Conferences

[Snake Doctor]

I've looked and can't find anything.  Can anyone provide a regulation reference concerning the interval requirement of Wing conferences?
How often must a wing hold a conference?
No opinions just a reference please.
Thank you.

[Eclipse]

There is none, that's why some wings don't have them.

It isn't even a specific CI item.

[Snake Doctor]

A fellow CAP member thought that they had seen something of the like. I didn't think of looking in the CI. I'll keep that in mind for the future.
I'm not advocating one way or the other. Just wanted the information.  Thanks!

[Spartan]

Look at CAPR 50-17, Section 5-1, Para d which states:

"Attend two wing, region, or national conferences. These conferences afford CAP members a broad view of the CAP corporation’s organization and expose them to the issues confronting CAP. Attendance at a region/wing aerospace education conference can also be credited for one conference attendance. Conferences attended prior to entry into Level III count toward fulfillment of this requirement."

"Prior to entry into Level III" in my opinion as a PD minion means that you could have attended a conference as a C/Amn in 1999, never attended another one until the day before you are elligible for promotion to Major and you're good.  Participation memos are a beautiful thing when you need to prove something like a conference from 13 years ago.

[Pylon]

Look at CAPR 50-17, Section 5-1, Para d which states:

"Attend two wing, region, or national conferences. These conferences afford CAP members a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization and expose them to the issues confronting CAP. Attendance at a region/wing aerospace education conference can also be credited for one conference attendance. Conferences attended prior to entry into Level III count toward fulfillment of this requirement."

"Prior to entry into Level III" in my opinion as a PD minion means that you could have attended a conference as a C/Amn in 1999, never attended another one until the day before you are elligible for promotion to Major and you're good.  Participation memos are a beautiful thing when you need to prove something like a conference from 13 years ago.

Except I think the OP was seeking if a regulatory citation exists which required Wings and Regions to hold a conference.  AFIAK, one doesn't seem to exist.

[lordmonar]

Nor is there a regulation that tells us what a conference is supposed to be!
Nor is there a regulation that defines "attend".

We have a rough idea what they are supposed to be....and we kind of have an idea what "attend" is.....but let's say your wing has a 3 day conference.

Friday arival and maybe a mixer.
Saturday they have a general meeting/commander's calll, a few courses/seminar, CAC meeting, then a an awards banquate.
Sunday maybe anothoer commanders call.

So Member X.  signs up goes to the banquate.....is that attedning the conference?

My wing holds four major staff meetings.....they have a commander's call, several courses/seminar, some leadership training, the CAC meets.
Just about everything that a "conference" has.   Does that constitute a "conference"?

I mean if it looks like a conference, smells like a conference......but is called something else....does it count?

I also have a problem with the requirement to go to the congerence in the first place.   If we also required a Regional for Level IV and National for Level V, I would be more inclined to say it really is a good requirement.

But it seems to me....it it just a way to improve attendance at conferences.   Not that the conference actually has any value to the member except to fulfill a requirement for Level III.

[/RANT]

[Snake Doctor]

I'm with lordmonar! It's too ambiguous. I know a former member who went to ONE breakout session and claimed credit.  NHQ can'r address every scenario but they can tighten this up a bit.

[Eclipse]

Since it counts for PD, a "conference" should have some structured definition, as should attendance / participation.

[lordmonar]

Since it counts for PD, a "conference" should have some structured definition, as should attendance / participation.

+1 And if "These conferences afford CAP members a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization and expose them to the issues confronting CAP" why don't we require our Level IV and Level V trainees to continue to get that exposure by attending more wing level conference and regional and national ones?

Like I said....pesonally....I wish the just dropped the requirment all together.

If they are really valuable....then the requirment for Level III should read something like "as a Level II" you need to attend two wing or higher conferences.
Level IV should read...as a Level III you need to attend two conferences (for a total of four) one being a regional or higher.
Level V should read....as a Level IV you need to attend two conferences (for a total of six) one being a National Conference.

Then....we need to clearly define what a "conference" is.  We need to clearly define what "attend" is (hanging out in the hotel lobby all week end does not count!) and NHQ needs to require the conference director to submit the names of those who did in fact "attend" (as defined in the reg) and that data entered into E-services.

Attending two wing conferences as a cadet 30 years ago.....should not count as fulfilling the stated aims of the PD program as listed in the regulation.

[Pylon]

I think a lot here may very well be in agreement over need for more clear guidelines and stricter requirements.  I'm betting a handful of us could put together some basic tenets of what would define "participation,"  what defines a "conference," how recent participation ought to be, and how activity directors should log and report attendance/participation in a Google Doc and submit a quick n' clean white paper to the professional development powers-that-be?

[lordmonar]

I think a lot here may very well be in agreement over need for more clear guidelines and stricter requirements.  I'm betting a handful of us could put together some basic tenets of what would define "participation,"  what defines a "conference," how recent participation ought to be, and how activity directors should log and report attendance/participation in a Google Doc and submit a quick n' clean white paper to the professional development powers-that-be?

That sounds great......do you want to head it up?
Anyone know how to arrange an webnar or phone conference on this?  I think it would be a great CT kudo....we don't just complain about things...we actually try to fix them!

[Extremepredjudice]

I think a lot here may very well be in agreement over need for more clear guidelines and stricter requirements.  I'm betting a handful of us could put together some basic tenets of what would define "participation,"  what defines a "conference," how recent participation ought to be, and how activity directors should log and report attendance/participation in a Google Doc and submit a quick n' clean white paper to the professional development powers-that-be?

That sounds great......do you want to head it up?
Anyone know how to arrange an webnar or phone conference on this?  I think it would be a great CT kudo....we don't just complain about things...we actually try to fix them!

We could create a google doc with our "proposal." Google docs allows for multiple people working on it at once.

You could set up a skype conference or a chat room.

Btw sir, it is webinar.

Just decide who is in charge, and then they can make a google doc (and REQUIRE ACCOUNTS FOR EDITING!).

[lordmonar]

Okay......I've decided!  I will head this up if no one objects....if you want in PM me with a real e-mail address and I'll start setting this up.

We are definatly too late for the Aug NB.....so lets shoot for something on paper by the end of Aug...and a final by Sept.

[UWONGO2]

A google hangout might work as well. I believe they allow for the integration with google docs.

Plus it will make Eclipse happy that we're living in a Google world 

[Eclipse]

Yep.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think a lot here may very well be in agreement over need for more clear guidelines and stricter requirements.  I'm betting a handful of us could put together some basic tenets of what would define "participation,"  what defines a "conference," how recent participation ought to be, and how activity directors should log and report attendance/participation in a Google Doc and submit a quick n' clean white paper to the professional development powers-that-be?

With the exception of the General Assembly, every wing conference that I've attended requires attendance at functional meetings/seminars e.g. radio communications, public affairs, aerospace education) has asked the member to sign in on a sheet of paper including contact email address.

RM     

[Snake Doctor]

With the exception of the General Assembly, every wing conference that I've attended requires attendance at functional meetings/seminars e.g. radio communications, public affairs, aerospace education) has asked the member to sign in on a sheet of paper including contact email address.

RM     
[/quote]

That's great. Then the question is, where are these sign in sheets? At least the last two wing and one region conferences I've been involved in I know there are attendance lists because I have copies and they are also at Wing HQ. Who knows before that where the lists are. 

[MSG Mac]

If you've noticed,there seems to be a centralized address that is registering and collecting fees for most if not all Wing,Region, and National conferences and activities. It seems to me that if National is doing this,than they can provide certification that member X attended conferences,A, B,and C.

[Eclipse]

My wing has never used any national reg system, and the one removed Region cnf was done by us as well. All local.

[lordmonar]

If you've noticed,there seems to be a centralized address that is registering and collecting fees for most if not all Wing,Region, and National conferences and activities. It seems to me that if National is doing this,than they can provide certification that member X attended conferences,A, B,and C.

Yes.....that is the easy part......how signed up and paid.....but again.....you can spend the entire weekend in the hotel lobby/bar/casino and never actually attend anything.

We used to have a Cadet Programs type how would drive the cadets to the conference sign in, check into the hotel and then spend the entire week end at the ski resort...and then show up for the banquet.

Now....transporting cadets is important....and this individual already had Level III....but what is the standard for fulfilling the two conferences for Level III?

If it is just pay your fee and sign in......then we need to delete the requirment from Level III.
If we want to keep the requirment....then we need to define what a conference is....and define "attend".

[Snake Doctor]

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

[Spaceman3750]

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

Why? When I go to a wing conference I go to hit a few sessions and network with folks I don't normally see, not stress out getting the magic number of signatures. Heck, I'd say that the networking is probably more valuable than the sessions - there's more to conferences than sitting through death by PowerPoint.

[RogueLeader]

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

All of the labs/sessions were busy til the last minute and then some, so may not be practical.  YMMV

Also, at one conference that I was at, there was only one or two sessions that either:
A: I was interested in, or
B: was of any real use of to me.

So, in that case, the conference was a complete waste of time and money except for the networking done, if those rules are imposed.  Sometimes that chatting in the lobby can be more beneficial to me than a breakout session on ALE  (I have no current need for ALE).  Beer yes, ALE not so much

[Eclipse]

The point here is that, since it confers an important credit for PD, it should be more than just "hanging out".

One of the constant complaints about these conferences is the lack of relevant seminars and training to make it work the time and
expense, and the reason for that, is the lack of any sort of required structure or expectation of curriculum.  It can be whatever the
Wing CC wants, and a lot of times that equals a banquet with some awards, a few irrelevant breakouts, many times taught by
people who were handed speaking notes as they walked into the room, and the ever-present "cadet activities".

And that doesn't even account for the situations where the conference directors schedule breakouts with the same audience so they
compete for participants to the detriment of both.

[RogueLeader]

Fortunately for me, the last conference(RMR/WYWG) was a pretty good one for me,  Over half of the sessions were of great use to me.  I only skipped 1 that I had no need or interest in attending.

[Snake Doctor]

If a member needs the sign offs for PD then they need to get them otherwise not so much.

After attending more than a few conferences I'm more into the hanging out and networking and that is extremely valuable and enjoyable.
True that a lot of the BOs may not interest me but a few do. My thought is is Conference BOs should be what not only the membership wants but what it needs.  The wing directorates should be all over this. SMs need to present at a conference at some point in thier PD and they should be conferring with the appropriate directors and officers.
What BOs would you recommend? 

[RogueLeader]

The one I got the most use out of, even if I don't care for "Cloud" tech, was the New Technologies Lab about using Dropbox, EverNote, and Diigo.  OpsQuals was of interest to me, as I participate in ES, just not as a specailty track.  The CAP-USAF talk and CAP NCO sessions were ok, not great.

[Snake Doctor]

I'd go for one on new technologies like you described RogueLeader

[Eclipse]

I'd go for one on new technologies like you described RogueLeader

So that's ten minutes, then what?

It won't be "new" to most members, and if it is "new", many won't be interested beyond smiling politely.

One thing, whomever is doing the presentations needs to have 1/2 a clue about the subject, and be
prepared to answer questions.

The other problem is that a lot of our esteemed members tend to want to just discuss histrionics and how the
whole CAP world is equal parts clueless, too complicated, and too much work, while at the same time "no
one will give them a van".

What we need as part of level one, and required as a refresher is a class in "because".  Far too many
seminars and breakouts devolve into arguments about the way people wish CAP worked instead of just accepting
the way it does.

((*sigh*))

[RogueLeader]

Nope, it was an hour session that discussed the three and a demonstration in how they all work.  It ran long.  He talked about DropBox, EverNote, and Diigo.  Since then, my unit has been using DropBox for our personnel records, with more to follow.

[FW]

I'd go for one on new technologies like you described RogueLeader

So that's ten minutes, then what?

It won't be "new" to most members, and if it is "new", many won't be interested beyond smiling politely.

One thing, whomever is doing the presentations needs to have 1/2 a clue about the subject, and be
prepared to answer questions.

The other problem is that a lot of our esteemed members tend to want to just discuss histrionics and how the
whole CAP world is equal parts clueless, too complicated, and too much work, while at the same time "no
one will give them a van".

What we need as part of level one, and required as a refresher is a class in "because".  Far too many
seminars and breakouts devolve into arguments about the way people wish CAP worked instead of just accepting
the way it does.

((*sigh*))

As a member who has attended more conferences than I care to remember, I will sigh also. 
Conferences are supposed to bring members together for networking and learning about the latest methods, policies and best practices of Civil Air Patrol.  This is the reason attendance is required for PD advancement. 

Sometimes, "hanging out" can be a very educational experience.  After the sessions are over, hanging out is the time to wonder why "we don't have a van or aircraft".. A member can actually go up to someone who can answer that question. 

Seminars and Breakout sessions are important parts of conferences and, if properly presented, can lead to constructive argument which may improve our practices.  After all, we developed the WBP, eservices and, consolodated aircraft maintanence after "arguing" in such a venue. 

IMHO, the PD credit for attendence should be secondary to the experience of attending.  They are fun, entertaining, educational and, productive.  And, if you make a few new friends in the process, that's even better.

[ol'fido]

If a member needs the sign offs for PD then they need to get them otherwise not so much.

After attending more than a few conferences I'm more into the hanging out and networking and that is extremely valuable and enjoyable.
True that a lot of the BOs may not interest me but a few do. My thought is is Conference BOs should be what not only the membership wants but what it needs.  The wing directorates should be all over this. SMs need to present at a conference at some point in thier PD and they should be conferring with the appropriate directors and officers.
What BOs would you recommend?

Which is why until recently, Paul, most of US were taken at our word on conference attendance. The assumption that most people will "hang out in the bar" for the whole weekend is probably an exaggeration.

[RADIOMAN015]

The point here is that, since it confers an important credit for PD, it should be more than just "hanging out".

One of the constant complaints about these conferences is the lack of relevant seminars and training to make it work the time and
expense, and the reason for that, is the lack of any sort of required structure or expectation of curriculum.  It can be whatever the
Wing CC wants, and a lot of times that equals a banquet with some awards, a few irrelevant breakouts, many times taught by
people who were handed speaking notes as they walked into the room, and the ever-present "cadet activities".

And that doesn't even account for the situations where the conference directors schedule breakouts with the same audience so they
compete for participants to the detriment of both.

The Four I've attended have been primarily functional break outs with some general skill building/ES specific (e.g. mission scanner) seminars.   Agree that can be an big issue, especially with members that wear more than one functional hat at the squadron are then forced to choose.   Personally, I'd prefer to see separate functional meetings held throughout the year, especially with the technology that is available for conducting via the internet and/or just plain telephone conference calls(which I think some Wing functional areas try to do).   

In all fairness to those that plan & implement these conferences it's difficult for them to put it all together and keep everyone happy.

RM           

[jimmydeanno]

Maybe we address the issue from CAP's side, and not the member side.  90% of the conferences that I've attended in CAP have been a complete and utter waste of time.  Quite frankly, $60-$80 down the tubes.  We have an internal focus on our conferences and it becomes some sort of CAP Administrative Function seminar weekend.

I think that our conferences should have seminars from outside agencies (LE, FD, FEMA, Local SAR groups, Investment Bankers, etc) and have far fewer internal folks presenting.  Then you open up the door to interagency communications, because you can invite the local FD guys to come hear the FEMA lecture about "The Importance of Aerial Survey during Wildfire Response."  Then you have an aviation group in the room with some FD guys hearing about how awesome getting aerial photos of where the fire has spread (potential customer, and education at the same time.)

Or the investment banker type can give a seminar on how to plan endowment funds, fundraise, etc for non-profits so that local units can actually earn money off their investments, etc.

I think that if the workshops, etc were interesting, you wouldn't need to come up with attendance requirements because people would actually go once they paid their fee.

[Snake Doctor]

The point here is that, since it confers an important credit for PD, it should be more than just "hanging out".

One of the constant complaints about these conferences is the lack of relevant seminars and training to make it work the time and
expense, and the reason for that, is the lack of any sort of required structure or expectation of curriculum.  It can be whatever the
Wing CC wants, and a lot of times that equals a banquet with some awards, a few irrelevant breakouts, many times taught by
people who were handed speaking notes as they walked into the room, and the ever-present "cadet activities".

And that doesn't even account for the situations where the conference directors schedule breakouts with the same audience so they
compete for participants to the detriment of both.

In all fairness to those that plan & implement these conferences it's difficult for them to put it all together and keep everyone happy.

RM           

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

I've practically begged for input from wing level directors for input on what BOs are needed with specific descriptions. If s good portion of wing staff does not support you it's hard.
My "Conference witness sheet" is for those who need the credit not every who attends. 

[Snake Doctor]

Good ideas Jimmydeano. I tried for that too but certain folks didn't want to. I guess that's to far out of the box.

[Eclipse]

Good ideas Jimmydeano. I tried for that too but certain folks didn't want to. I guess that's to far out of the box.

A CAP conference should be focused on the needs of the membership, which on occasion might include speakers from
outside, but for the most part should be internal staff and members, however this should not be the source of primary instruction
for anything.  It is also not the time to try and squeeze in everything that local commanders should be doing but aren't, etc.

Every major wing department should be represented, but since it's usually the same 1-300 people in a given wing doing
everything, it's hard to deconflict these sessions (though no one says you can't repeat them).  The issue there is that
very little actually change year-to-year, and exactly those members most likely to be at a conference, are also those
members best informed, or most likely to engage in the histrionics, or start arguing about their personal needs in
generalized seminars.

Part of the problem is commanders and staff so disconnected from CAP and their membership, they don't know what they need.

Part of it is commanders and staff who believe it is still 1974 and that the only source of information for members is directives from NHQ
that should be read verbatim while projected from a transparency projector (yes, a transparency projector).

And some of the blame rests on the membership who "can't be bothered", or think they "know better".

Combine the above in the right quantities, and the good presenters who have been burned will not return, and the
sweet-spot participants will not return, and you wind up with where we typically are - poorly or misinformed presenters
with poor public speaking skills punching their "presentation" ticket speaking to a 1/2-empty room of members punching their
"participation" ticket.

At a high level, the conference PD requirement is like encampments for cadets - it holds back their progression because of cost,
distance, or lack of interest.  And just like an encampment, if the wing treats it like a "check box" instead of the
growth experience it was intended to be, then it should not be surprising when interest is low.  It all starts as the top.

Then there's the situation where you finally get everyone to the conference center, and then announce last-minute that
"Sunday is cancelled to allow for everyone to get home to their families", squandering the momentum (or inertia) of
having all those people in the same place, which is usually the most difficult part of any CAP activity - getting people off
the couch.

[Crosswind]

The one I got the most use out of, even if I don't care for "Cloud" tech, was the New Technologies Lab about using Dropbox, EverNote, and Diigo.  OpsQuals was of interest to me, as I participate in ES, just not as a specailty track.  The CAP-USAF talk and CAP NCO sessions were ok, not great.

I was at that conference and had the pleasure of meeting you, and agree, the breakout sessions were very informative. 

[jimmydeanno]

A CAP conference should be focused on the needs of the membership...

I guess it depends on what you consider to be "the needs."  Because if you were to give that to one group, you'd end up with a conference on how to salute and wear the uniform.  Another group would give you break out session that taught the stuff in each specialty track.

I think the purpose of conferences is networking and seeing what the new and exciting stuff is.  When you go to an IT conference, you want to see the new and exciting stuff that has been going on in the IT world.  You don't go there to get your CISSP, or Security+ training.  You go to learn about how carbon tubules are helping making lighter and stronger components, or how a certain breakthrough has led to increasing the number of switches on a processor by 100X.

CAP conferences should motivate people to see where the organization is going and how they fit in with the rest of the players on the team.  What cool technology has been developed in terms of SAR?  Are there new resources for folks who teach about Aerospace?  I bet a seminar on "CAP in Outerspace" (reference the weather balloon experiments) would be fascinating.  Bringing outside folks in helps build our relationships and helps tear down walls and the isolationism that we suffer from.  It also opens the doors to sponsors (lower cost for the conference), and interesting topics that people will actually want to go to.

There are plenty of topics that can meet the "needs" of the membership without covering how to fill out a CAPF 24, or which reports to send into Wing HQ.  We have plenty of in-house schools to meet our "needs,"  using the conferences to cover the mis-steps of those instructors or squadron failures doesn't help anyone.

[Eclipse]

There are plenty of topics that can meet the "needs" of the membership without covering how to fill out a CAPF 24, or which reports to send into Wing HQ.  We have plenty of in-house schools to meet our "needs,"  using the conferences to cover the mis-steps of those instructors or squadron failures doesn't help anyone.

That was my point - they should not be mini (or even full) SLS/CLC/UCC/TLC, or anything else which is supposed to be covered by other PD activities.

They should be for over views, introductions, and for things which cannot be easily done during normal PD.

[EMT-83]

I have no problem with breakout sessions that explain how to "do" CAP, whether it's ES, PD, CP or whatever.

The fact is there are no classes that explain how to properly submit a Form 24 or navigate WMRIS. I'd rather sit through this type of material than some of the nonsense that I've seen.

I noticed that the upcoming NER conference will have SLS and CLC courses. What a complete waste of time.

[Eclipse]

The fact is there are no classes that explain how to properly submit a Form 24 or navigate WMRIS. I'd rather sit through this type of material than some of the nonsense that I've seen.

Page 2 of the Form 24 is detailed instructions on how to complete the form and where to send it.

eServices / WMIRS have detailed instruction manuals which few people have ever read, yet which answer most questions.
I can't tell you how many times I've been told / asked about how hard it is to figure out these systems, yet no one will crack the
.PDF.
http://www.cawg.cap.gov/files/OPS-Qual-Guide.pdf
https://missions.capnhq.gov/wmirs/DownloadFiles/WMIRS%20Manual.pdf

I noticed that the upcoming NER conference will have SLS and CLC courses. What a complete waste of time.

I agree - these are not "conferences", and they are just trying to punch two tickets at once.

[ol'fido]

Conference requirements for PD are probably a hold over from the days before the internet, e mail, skype, and the like. Missions, activities, meetings, etc. were all local or within the same or contiguous group area. Membership didn't travel 30 or 40 years ago like they do today except for encampments, special activities, or conferences.

[Private Investigator]

I noticed that the upcoming NER conference will have SLS and CLC courses. What a complete waste of time.

I concur; how dumb is that but I am sure they will rationalize it   

[Private Investigator]

Conference requirements for PD are probably a hold over from the days before the internet, e mail, skype, and the like. Missions, activities, meetings, etc. were all local or within the same or contiguous group area. Membership didn't travel 30 or 40 years ago like they do today except for encampments, special activities, or conferences.

Also for the networking opportunity. When I was a new guy and I was given Personnel Officer I wanted to meet the Wing DP and others to get an ideal what a CAP DP does.

Conferences are great and after a few of them you realize some people are there just to punch their tickets.

[AirDX]

Conference requirements for PD are probably a hold over from the days before the internet, e mail, skype, and the like. Missions, activities, meetings, etc. were all local or within the same or contiguous group area. Membership didn't travel 30 or 40 years ago like they do today except for encampments, special activities, or conferences.

Bingo.  One of the two or three posts worth reading in all this.  In 2012, I have e-mail and free nation-wide long distance calling.  I don't need to go to a conference to talk to anyone, I just call them.  If I need info from the region SE, I send him text message.  NHQ, call 'em. 

Now that we've established that wing conferences are a dinosaur, what shall we replace them with in the PD realm?  Looking over Form 24, there are a couple of things that strike me as being clinkers for the level they're at, of that they are there at all.

[Eclipse]

Bingo.  One of the two or three posts worth reading in all this.  In 2012, I have e-mail and free nation-wide long distance calling.  I don't need to go to a conference to talk to anyone, I just call them.  If I need info from the region SE, I send him text message.  NHQ, call 'em. 

You're not supposed to be calling Wing and Region direct, that's what the chain is for.   There's very little reason someone assigned at the unit level should ever be contacting a Wing or Region staffer directly, let alone NHQ.

The downside to easy access is the perception that it's appropriate.

[lordmonar]

Bingo.  One of the two or three posts worth reading in all this.  In 2012, I have e-mail and free nation-wide long distance calling.  I don't need to go to a conference to talk to anyone, I just call them.  If I need info from the region SE, I send him text message.  NHQ, call 'em. 

You're not supposed to be calling Wing and Region direct, that's what the chain is for.   There's very little reason someone assigned at the unit level should ever be contacting a Wing or Region staffer directly, let alone NHQ.

The downside to easy access is the perception that it's appropriate.

Sorry....but BS.

Your group/wing/region staff officer is your GO TO point for how your job is supposed to be done!  Squadron staffers should be in regular contact with their next level counterpart!

[RogueLeader]

Bingo.  One of the two or three posts worth reading in all this.  In 2012, I have e-mail and free nation-wide long distance calling.  I don't need to go to a conference to talk to anyone, I just call them.  If I need info from the region SE, I send him text message.  NHQ, call 'em. 

You're not supposed to be calling Wing and Region direct, that's what the chain is for.   There's very little reason someone assigned at the unit level should ever be contacting a Wing or Region staffer directly, let alone NHQ.

The downside to easy access is the perception that it's appropriate.

Sorry....but BS.

Your group/wing/region staff officer is your GO TO point for how your job is supposed to be done!  Squadron staffers should be in regular contact with their next level counterpart!

Yeah.  Never happened to me in almost 8 years.

[Eclipse]

Sorry....but BS.

Your group/wing/region staff officer is your GO TO point for how your job is supposed to be done!  Squadron staffers should be in regular contact with their next level counterpart!

Next level?  Yes.  That was my point.  In this day of easy-access, people don't want to bother with the "next level" when they can just call the National CC.

In most wings, the next level is not wing, it's Group.  And no one but Wing should be going VFR-direct to Region unless they've got local clearance to do so.

[lordmonar]

Sorry....but BS.

Your group/wing/region staff officer is your GO TO point for how your job is supposed to be done!  Squadron staffers should be in regular contact with their next level counterpart!

Next level?  Yes.  That was my point.  In this day of easy-access, people don't want to bother with the "next level" when they can just call the National CC.

In most wings, the next level is not wing, it's Group.  And no one but Wing should be going VFR-direct to Region unless they've got local clearance to do so.

No actually most wings do not use the Group level.....sorry....that's just a fact.  And by assigning someone to the job....you have given them clearance to go VFR direct to their counter part at the next level.  Again....that's just a fact.   To do so is setting them up for failure, it is setting up the squadron for failure.  And as in all things........you try to resolve issues at the lowest level.

[NCRblues]

No actually most wings do not use the Group level.....sorry....that's just a fact.

I do wonder if there is a list of wings that do utilize group structures and those that do not. Would be interesting to see and know...

[Eclipse]

No actually most wings do not use the Group level.....sorry....that's just a fact.

Got any stats on that?  I frankly don't.

...by assigning someone to the job....you have given them clearance to go VFR direct to their counter part at the next level.

Yes, >next< level and no higher without prior clearance.

[RogueLeader]

No actually most wings do not use the Group level.....sorry....that's just a fact.

I do wonder if there is a list of wings that do utilize group structures and those that do not. Would be interesting to see and know...

There is a poll around here with that.
linky

[lordmonar]

No actually most wings do not use the Group level.....sorry....that's just a fact.

Got any stats on that?  I frankly don't.

...by assigning someone to the job....you have given them clearance to go VFR direct to their counter part at the next level.

Yes, >next< level and no higher without prior clearance.

Again....no...you don't need clearance to move up.  If you asked wing and they can't help you...go to region. 

[ßτε]

Sorry....but BS.

Your group/wing/region staff officer is your GO TO point for how your job is supposed to be done!  Squadron staffers should be in regular contact with their next level counterpart!

Next level?  Yes.  That was my point.  In this day of easy-access, people don't want to bother with the "next level" when they can just call the National CC.

In most wings, the next level is not wing, it's Group.  And no one but Wing should be going VFR-direct to Region unless they've got local clearance to do so.

But of course if one is the wing safety officer, there should be no problem contacting the region safety officer, right?

[AirDX]

Bingo.  One of the two or three posts worth reading in all this.  In 2012, I have e-mail and free nation-wide long distance calling.  I don't need to go to a conference to talk to anyone, I just call them.  If I need info from the region SE, I send him text message.  NHQ, call 'em. 

You're not supposed to be calling Wing and Region direct, that's what the chain is for.   There's very little reason someone assigned at the unit level should ever be contacting a Wing or Region staffer directly, let alone NHQ.

The downside to easy access is the perception that it's appropriate.

Dude...

I AM the frickin' wing SE.  I need to talk to region, national, my wing CC, all kinds of folks.  I have them all on speed dial.   Don't try to lecture me on CoC.  Can your attitude until you get a clue.

[BillB]

I don't think I've seen so many typos, misspellings, and even missing words in a single thread for a long time. Even the Grammar Police are guilty.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I do wonder if there is a list of wings that do utilize group structures and those that do not. Would be interesting to see and know...

The CAPWATCH download lists all of the organizations in CAP. From this list it appears that 24 Wings use groups

AZ  CA  CO  FL  GA  IL  IN LA
MD  MI  MN  MO  NC  NJ  NM  NY
OH  PA  PR  SC  TN  TX  VA  WI

[a2capt]

..and WAWG does, too. They just don't call it that, but it's really that. So that's 24/25, which may not qualify for "most", because that would imply more than a simple majority, which this barely is.

Suffice to say, though, that it is "many".

[Eclipse]

Suffice to say, though, that it is "many".

Yes - as with WAWG there are several which have "area" or other formally defined echelons below wing.   There's also a couple wings.  So we're talking about at least half.

[Eclipse]

I AM the frickin' wing SE.  I need to talk to region, national, my wing CC, all kinds of folks.  I have them all on speed dial.   Don't try to lecture me on CoC.  Can your attitude until you get a clue.

I said >next< echelon.   If you're assigned to wing, then Region >is< your next echelon.

As was actually written, there's very little need, and no inherent approval, for the average unit staffer to be contacting Wing or higher without authorization.  That completely negates both the span of control, and the local authority, of the echelons you're hopping when you do that.

If you're unit SE and have a question, you ask the Group SE (or wing if you don't have groups). The answer you get is the answer. Period.  If you don't agree, your next call is to your unit CC, not Wing.  If your unit CC says "go for it" you contact wing and /cc Group.  In a lot of cases the first answer you receive might be perfectly acceptable to your commander, in which case you move on and don't "back channel check".

One huge problem we have in CAP is staffers who will "shop an answer" until someone says something close to what they wanted to hear, regardless of echelon or source, then they triumphantly return with their supporting response, and are surprised when it is not accepted.

Also, if you're ADY at a higher echelon for a specific staff role, that does not give you carte blanch to wander all over everyone else's lane just because of the reality of proximity.  Just because you're the Group Aerospace guy, doesn't mean you can go discussing unit finances with the FM.

[Майор Хаткевич]

..and WAWG does, too. They just don't call it that, but it's really that. So that's 24/25, which may not qualify for "most", because that would imply more than a simple majority, which this barely is.

Suffice to say, though, that it is "many".

We have 52 wings...

[a2capt]

Yup, 52. Hence "barely" is. I used barely in the context of not quite making it. Though I can see the confusion.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yup, 52. Hence "barely" is. I used barely in the context of not quite making it. Though I can see the confusion.

Yep. Simple Majority would have to tip at 27.

[Private Investigator]

I still think Conferences is a good ideal. It depends on what you want to get out of CAP.

When I was an IG I would go to a Squadron and they would be so locked into the "good ole boy" syndrome they have no clue about CAP outside of their little trailer. They liked the mindset it is them and only them. They had members with Master ratings in everything but really did not know anything and it was obvious they gave each other bogus ratings which means they had bogus promotions too.