Rank based on ES training

[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).