), took a correspondence course, and attended a few classes with no real tests could be a Lt. Col? 

What I am saying here is that our ES system is the one thing that CAP does that actually requires people to really demonstrate skills to get qualified and actually requires you to use those skills on a regular basis to maintain that qualification.   Do those skills apply to everything we do?  Not at all, and I recognize that. 

But, I think it is the fairest way of approaching the problem of matching CAP rank with level of responsibility and training that will most of the time result in higher rank people being in charge of lower rank people during missions. 

If you think you have members that are taking on a huge amount of responsibility with regards to ES training and positions, but they're not getting a rank you this is commensurate to the work they're brining to the table - then put them in for Special Promotion action.

We've done a handful from our squadron for high performers and they go through.  It doesn't require reinventing the whole current system and refocusing the entire organization's structure to accomplish recognizing the ES people from your squadron.

But I would ask this question:  If your people have the time to keep on the, as you say, difficult, time consuming, and sometimes expensive task of staying ES qualified, why don't they have the time to learn about CAP, leadership, the inner workings of CAP, and other important things by following the current professional development track as well?

Being "gung-ho" for ES training shouldn't mean members exclude themselves from other training.

[Major_Chuck]

The thing is that our current system really ignores all of our actual missions and only rewards achievement outside of CAP or doing some relatively minor level of administrative work associated with running CAP as an organization. 

Seven years of my life dealing with multple egos to keep two squadrons running in the black.  Then another nine years holding various wing and region staff positions to ensure that logistics audits were successful;  units had the vehicles they needed;  keeping vehicles maintained in a ready status;  ensuring that peoples promotions and awards got through in a timely manner;  endless safety briefings;  organizing and teaching at untold number of SLC, CLS's and Cadet Encampments. 

Why yes, I do see the relatively minor administrative work I did now.  Gosh, the twenty hours a week plus that I put in to CAP up and beyond a normal meeting night  to keep the organization running must not have counted for anything.  What was I thinking?  And to think that my wife gets mad at me for not spending enough time with her.   I guess maybe I should drop all this since it is "relatively minor" when compared to emergency services.

[RiverAux]

Probably most of the people on this board have worked their way up through every rung of the CAP rank system.  Many of use probably have been those folks putting 20 hours a week of CAP work in, but about 1 out of every 3 or 4 CAP members hasn't done anything like that to earn their rank  and in fact haven't even done the bare minimum to rate their rank (see the CAP field grade officer thread for facts to back this up). 

But, in many of the other threads it seems to be agreed that the current CAP rank system is flawed at its core.    So long as you can look at any given CAP officer and have no real idea of what their capabilities or training are based on their rank, the system won't be fair to anybody.  If folks don't accept that premise they're not going to like any of the proposals to fix it. 

[Major_Chuck]

Oh, I have no arguement there.  Our rank structure is bloated with officers who gain rank but do nothing.  In 1990 I joined CAP to do emergency services but ended up filling an endless list of staff and command assignments all the while progressing through our professional development program.  I feel I earned my oak leaves.

The sad part, because I was so dedicated to the mission support side I never did the ES stuff I originally signed up for.  It is this reason that I have concerns about this proposal.  Not everyone has the time, energy, or desire to do emergency services. 

** Just a side note here.  In the past year I've shed many of my region and wing staff duties and returned to a local squadron so that I may go beyond my GES level of training and start having 'fun' again in CAP.

[RiverAux]

I have been exactly in the same place as you (at least up to Wing level) and have had to take a break from staff work to recharge my batteries.  I'm thinking that every third or fourth year you need to just step back and be a regular old CAP member with no responsibilities.  Otherwise you burn out on the work or burn up in the politics. 

[lordmonar]

Not to totally backtrack, but I believe you can go UDF-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC. Unless I've misread the 60-3, GBD requires either GTL or UDF.

No...the Mission Base Task Guide say that GBD requires GTL. (of course...it would not be too unusaly for the task guide not to be in synce with 60-3)  So it's got to be GTM3-GTL-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC3 or MS-MO-AOBD-GTM3-PSC-OSC-IC3.

It couldn't hurt to intertwine all of them, if you really want to make it feasable. You could offer grade incentives towards those that get higher level ES quals, but I wouldn't tread past Major for it. However, you need to give those same incentives to the other houses, so everyone's happy. Otherwise, CAP will need to buy a rather large bottle of asprin.

Concure....Just like we make the cadets hit all 5 program areas for each rank...I would not be against making sure that each PD level has some of each in it.

Require GES for Level I....MSA, MS, UDF, GTM3, MRO for Level II....GTL, MO, CUL, MSO for level III....etc, and so on.

I would also break up the chapters of the Yeager Test into several smaller tests.  Requiring a AE test at each level.  Nothing too hard...but at least a taste of what is going on.  I would also require some contact with the external AE program and CP at each level (level I being an orientation of the programs).

Nothing too hard...nothing that would slow down the promotion system...but would make our PD match our mission statement.

YMMV

[Pylon]

Not to totally backtrack, but I believe you can go UDF-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC. Unless I've misread the 60-3, GBD requires either GTL or UDF.

No...the Mission Base Task Guide say that GBD requires GTL. (of course...it would not be too unusaly for the task guide not to be in synce with 60-3)  So it's got to be GTM3-GTL-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC3 or MS-MO-AOBD-GTM3-PSC-OSC-IC3.

It couldn't hurt to intertwine all of them, if you really want to make it feasable. You could offer grade incentives towards those that get higher level ES quals, but I wouldn't tread past Major for it. However, you need to give those same incentives to the other houses, so everyone's happy. Otherwise, CAP will need to buy a rather large bottle of asprin.

Concure....Just like we make the cadets hit all 5 program areas for each rank...I would not be against making sure that each PD level has some of each in it.

Require GES for Level I....MSA, MS, UDF, GTM3, MRO for Level II....GTL, MO, CUL, MSO for level III....etc, and so on.

I would also break up the chapters of the Yeager Test into several smaller tests.  Requiring a AE test at each level.  Nothing too hard...but at least a taste of what is going on.  I would also require some contact with the external AE program and CP at each level (level I being an orientation of the programs).

Nothing too hard...nothing that would slow down the promotion system...but would make our PD match our mission statement.

YMMV

So people who aren't physically able to become, say, a GTM are not able to promote past a certain level because they can't participate?

What about those of us who bring certain specialties to the table and only want to contribute that?  The EMT who wants to be a Health Services Officer?  The teacher who wants to instruct cadets?   Should they be told that either they contribute to every aspect of CAP, including earning ES ratings they'll never want to use, or they can't promote?

Sorry, we already have enough problems with retention.  Let members pick and choose which aspects of the program they'd like to contribute to and not be punished for choosing to do so.

Perhaps you might think of a skill level system, like the USAF's which could have a bearing on promotions?  That way, those in different "carrer fields" within CAP (ES, CP, Support Services, AE, etc.) can grow and expand their professional development and contributions to CAP in a meaningful way and promote based on that.

For example, Joe Smith wants to do ES.  After earning a pre-described set of ratings, doing an orientation program, and contributing for 6 months, he earns his Level I.  Earning an additional set of ratings to pick from (none of which discriminate against those that cannot become GTMs or Pilots) and advancing their training and mission participation, along with some more "text-book" PD stuff, earns them Level II. 

But for the guy who just wants to support the Cadet Program, there is another, but similar set of requirements to earn each Level.  Same for those in the support services areas, like Logistics, Admin/Personnel, Finance, etc.

[lordmonar]

So people who aren't physically able to become, say, a GTM are not able to promote past a certain level because they can't participate?

No...there will be multiple paths that you can take to move up in rank.  I would not require anyone into a path where they would get stoved piped due to money, time or physical ability. 

For a person with limited physical abilities....they could go the MRO (level II), CUL (Level III), Logistics (level IV).

Ground team would go GTM 3-GTL-GBD.

Flying would go MS-MO-AOBD.

I would develop other ES rating for the purely administrative work so there would be a logical progression there as well.

What about those of us who bring certain specialties to the table and only want to contribute that?  The EMT who wants to be a Health Services Officer?  The teacher who wants to instruct cadets?   Should they be told that either they contribute to every aspect of CAP, including earning ES ratings they'll never want to use, or they can't promote?

To a point...yes....if they want to progress....we can make them do what ever we want...If someone has absolutely no interests in doing anything except being the squadron medic.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  He will stay a 1st Lt forever.  It's not like we are making him get promoted.  I'm not the one saying they must do anything except what they want to do.

But...since CAP does have three main focus areas...I think everyone should have taste of each area.  MRO, MSA, MS, GTM3....It's not too much to ask anyone who wants to be a Capt to take one one of these ES ratings.  It will cost them two Saturdays or even a single week end (depending on how you run your SAREXs).  GTM3 may take a little more than the rest...but the choice is up to the individual.

I also said we would require a CP and external and internal AE part to the promotion process.  I don't quite know what that would entail...I'm still working on it.

Sorry, we already have enough problems with retention.  Let members pick and choose which aspects of the program they'd like to contribute to and not be punished for choosing to do so.

I don't see this a punishment.  This is about training.  Requiring our Capt's all to have experienced at least 2 SAREX missions is not punishment.  I will also be requiring those GT guys who hate cadets to do something at that level and everyone to experience some sort of AE function.

Not to mention test like the cadet take.....they may be open book....but at least it requires you to read the information once.

Perhaps you might think of a skill level system, like the USAF's which could have a bearing on promotions?  That way, those in different "career fields" within CAP (ES, CP, Support Services, AE, etc.) can grow and expand their professional development and contributions to CAP in a meaningful way and promote based on that.

Got that that now...they are called specialty tracks...You have to have a tech rating (3 level) a Senior Rating (5 level) and a Master rating (7 level) (357 are enlisted levels...officers use a different set of numbers...but I don't know what they are).

And that is all good.....But diversification and getting a taste of what goes on elsewhere is a good thing.  I am not saying that you have to be an expert at every thing.

At least in this theory....as someone move up the promotion ladder he has a little idea of what the other guy is doing.  Don't we just hate that.  Getting a boss that came of the ladder from the "other division" and has no idea what you are doing.

In the USAF we help solve this problem by requiring our 7 levels to have an orientation of all the other career fields in their career field 2 letter group.

That is all the 1A's go to the same 7 level school and learn what the 1A1X1s, 1A1X2, 1A2X1...et al do.  Because when you become a 9 level...all the career fields start to merge.

[Dragoon]

Same basic points as in a million other threads.

1.  To the military, rank represents authority and responsibility (there are a few exceptions, but this is the 90% answer)

2.  In the military, you cannot work too far below your rank (grade).  They won't let you.  If you don't want to work at your grade, you're fired.

3.  In the military, the normal way you get grade, especially officer grade,  is  not by attending schools, but by doing a good job in the role you are assigned, and showing your bosses that you have the talent to serve at a higher level.

4. In the military, mandatory retirement age and an "up or out" policy keeps fresh blood moving up through the ranks.

5.  In the military, the number of each grade authorized is set, based on mission requirements and funding.  We don't promote someone to major because he did a good job, we promote him because we NEED another major and he's the best candidate.


In CAP, none of the above apply.  CAP has three unique challenges.

1.  Members can work at any level they durn well please.  They cannot be forced to work at a level commensurate with their grade.  Today's Wing Vice Commander is tomorrow's Squadron Emergency Services Officer.

2.  Members don't have to leave CAP until they die.  As they get older, they tend to want to work in lower level, less taxing jobs.

3.  CAP has two completely separate chains of authority and responsibility - the one used on missions, and the one used in the squadron/group/wing administrative hierarchy.  A squadron commander can easily end up working for one of his assistant staff officers on a mission based on ES quals.


The result of this has, in the end, turned all rank below COL into basically training awards, with no authority or responsibility attached to it.  It probably was the easiest way to go.


And yet, we choose to wear USAF-style officer's rank, which brings up endless comparisons between our officers and USAF officers.  Naturally, we tend to suffer in these comparisons.


I agree with lordmonar - promoting based on ES quals wouldn't fix much.  It doesn't address any of the CAP's challenges listed above.

It seems to me the possible solutions  are (and yeah, I've posted these before0

1.  Keep officers grade as a training award

2.  Make it temporary - you wear it when you are in a position of authority, and take it off when you aren't.

3.  Create a military model that promotes members based on efficiency reports and training, and fires or formally demotes members who don't perform at the level of their grade.

4.  Eliminate grade entirely.

5.  Create a CAP specific grade structure that is designed to be based on training only, but doesn't look like USAF grade, eliminating the comparisons.


Or some combination of the above.

[SJFedor]

Not to totally backtrack, but I believe you can go UDF-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC. Unless I've misread the 60-3, GBD requires either GTL or UDF.

No...the Mission Base Task Guide say that GBD requires GTL. (of course...it would not be too unusaly for the task guide not to be in synce with 60-3)  So it's got to be GTM3-GTL-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC3 or MS-MO-AOBD-GTM3-PSC-OSC-IC3.

See CAPR 60-3, which is the authority on ES ratings. Mission Base Task Guide is a reference and definition of specific requirements. General issuance is as follows:

m. Ground Branch Director (GBD).

1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GBD:
a) At least 18 years of age.
b) Qualified Ground Team Leader or Urban DF Team Member (need not be current).
c) Qualified GES.

[lordmonar]

Not to totally backtrack, but I believe you can go UDF-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC. Unless I've misread the 60-3, GBD requires either GTL or UDF.

No...the Mission Base Task Guide say that GBD requires GTL. (of course...it would not be too unusaly for the task guide not to be in synce with 60-3)  So it's got to be GTM3-GTL-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC3 or MS-MO-AOBD-GTM3-PSC-OSC-IC3.

See CAPR 60-3, which is the authority on ES ratings. Mission Base Task Guide is a reference and definition of specific requirements. General issuance is as follows:

m. Ground Branch Director (GBD).

1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GBD:
a) At least 18 years of age.
b) Qualified Ground Team Leader or Urban DF Team Member (need not be current).
c) Qualified GES.

Yes you are correct....like I said once again two CAP pubications do not sync and we end up with miscommunication in the field.

Thanks for pointing it out to me.

[lordmonar]

Dragoon.

I agree with your assessment of the situation and understanding of the possilble solutions.

For what it's worth.  I would go with the combination of CAP specific rank to track training progression and USAF temporary rank to denote your currentl level of responsibilty.

What rank you wear would be driven by the size of your squaron, group or wing and when you step down...you take off that rank and put back on your Flight Officer rank.

That would take care of a lot....and cause some problems (like what do we do with the advance promotion guys....particually the former officers).

[davedove]

Not to totally backtrack, but I believe you can go UDF-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC. Unless I've misread the 60-3, GBD requires either GTL or UDF.

No...the Mission Base Task Guide say that GBD requires GTL. (of course...it would not be too unusaly for the task guide not to be in synce with 60-3)  So it's got to be GTM3-GTL-GBD-MS-PSC-OSC-IC3 or MS-MO-AOBD-GTM3-PSC-OSC-IC3.

See CAPR 60-3, which is the authority on ES ratings. Mission Base Task Guide is a reference and definition of specific requirements. General issuance is as follows:

m. Ground Branch Director (GBD).

1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GBD:
a) At least 18 years of age.
b) Qualified Ground Team Leader or Urban DF Team Member (need not be current).
c) Qualified GES.

Yes you are correct....like I said once again two CAP pubications do not sync and we end up with miscommunication in the field.

Thanks for pointing it out to me.

The two are not sync and do need to be clarified (what else is knew? ).  The latest Mission Base Staff Task Guide is dated 11 April 2005, where the 60-3 is dated 26 May 04, so I would say the most recent should be the best guide.

[Major_Chuck]

How about this model:

Officer grades reserved for those holding command and staff slots.

Wing Commander:  Colonel
Vice Commander, Chief of Staff:  Lt Colonels
Groups Commanders (large):  Lieutenant Colonel
Groups Commanders (small):  Major
Squadron Commanders:  Captains
Squadron Staff Officers:  First Lieutenant

Wing Staff Officers:  Majors, Captains depending upon position.

Everyone else when not serving in a staff or command slot would wear a flight officer grade depending upon what level of the senior training program you are in (1 to 5).

When you were no longer holding a command or staff position, away goes the grade.

[Dragoon]

Yup.  I'd just add one more thing.

There is a minimum PD level for each rank.  And if you choose to assign a guy to a commissioned position who doesn't meet that PD level, they are limited to the commissioned grade they are trained for.

So, if you choose to make a Level II guy a region director of something, he might only get captain.  But the minute he finishes level III, if he's still in the job he gets an instant promotion.

This way, you continue to reward folks for progressing in PD.

[lordmonar]

Yup.  I'd just add one more thing.

There is a minimum PD level for each rank.  And if you choose to assign a guy to a commissioned position who doesn't meet that PD level, they are limited to the commissioned grade they are trained for.

So, if you choose to make a Level II guy a region director of something, he might only get captain.  But the minute he finishes level III, if he's still in the job he gets an instant promotion.

This way, you continue to reward folks for progressing in PD.

We can also use the same system for the advanced promotion.   If you are a USAF Lt Col...you still have to do the PD...but we give you a pass on the staff duty time and TIG requirments.

Don't know how we can give them a pass on the Specailty track requirments and the staff time they require.  But something can be worked out.

[Hawk200]

Still seeing a lot of ES snobbery in this thread. We shouldn't treat ES as the be-all, end-all program of Civil Air Patrol.

I've known more than a few people that have been in CAP for twenty or thirty years that didn't do ES, at all. They would have been capped a long time ago, and probably wouldn't stay around. If CAP required ES quals for advancement, I'd probably reconsider my own presence in CAP. Personally, I choose to contribute to both CAP and the military on my own terms, not theirs. (Just waiting for the misunderstandings on that statement)

And before we get the inevitable childish response of "That's just you!", don't bother. I would not be alone in these thoughts, someone else is thinking them too. The only difference is that you know I think that way, you don't know how many are being silent about it.

And I'm not going to bother saying "Well half the membership would leave", because I don't know how many would. On the flip side, nobody can really say how many would stay. Those kind of false statistics are completely unproven, and pointless to introduce.

[lordmonar]

Well...there is a happy ballance between "My mission is the only one that counts" and "We have to be qualified and prepared to do all three missions" and the place in-between "I don't do any missions I'm just the chaplain/admin/fiance/supply/pao".

I think it would be a good thing to require everyone to do something from each mission group as they progress.  That is...earn an ES rating, Pass a cadet style AE test, attend/staff an exteranl AE event, attend/staff a cadet event.

For one thing...it would help break down this "ES Snobbery" "CP snobbery" and "AE Snobbery".

[ColonelJack]

Well, I won't address the issue of presumed ES snobbery.  I mean, hey, if some people want to think CAP is the Emergency Services organization and we just happen to do Cadet Program and Aerospace Education, then who am I to tell them otherwise?  (Besides, they wouldn't listen to me.)

But I will address this idea of tying grade to position and not having it unless you serve in such a slot.  Remember, I speak from a position of "I've already gone as far as I'm likely to go so it wouldn't affect me at all."

Service in CAP is voluntary, and you will probably find as many different reasons to serve as there are members of the organization.  For many, the ideas proposed here would be just fine and dandy.  But there are many people who do their service and like to get some kind of recognition for their work.  Since we don't get paid in the sense of something to put in the bank or spend on ourselves, for these members the "payday" comes in the form of bling ... or advancement in grade.  And these proposals take that away from those members.

Before we take away a major facet of CAP's "payday," let's see what will replace it.  Intrinsic rewards don't work for everyone.

Jack

[Hawk200]

Well...there is a happy ballance between "My mission is the only one that counts" and "We have to be qualified and prepared to do all three missions" and the place in-between "I don't do any missions I'm just the chaplain/admin/fiance/supply/pao".

There are a lot of people that don't even get to that. They just do their jobs. And the current PD levels don't require any focus on ES or CP or AE. And there is really no reason they should. What does requiring the the MLO to do ES get them? Additional headaches. And think just think of how you would respond if you asked the guy sitting in the corner his specialty track, and he tells you "Oh, I'm the historian."

Based on those two scenarios, can you honestly tell me that every single senior member in CAP needs to be ES qualified? I don't think you can. So unless everyone needs to do something ES related for their specialty track, it is completely wrong to require it for promotion.

I think it would be a good thing to require everyone to do something from each mission group as they progress.  That is...earn an ES rating, Pass a cadet style AE test, attend/staff an exteranl AE event, attend/staff a cadet event.

I don't think that a person needs qualifications in all three. However, I think that there should be some mandatory familiarization programs for all three, for a few reasons that I can think of...

The unit that focuses only on the cadet program in the middle of Wyoming should still be familiar with ES and AE in concept. A recruiting speil of "We just march the kids around all the time" isn't exactly going to have an overwhelming response. Likewise, the senior only unit that flies shouldn't be saying "Cadets!? No I don't work with kids!" Sadly both are probably more common than we realize or care to admit.

Plus, it would make higher ranking individuals a little more rounded at higher levels. The DCC at wing should have at least an inkling as to what the ES side of the house does, and that cadets can offer something to it.

There is also the issue that there are cadets that get their Curry to do ES, and then either don't promote, or take a year to get their Arnold. That does happen, a little too regularly, and I fairly certain that a lot of folks here have seen it too. Requiring ES for senior levels might be serving as an example to cadets that we don't want.

Personally, I'm all for a few more tests in the Senior program. Like I said before on a thread or two, if you attend a function, and you don't test, it's not a school or course, it's a presentation. You haven't passed anything by sipping your coffee while you're looking at some Powerpoint slides.

dFor one thing...it would help break down this "ES Snobbery" "CP snobbery" and "AE Snobbery".

I think that famliarizations would be useful in doing that. I don't see a need to require qualifications in the various programs, but people need to know what those programs are about.

[lordmonar]

Hawk200,

I understand your point of view and it is a valid point....if you don't need it...why require it.

On the other hand.

We are basically talking about the basic capabilities of our entire organisation and the capabilities of the officers there of.

If all you want to be is the historian...that's great.  So you stay 2nd Lt forever and do your job.  Get your masters level in the history specialty track and all is good.

But if you want to move up in rank...you should get some familiarisation training in what the there parts of CAP are doing.

So...go out and get MSA training.  Costs you 2-3 hours of study time and two SAREX's worth of your time.  Take a cadet phase III/IV AE test, attend an external AE event/conference/presention and attend a cadet programs event.

Again I am not saying you have to get a tech rating in CP or AE.  But to participate in what they are doing.

If you want to be a Major...more of the same, just at a higher level or responsibility.  A higher ES rating, staff an AE event, take the next AE test, staff an encampment (you can be the encampment historian...and mentor a cadet staff officer).   A little bit more of a commitment but you should be taking on/showing more commitment if you want to be a major.

And then once again the same for Lt Col.

The funny thing is...that most of the PD already has some of these same elements in them.  Go look at the requirements for level IV.  It requires you to get your Yeager or do and external AE event or a CAP external presention.  It requires you to be on a SLS, CLS or UCC staff.

So this stuff is already there....I would only be adding a few more elements and requiring different focuses to build a more rounded officer.

This sort of PD would require members seeking higher rank to break out of their little mind set.  It would require the Senior Squadron "I don't work with kids" guy to go and work with kids and to learn what the AE program is about.  By the same token it would require the AE guys to spend a little time at the mission base and cadet squadrons learning about their program.

It would teach familiarisation by requiring the member to do it.  Which is the best way to tech.  Somethings can be taught by power point slides...but to really appreciate what and how the mission is done you have to go out and do it.

Again...I'm not saying everyone as to become an expert in every aspect....just a little taste.

The experience will help the member do his job better because he would be able to apply the book learning with real applications.  And even a historian could benefit with this sort of training...because now he would understand what it means when he is archiving the Mission Base Historical records or preparing the unit history.

I'm not wedded to this idea...and maybe we can compromise what the training would actually consist of.  But you cannot say that more familiarisation of all our missions would not be beneficial to our officers.

[Hawk200]

We are basically talking about the basic capabilities of our entire organisation and the capabilities of the officers there of.

Not our entire organization. You would be requiring everyone to have skills that they don't need. Like the aforementioned cadet unit that doesn't focus on ES. And what about our legislative units? To be legitimate officers they would have to do it too. And if you require it for general membership, you would have to reasonably require it there too, or else it just shows all the more that they don't earn anything.

There are dozens of units that don't do ES. You would be adding an additional requirement to them. With no real improvement in their missions. Noone is going to say "Oh, I can be a better personnel officer because I took those ES quals." Which is why I refer to it as snobbery.

If all you want to be is the historian...that's great.  So you stay 2nd Lt forever and do your job.  Get your masters level in the history specialty track and all is good.

But if you want to move up in rank...you should get some familiarisation training in what the there parts of CAP are doing.

I think that's the wrong attitude, people will treat those that don't do the ES quals as inferior. It will happen, even if we don't want to think about it.

So...go out and get MSA training.  Costs you 2-3 hours of study time and two SAREX's worth of your time.  Take a cadet phase III/IV AE test, attend an external AE event/conference/presention and attend a cadet programs event.

Again I am not saying you have to get a tech rating in CP or AE.  But to participate in what they are doing.

I'm working on a scanner rating, but because I chose to get involved in ES. Not because it makes me any better at the jobs I was doing. I don't need ES to do Personnel or Senior Programs, I know that for a fact. And people will look at that the same way. Even if you force them, they know that they don't really need it.

The funny thing is...that most of the PD already has some of these same elements in them.  Go look at the requirements for level IV.  It requires you to get your Yeager or do and external AE event or a CAP external presention.  It requires you to be on a SLS, CLS or UCC staff.

Those are AE events, not ES. And someone could use that to say that AE is more important. I would not agree, but the argument could be made.

So this stuff is already there....I would only be adding a few more elements and requiring different focuses to build a more rounded officer.

This sort of PD would require members seeking higher rank to break out of their little mind set.  It would require the Senior Squadron "I don't work with kids" guy to go and work with kids and to learn what the AE program is about.  By the same token it would require the AE guys to spend a little time at the mission base and cadet squadrons learning about their program.

It would teach familiarisation by requiring the member to do it.  Which is the best way to tech.  Somethings can be taught by power point slides...but to really appreciate what and how the mission is done you have to go out and do it.

Again...I'm not saying everyone as to become an expert in every aspect....just a little taste.

I disagree. Requiring qualifications is not the same as familiarization. Showing people what those programs are about is. I agree that people need to know other things about CAP. Show them what is out there, and you'll find that they will pursue things on their own. But requiring ES qual is telling them that ES is the be-all end-all program for CAP.

The experience will help the member do his job better because he would be able to apply the book learning with real applications.  And even a historian could benefit with this sort of training...because now he would understand what it means when he is archiving the Mission Base Historical records or preparing the unit history.

I'm not wedded to this idea...and maybe we can compromise what the training would actually consist of.  But you cannot say that more familiarisation of all our missions would not be beneficial to our officers.

Historians catalog stuff all the time without knowing the nuts and bolts of what was happening. What is really going to go on at a mission base procedurally that history needs to record? I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a legitimate argument to me.

I think requiring familiarization is a good idea. Forcing people to become ES qual is an example of " My mission is the only one that counts".

[capchiro]

To make this more like the "real" Air Force, let's require that all commanders be pilots and maybe we will let in the occasional observer, just for diversity?  Now, if all commanders are air crew, shouldn't all rank go to air crew?  I mean we can let new members be 2 Lt's.  Once they finish level one, but after that, they can either spend their money and get pilot qualified or if they can't afford that they can attempt to become scanners and observers through the program.  Now, we are really getting back to our roots.  All ES and CP could be conducted by enlisted and/or 2Lt's. with the exception of their command structure, which of course will require the silver wings upon the chest.  Now, wasn't that simple??  (written in sarcasm, but as viable as most of the suggestions here). 

[lordmonar]

Not our entire organization. You would be requiring everyone to have skills that they don't need. Like the aforementioned cadet unit that doesn't focus on ES. And what about our legislative units? To be legitimate officers they would have to do it too. And if you require it for general membership, you would have to reasonably require it there too, or else it just shows all the more that they don't earn anything.

Yes...you are right....it would have to be for everyone.  What is wrong with that?  The Legislative unit would be better positioned to make laws that affect all three missions of CAP if they were exposed on a working level to all three missions.

The purely CP units could learn practical applications of leadership to help them teach the theoretical aspects of leadership.

The AE unit members will have exposure to both of the missions as they educate the general public about Aerospace Power and the CAP.

The middle of the road...I'm just a support troop...guys can see how their little slice of the pie fits into the big picture making them more effecitve in their jobs.

There are dozens of units that don't do ES. You would be adding an additional requirement to them. With no real improvement in their missions. Noone is going to say "Oh, I can be a better personnel officer because I took those ES quals." Which is why I refer to it as snobbery.

Well two things....this would not be mandating units to participate just the individual members seeking promotion.  And secondly...maybe if some of the CP only and AE only units (and the ES only units working from the other end) would get exposure to the other missions and decide that they like them.  They would then start up a CP/AE/ES function at their home units.  No one is saying that Podunct Cadet Squadron has to field a full Ground Team or 2-4 air crew...only that the higher ranking members be exposed to all the missions CAP does.

I think that's the wrong attitude, people will treat those that don't do the ES quals as inferior. It will happen, even if we don't want to think about it.

You don't think they do that now?  Why do you think that is?  Because we have built walls between the three missions and we play I'm better than you games.  Remember I am also going to require those Senior ES squadrons to get out into the Cadet Squadrons and working with the AE people too.  Everyone gets to share the pain.  Shared missery builds charater and team work.

I'm working on a scanner rating, but because I chose to get involved in ES. Not because it makes me any better at the jobs I was doing. I don't need ES to do Personnel or Senior Programs, I know that for a fact. And people will look at that the same way. Even if you force them, they know that they don't really need it.

Again this is not about "need" but broading your horizons and the horizons of every high ranking SM.

Those are AE events, not ES. And someone could use that to say that AE is more important. I would not agree, but the argument could be made.

Yes...I belevie that is because the guys who wrote the PD program assumed that ES was a given in both the Senior and Cadet Squadrons....but there has been a drift between the two with only the composite squadrons sticking to the original concept of CAP.

I disagree. Requiring qualifications is not the same as familiarization. Showing people what those programs are about is. I agree that people need to know other things about CAP. Show them what is out there, and you'll find that they will pursue things on their own. But requiring ES qual is telling them that ES is the be-all end-all program for CAP.

I think you have something against ES...but I am also requiring the ES guys to get invovled in the CP and AE programs as well....so they are just as mad at me as you are.  I just think we should use existing programs to accomplish the task of familursation training instead of building some new course that will not be nearly as good as going out and doing some in the field/classroom/drill pad.

Historians catalog stuff all the time without knowing the nuts and bolts of what was happening. What is really going to go on at a mission base procedurally that history needs to record? I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a legitimate argument to me.

I think requiring familiarization is a good idea. Forcing people to become ES qual is an example of " My mission is the only one that counts".

And your resistance tofamiliarization training is only showing your "My CP mission is the only one that counts"

I say again...for about the nth time.....Everyone (AE, CP adn ES) guys will have to spend some time doing everyone elses mission.  It is intended to break down the "My mission is the most important" attitude.  If you don't know what and how they do it...you can't appreciate what they do.

[Hawk200]

I think that's the wrong attitude, people will treat those that don't do the ES quals as inferior. It will happen, even if we don't want to think about it.

You don't think they do that now?  Why do you think that is?  Because we have built walls between the three missions and we play I'm better than you games.  Remember I am also going to require those Senior ES squadrons to get out into the Cadet Squadrons and working with the AE people too.  Everyone gets to share the pain.  Shared missery builds charater and team work.

Yeah, it does happen now. Which is why I'm totally against disrciminating against those who don't do it. And not allowing promotion based on lack of ES quals is exactly would that would be doing.

I'm working on a scanner rating, but because I chose to get involved in ES. Not because it makes me any better at the jobs I was doing. I don't need ES to do Personnel or Senior Programs, I know that for a fact. And people will look at that the same way. Even if you force them, they know that they don't really need it.

Again this is not about "need" but broading your horizons and the horizons of every high ranking SM.

Telling someone they can't be promoted if they don't do ES is about need. To get promoted, they would need your mandated ES quals.

Those are AE events, not ES. And someone could use that to say that AE is more important. I would not agree, but the argument could be made.

Yes...I belevie that is because the guys who wrote the PD program assumed that ES was a given in both the Senior and Cadet Squadrons....but there has been a drift between the two with only the composite squadrons sticking to the original concept of CAP.

Since we don't have the guys around that wrote the PD program, we'll never know. But I doubt it.

I disagree. Requiring qualifications is not the same as familiarization. Showing people what those programs are about is. I agree that people need to know other things about CAP. Show them what is out there, and you'll find that they will pursue things on their own. But requiring ES qual is telling them that ES is the be-all end-all program for CAP.

I think you have something against ES...but I am also requiring the ES guys to get invovled in the CP and AE programs as well....so they are just as mad at me as you are.  I just think we should use existing programs to accomplish the task of familursation training instead of building some new course that will not be nearly as good as going out and doing some in the field/classroom/drill pad.

Yeah, of course, I have something against ES. That's why I'm training for mission scanner and eventually observer. I'm totally against ES overall.

If you didn't get it, that was sarcasm. And only because you are apparently not paying attention to what I've posted before. ES is a program that serves the community in much the same manner as serving in the military. But it is not everyone's cup of tea.

Historians catalog stuff all the time without knowing the nuts and bolts of what was happening. What is really going to go on at a mission base procedurally that history needs to record? I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a legitimate argument to me.

I think requiring familiarization is a good idea. Forcing people to become ES qual is an example of " My mission is the only one that counts".

And your resistance tofamiliarization training is only showing your "My CP mission is the only one that counts"

My resistance to "familiarization" training? Yet another indicator that you are not paying attention. I advocate familiarization with the other programs. You are advocating mandatory participation in the ES program.

I say again...for about the nth time.....Everyone (AE, CP adn ES) guys will have to spend some time doing everyone elses mission.  It is intended to break down the "My mission is the most important" attitude.  If you don't know what and how they do it...you can't appreciate what they do.

And as I said before, not everyone wants to do everyone elses mission. You are forcing it.

Let me ask you this: When you joined the Air Force, did you choose an AFSC? Did you cross train at all? Did you contribute to the military on your terms? If you say yes, then you cannot, in good conscience, force the same requirements of someone else. Especially volunteers.

[lordmonar]

Hawk you accuse me of not reading your posts...but I am not only mandating ES training...but CP and AE training as well.

You even quoated me saying so!

[Hawk200]

Hawk you accuse me of not reading your posts...but I am not only mandating ES training...but CP and AE training as well.

You even quoated me saying so!

I'll concede that I didn't expand on the subject as the conversation changed. But the same principle applies, it doesn't change anything really. You still force partcipation into areas that people may or may not be interested in.

The fact that I didn't expand to include CP, AE, and ES under one broad brush as you did doesn't provide any support for your arguments.

Another way to look at things. We talk about well rounded officers. At the higher levels, we need them. The wing officer should have an idea of the other CAP missions.

Maybe I should have mentioned this in the first, but when it comes to wing staff positions you perform hiring practices. If someone isn't well rounded, you don't hire for a wing staff position. It's pretty much that simple. And far easier than training everybody into the various programs, be they ES, AE, or CP.

[lordmonar]

Let me ask you this: When you joined the Air Force, did you choose an AFSC? Did you cross train at all? Did you contribute to the military on your terms? If you say yes, then you cannot, in good conscience, force the same requirements of someone else. Especially volunteers.

Thanks for bringing that up.

When I joined the USAF my AFSC was 304X0 Wideband communications systems maintenance.

After a few AFSC mergers I am no a 2E1X1 Satellite/Wideband/Telemetry Systems.

Before you get your 7 level (after you make E-5) you have to go to a couse where every 2E carreer field learns about what every other 23 career feild does.  When you get promoted to E-6 and E-7 you use this information to better coordinate the operations of your AFSC with the other AFSCs in your unit and other units.

When you get promoted to E-8 you change to a new AFSC 2E090 that is supervises all the 2E career fields.  I may be a Satcom-widebander but if/when I make SMSgt I may be incharge of a radio maintenance branch or an airfield maintenance branch.

So...yes...the USAF is making me get familiurisation training on all the comm-electronics maintenance fields as I progress in rank.  It makes me a better leaders.

Yes...I would be mandating participation in the other CAP missions.  If you don't want to participate....don't get promoted.  There is no requirment to advance in the PD system.  Be the best unit level historian, CP, AE or Admin. ES, Pilot, PAO...or whatever type you can be.  Just don't ever become a Capt.  You can be that old crusty 1st Lt who has been doing history forever.

But in an attempt to make CAP officers, better CAP officers, who understand how their little peice of the puzzel in the big picture I would suggest that Familurzation training would be good.

I also suggest that the BEST familurization training is to actually do it.

If you are a CP or AE guy...how do you learn about ES...get a rating.  Do your two missions (which can be done in one day or one weekend) and you now know what goes on in the ES side of the house.

If you are an ES or AE guy....how do you learn about CP?  Hold a cadet ES training course or a model rockety program.

If you are an ES or CP guy how do you learn about the AE program....take an ES test (mini yeager) and participate in an AE presentation.

Like I said...everyone will do a little bit of everyone else's job.

And just to be clear on things....I am a CP guy.  I have everything I need for my SR rating in CP except my SLS.  I was a cadet squadron commander for 2 years and I am the Liason to the Nellis Cadet Squadron right now.  I have only just started my ES training in the last 6 months.

I am also the squadron AE officer...a job I only know about as it applies to the cadet program but I am learning it as I go.

So...I am not asking anyone to get involved into this as nearly as I am....but just asking members to spend some of their time in other areas....it will make you better at what ever you do in your own squadron and will make you 10X, 100X better if you move up to group or wing.

Telling you you can't get promoted with out this is not about need...but to make sure that the ones we do promote are well rounded, capable officers.

[lordmonar]

I'll concede that I didn't expand on the subject as the conversation changed. But the same principle applies, it doesn't change anything really. You still force participation into areas that people may or may not be interested in.

The fact that I didn't expand to include CP, AE, and ES under one broad brush as you did doesn't provide any support for your arguments.

Another way to look at things. We talk about well rounded officers. At the higher levels, we need them. The wing officer should have an idea of the other CAP missions.

Maybe I should have mentioned this in the first, but when it comes to wing staff positions you perform hiring practices. If someone isn't well rounded, you don't hire for a wing staff position. It's pretty much that simple. And far easier than training everybody into the various programs, be they ES, AE, or CP.

Sure.....if you just don't want to do anything but your little bit of the game...I got no problem with that.  Just don't expect to get promoted.

One of the purposes of the PD program is to develop officers who are ready to move up into higher levels of command/staff.  The PD program should be making those well rounded officers for the wing/group commanders to choose from.  If we don't have a process to create these officers we run the risk of not having qualified officers available and having to make do with who ever volunteers for the job (which is that whole desire vs quality thread).

You accept that fact that these are the guys we need at wing and group.....but you don't think that we should tie rank with ability.   Should not all Majors be able to work at the group level and all Lt Cols at the Wing?  I do.  And I thing that the PD system that produces these officers should be making them ready for that responsibility....even if they never actually do it....they should be ready to do so.

So...if you just don't want to do AE/CP/ES (take your choice) want to just be happy at the squadron level doing your job as good as you can....don't try to get promoted.

Any argument that says...but I don't need it for my job...can be extended to about 90% of the PD system as it is.  Does a squadron Personnel Specialist really NEED SLS or course 13 or CLC?  No...of course not...if he is in a one deep slot and just pushes papers all day.  He is happy doing his job plugging away....but the guys who wrote the PD program felt that if you want to be a Capt....you got to have SLS and course 13...no matter what you do.  It makes you a better officer....not necessarily a better Admin Officer or Pilots, or Leadership Officer or MLO or DCC or AEO or PAO....but a better Officer.

[Hawk200]

I don't see a need for every person to be able to work at group or wing. And in many cases, it doesn't happen. You cannot honestly tell me that there will be a group or wing staff slot for everyone that wants one. The reality of the structure doesn't allow it. So why force training for someone that quite likely doesn't need it?

The personnel on higher command staffs need to be well rounded. It's far easier to only put the people there that have done it on their own motivation. You're telling everyone that they should be equally qualified. If everyone becomes equally qualified, or well rounded, then you make hiring practices (which is essentially what it is) much more difficult. Both for yourself, and membership at large. Why make life more difficult?

There are numerous members that have no desire to fill those positions. It should be a desire for them, not an edict.

For the record, I have done a lot in CP. I am also currently working on my mission scanner rating but I chose that because I enjoy flight. I have also taken the Yeager test. Currently, I've done my Level 3, and have about 3/4's of my Level 4 done. I've got a number of the requirements for my Level 5 done, as well.

Based on that simple information, and nothing else, would you consider me to be "well rounded" by your standards? If you were in a position on wing staff to hire me, would I seem to be qualified? Would you consider me based on the fact that I have actively continued my professional development? I'm curious.

And more importantly, would you look at anyone else with similar qualifications? Would these qualifications be compelling?

[lordmonar]

I don't see a need for every person to be able to work at group or wing. And in many cases, it doesn't happen. You cannot honestly tell me that there will be a group or wing staff slot for everyone that wants one. The reality of the structure doesn't allow it. So why force training for someone that quite likely doesn't need it?

I'm not forcing everyone one to get the training.....I am forcing only the ones who want to be a Lt Col to get that training.

The personnel on higher command staffs need to be well rounded. It's far easier to only put the people there that have done it on their own motivation. You're telling everyone that they should be equally qualified. If everyone becomes equally qualified, or well rounded, then you make hiring practices (which is essentially what it is) much more difficult. Both for yourself, and membership at large. Why make life more difficult?

Listen...if my life as a Wing Commander was made difficult because I had too many fully qualified volunteers for the wing admin slot.....I would kiss the feet of the guy who came up with this program!  This has got to be the lamest argument you came up with yet!  "Don't require people to get the training so it makes it easier to choose between them!" 

There are numerous members that have no desire to fill those positions. It should be a desire for them, not an edict.

I did not say they had to fill the slots...but that if they were Lt Col...they should be qualified to fill the slots.

For the record, I have done a lot in CP. I am also currently working on my mission scanner rating but I chose that because I enjoy flight. I have also taken the Yeager test. Currently, I've done my Level 3, and have about 3/4's of my Level 4 done. I've got a number of the requirements for my Level 5 done, as well.

Cool  You are a very well rounded officer...and when you make Lt Col...you will be an asset to your wing. (you are that now...but I'm making a point here).

Now....how would you like to be compared to another Lt Col who is basically simply qualified to be a squadron admin type..because no one ever forced him to broaden his horizons and learn anything other than "his job"? 

Not that focusing solely on your job is necessarily a bad thing....but Lt Cols should be more well rounded.

Based on that simple information, and nothing else, would you consider me to be "well rounded" by your standards? If you were in a position on wing staff to hire me, would I seem to be qualified? Would you consider me based on the fact that I have actively continued my professional development? I'm curious.

Yes, I would.  That is all that I am saying.  I have experienced that as I branched out from CP into ES and AE I have gotten a better understanding of how things work and it makes me a better officer and a better CP officer.  I have had such a good experience with it....I think everyone should experience some of the same....not to the same level as me...but a little taste.

[Hawk200]

The personnel on higher command staffs need to be well rounded. It's far easier to only put the people there that have done it on their own motivation. You're telling everyone that they should be equally qualified. If everyone becomes equally qualified, or well rounded, then you make hiring practices (which is essentially what it is) much more difficult. Both for yourself, and membership at large. Why make life more difficult?

Listen...if my life as a Wing Commander was made difficult because I had too many fully qualified volunteers for the wing admin slot.....I would kiss the feet of the guy who came up with this program!  This has got to be the lamest argument you came up with yet!  "Don't require people to get the training so it makes it easier to choose between them!"

Lamest argument? Really? OK, present system, you've got a position to fill (hypothetically the incumbent died) , and two weeks to fill it. You've got about six or seven good applicants. What do you do?

Your system: You've got a position to fill, two weeks to do it. Since you have forced upper level training, you now have forty five people to select from. What do you do?

Is that really easier? You may think so, but I don't.

There are numerous members that have no desire to fill those positions. It should be a desire for them, not an edict.

I did not say they had to fill the slots...but that if they were Lt Col...they should be qualified to fill the slots.

I'll think about that one. But I must point out that for the most part, most wing staff members are. Yeah, there are a few idiots, but they don't tend to last long.

Now....how would you like to be compared to another Lt Col who is basically simply qualified to be a squadron admin type..because no one ever forced him to broaden his horizons and learn anything other than "his job"? 

Not that focusing solely on your job is necessarily a bad thing....but Lt Cols should be more well rounded.

Wouldn't really be an issue. It sounds snobbish, but a simple "I'm on wing staff" would probably tip that balance rather easily. It won't make any difference to the public anyway, they don't know the inepth stuff.

A LtCol on wing staff should be a little more rounded. The guy that spends thirty years in a backwater squadron doesn't need it. We differ in the military in the regard that if we don't want to be reassigned, we don't have to be.

I'm all for improving our officer corps. I would personally complete any improved program, even if I didn't have to. But I think familiarity should be used, not required qualifications.

Iowa seems to have a good course, but the mandatory ES quals bother me. If you want people familiar with all aspects, then add a weekend that covers all three missions. Two days on the three missions of CAP would be a lot more indepth than the minimal stuff that new officers get now. As I've said before, a couple videos and new clothes does not an officer make.

...I have experienced that as I branched out from CP into ES and AE I have gotten a better understanding of how things work and it makes me a better officer and a better CP officer.  I have had such a good experience with it....I think everyone should experience some of the same....not to the same level as me...but a little taste.

I expressed interest in ES, and my commander appointed me as an ES officer. I'm not fighting, I'm actually delving into it. Even if I don't spend much time in the ES section. But it was personal choice, and not a professional goal. I think it should be a case of choice, not requirement.

Besides, if you were shooting for a wing staff position, wouldn't you like to have that little "well rounded" Ace up your sleeve? If I thought that I was the person for the job, I would. The higher staff positions should go to the people that pursue it, not the ones that don't care and don't improve themselves. Besides, I personally prefer less competition.

One additional question: Under your system, would a person have to maintain ES quals? Or would one time qualification count?

[lordmonar]

Lamest argument? Really? OK, present system, you've got a position to fill (hypothetically the incumbent died) , and two weeks to fill it. You've got about six or seven good applicants. What do you do?

Your system: You've got a position to fill, two weeks to do it. Since you have forced upper level training, you now have forty five people to select from. What do you do?

Is that really easier? You may think so, but I don't.

Too many qualified officers is a bad thing?  I challenge you to find one single commander at any level who would not jump for joy if they were confronted with the problem of how to go through 40 qualified applicants for a wing job.

Lame I said and Lame I meant.

A LtCol on wing staff should be a little more rounded. The guy that spends thirty years in a backwater squadron doesn't need it. We differ in the military in the regard that if we don't want to be reassigned, we don't have to be.

The guy who spends 30 years in a backwater squadron doesn't need to be a Lt Col either.

I'm all for improving our officer corps. I would personally complete any improved program, even if I didn't have to. But I think familiarity should be used, not required qualifications.

Iowa seems to have a good course, but the mandatory ES quals bother me. If you want people familiar with all aspects, then add a weekend that covers all three missions. Two days on the three missions of CAP would be a lot more in depth than the minimal stuff that new officers get now. As I've said before, a couple videos and new clothes does not an officer make.

Everyone knows that the best way to learn something and really learn it is to do it.  Familiarization training that OJT is much more effective in making a well rounded officer than death by power point. 

I expressed interest in ES, and my commander appointed me as an ES officer. I'm not fighting, I'm actually delving into it. Even if I don't spend much time in the ES section. But it was personal choice, and not a professional goal. I think it should be a case of choice, not requirement.

Besides, if you were shooting for a wing staff position, wouldn't you like to have that little "well rounded" Ace up your sleeve? If I thought that I was the person for the job, I would. The higher staff positions should go to the people that pursue it, not the ones that don't care and don't improve themselves. Besides, I personally prefer less competition.

Service Before Self.....That is all I got to say

One additional question: Under your system, would a person have to maintain ES quals? Or would one time qualification count?

No...they just have to get the qual and then they never have to do it ever again (except for the next promotion then they have to get the next level of qualificaiton...so they may have to requal in the lower....or pull on mission every three years to maintain their qual) The only purpose of the qualification is to teach them what ES is all about.

[Hawk200]

You don't realize something, monar. I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. You refuse to see mine. Then again, it doesn't really matter.

I think the Chief was right.