Seniors in formation

[lordmonar]

The Composite in Composite Squadron.....is talking about the mission....not the people.

Why should the cadets know who the Professional Development Officer is?    No cross over of mission.
Like wise....the Comm officer does not have to hovering around the cadets 24-7....he needs to be doing his Comm job.

So it is six of one half dozen of the other.   

There are pros and cons and YMMV.

[almostspaatz]

Allow me to clarify:

-The point I was attempting to make is that having a composite squadron should be taken advantage of, there is a lot to learn from those officers and their experience, no they certainly shouldn't be hovering 24/7, that is a misrepresentation of my point. Training and education is the backbone of a good CP, and if your PDO is a smart, squared away officer, that would be a great influence on the cadets, it would be extremely beneficial for the squadron as a whole to not be entirely separated.

-To answer the question at hand however, I don't personally have an opinion on if it is worth it to have everyone in formation, I see pros and cons to both.

-I disagree with TexasBEAST's conclusion that it would be 'elitist' not to have everyone in formation.

[Storm Chaser]

It shouldn't really matter if SMs are "interested" in joining in D&C on a limited basis. Be honest: Some cadets don't particularly care for it either, for that matter.

I disagree. D&C is part of the Cadet Programs and required for cadet promotions. It is not part of the senior program nor required for progression. Unless a senior member is working with Cadet Programs, there's no requirement for him or her to be knowledgeable in D&C.

But D&C teaches precision, followership/responsiveness to commands, and teamwork. Those are important principles, no matter one's membership category.

And that's why it's part of the Cadet Programs. We're training senior member officers to be leaders and managers. The scope of their training is different. Perhaps when we open the NCO track to non-prior service, we could include D&C in their training curriculum.

Sure, there are bound to be times when other duties have to take precedence. And certainly a lot of drill maneuvers seem like overly tedious reinventions of the wheel.

But I don't see a good reason for a categorical nonparticipation by all SMs. That smacks of elitist, isolationist dismissiveness.

I never suggested a categorical non-participation, but that it shouldn't be required. Not the same thing. That said, this has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with the difference between a cadet and an officer. Their expectations and roles are different.

Is that something akin to the gross underrepresentation by SMs in ground team operations?

I think it has more to do with the fact that many adults join Civil Air Patrol to participate in the "Air" part of the organization. Cadets under 18, on the other hand, are restricted from being aircrew members.

Should drill and ground team, both, be predominantly cadet activities?

Drill? Yes. Ground team? No.

While the bulk of my ground teams are composed of cadets, I've deployed all senior member teams in a few REDCAP and non-distress ELT searches. I think we need more senior members involved in ground ops, but understand why many prefer air ops.

Unless senior members are working with Cadet Programs, I see very little benefit from incorporating drill as a training requirement or mandatory activity.

There's a lot of ballyhoo about the corrosiveness of would-be elitism in programs like the Rangers and Blue Berets. But SM elitism and separatism is probably a lot more destructive and pervasive than those high-profile entities.

Not the same at all.

Some of that is institutionalized in the formal distinction between senior and cadet squadrons. Pity.

Have you been a part of each of these type of units? I have. Their charter difference hast nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with a focus on different missions and roles.

But it is more pronounced and especially disheartening when it happens in units that are ostensibly supposed to be composited and joined.

A composite squadron is a unit that has Cadet and Senior Programs. While some senior members participate in both programs, they're not required. Your statements show little understanding of CAP's unit structures and missions. I mean no disrespect, but this division or categorization has nothing to do with an elitist attitude. What's so wrong with a senior member who wants to participate in Emergency Services and not the Cadet Programs? I say nothing.

[Tim Day]

You can have the Senior Members fall into a "flight" in no particular order. In my Naval Aviation experience, we'd have "quarters" in the hangar which consisted of Officers and Enlisted in separate roughly rectangular "flights". On the Surface Navy side, they were much more in line with the drill manual. Same Navy, different cultures.

Senior Members don't need to know how to drill in order to set an example of customs and courtesies. I teach my cadets that while we in the cadet program are focused on a particular style of customs and courtesies, there are many other styles out there and it's important to understand the culture of which you're a part.

I use my transition from active duty to federal civilian as an example. I don't salute anyone and I'm expected to use first names with civilians and officers senior to me if they introduce themselves that way (still feels weird) but the underlying respect is the same.

I can talk about the way someone who organizes and flies orientation flights for cadets but doesn't know how to line up in formation may be just as disciplined as a C/CMSgt who can form up a flight in 2.5 seconds.

Training opportunities like these are one of my favorite aspects of composite squadrons.

[TexasBEAST]

The Composite in Composite Squadron.....is talking about the mission....not the people.

I thought nomenclature like "composite squadron" referred to organization of personnel, ala CAPR 20-1. "Senior squadron" and "cadet squadron" refers to their primary types of membership (personnel).

Either way, if they're not really intended to be put together, then "composite" would seem to be a glaring misnomer. It's double-speak, when units really effectively segregate the troops.

Why should the cadets know who the Professional Development Officer is?    No cross over of mission.

Unit cohesion? Situational awareness? To mutually celebrate each other's accomplishments?

Like wise....the Comm officer does not have to hovering around the cadets 24-7....he needs to be doing his Comm job.

That's why I said "limited D&C". I never said constantly hovering around the cadets.

But they certainly should be put together with the cadets from time to time (composite=put together).

Formations are a ceremonial time and process to get the troops together, to feel like they actually are a unit, instead of just a bunch of disparate individuals with disparate uniforms and disparate missions and disparate this and disparate that. Avoiding this seems like a symptom of the CF lack of focus issues that so many people talk about CAP having in general.

"Composite" also generally means putting together of two different elements. Those elements are unique from one another, and their placement together may blend their purposes for a time, but it does not change the fact that they are different. They're still put together, though.

There are pros and cons and YMMV.

True. One can certainly get by without sticking SMs in a flight, or having them at least walk the mile with the cadets on PT nights.

But it would be best if there were more consistency and togetherness. Formations are the ideal time for that.

[TexasBEAST]

I disagree. D&C is part of the Cadet Programs and required for cadet promotions. It is not part of the senior program nor required for progression. Unless a senior member is working with Cadet Programs, there's no requirement for him or her to be knowledgeable in D&C.

You're changing the subject there. First you asked why should a SM drill if he's not interested in it? That's when I pointed out that lack of interest shouldn't matter for SMs, because some cadets lack interest too. Now you change the subject to what is required by regs. Interest and regulatory requirement are two totally different tacks.

There's no regulatory requirement for a SM to wear BDUs properly, either--since 39-1 does not require work uniforms, but only service uniforms. However, if a SM is going to go beyond the bare minimum and optionally wear a BDU, then he needs to do it properly and completely.

Similarly, if a member is going to join a composite unit, then he ought to participate in joint activities. A composite unit should be characterized by joint activities.

Even though the SMPD regs do not require D&C from SMs as individual PD, when SMs go beyond merely being individuals and actually join composite squadrons, they incur certain peculiar obligations that they might not otherwise occur. The SQ/CC can determine exactly what those are. And the very definition of the term ought to way heavily in his mind while making that determination.

But D&C teaches precision, followership/responsiveness to commands, and teamwork. Those are important principles, no matter one's membership category.

And that's why it's part of the Cadet Programs.

I say that D&C teaches universal lessons, and you respond that that's why it is only required by one half of the organization. We have a disconnect here.

We're training senior member officers to be leaders and managers. The scope of their training is different. Perhaps when we open the NCO track to non-prior service, we could include D&C in their training curriculum.

D&C involves leadership and management, as well. I don't understand why you seem to think that it is not relevant.

Just because it is not regulatorily required does not at all mean that it is not relevant.

When I attended COS at Maxwell in 1995, I noticed that the USAF SOS and OTS personnel certainly participate a great deal of D&C. Their officer status did not free them from such obligations.

So I don't understand why you or anyone else in CAP thinks that CAP SM officership should free CAP SM officers from such, either.

Since D&C teaches great universal lessons, then it ought to be a universal activity.

OTOH, if it's silly and ridiculous and unworthy of SM participation, then I don't get why it's OK to dump it on cadets.

I never suggested a categorical non-participation, but that it shouldn't be required.

Why shouldn't it?

If a SQ/CC can have UODs that go beyond service uniforms, to include work uniforms or PT uniforms or service dress uniforms, then why shouldn't a SQ/CC be able to require meeting activities for SMs that go beyond the bare minimum of the SMPD reg?

That said, this has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with the difference between a cadet and an officer. Their expectations and roles are different.

What is this difference of which you speak?

What about cadet officers? Why do they still have D&C requirements, long after they have left noncom status far behind? What point is there to having cadet officers, who are likewise learning about leadership and management, also continue with their D&C studies?

With that in mind, why not likewise have SM officers do the same?

I think it has more to do with the fact that many adults join Civil Air Patrol to participate in the "Air" part of the organization. Cadets under 18, on the other hand, are restricted from being aircrew members.

Would there be some measure of wisdom to having CAP units organized around entire missions, like USAF units? Ground team flights, and Air ops squadrons, and Cadet Program squadrons, and Information Technology flights, etc.? This would allow for personnel to specialize in just those kinds of activities that they like.

Or would that kind of balkanization be harmful to the organization?

Why isn't it already, here? Indulging personnel to pick and choose this or that, buffet style, and having an entire section of the membership exempt from important activities like D&C or PT seems to be very similar to what I just mentioned.

Have you been a part of each of these type of units? I have. Their charter difference hast nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with a focus on different missions and roles.

I never had a need for a SM who didn't have a need for cadets, so no. I somehow found a way to work on my levels and proficiency ratings and Yeager Award and what-not while also working with cadets. There was never any call to drive a wall between my missions and roles and my cadets, like that. I didn't appreciate those SMs who thought that way when I was a cadet, and I didn't emulate them when I went senior, either.

A composite squadron is a unit that has Cadet and Senior Programs. While some senior members participate in both programs, they're not required. Your statements show little understanding of CAP's unit structures and missions.

It's not that I lack understanding of the CAP structures or missions. It's that I think CAP indulges too many people in their prejudices or fetishes by way of its structures and membership category differentiation. It's lets certain people get away with too much.

Why does CAP deem it perfectly OK to facilitate young people becoming dynamic Americans by requiring (in part) drill and PT, but then suddenly lose heart and, as you point out, NOT require such for SMs?

Why have units with both membership categories, and then require the cadets to experience such things, while letting the SMs completely off the hook? You ask me what's the harm in something. Well I ask: what's the value in such a double-standard?

You fall back on "but it's not required in the regs for SMs". I ask, if it's such a good idea for cadets, then why not for the SMs too?

I mean no disrespect, but this division or categorization has nothing to do with an elitist attitude. What's so wrong with a senior member who wants to participate in Emergency Services and not the Cadet Programs? I say nothing.

I never said that a SM should be required to participate in Cadet Programs. I said that a SM at a composite squadron should be composited, or put together with cadets at certain time, and that formations make the ideal time for such.

That said, what's so wrong with making them participate in both?

But to go further and answer your question: Because you don't afford cadets the same privilege. It's hypocritical, unfair, and inconsistent. That kind of thing hardly builds unit cohesion or contributes to unit morale and esprit. It creates an "us versus them" mentality.

To go one step further, letting SMs break away and form entire units without cadets smacks of an elitist, anti-cadet attitude.

I know that this reg doesn't require this, and that reg doesn't require that. It's not a lack of knowledge or understanding on my part. It's a familiarity with how it felt as a cadet to experience these kinds of double standards because of special opt-outs for SMs, which lingered with me throughout my previous CAP career. And it's the push-back that comes up anytime there's a recommendation to dial back on those kinds of special privileges in the present day.

[lordmonar]

There are pros and cons and YMMV.

True. One can certainly get by without sticking SMs in a flight, or having them at least walk the mile with the cadets on PT nights.

But it would be best if there were more consistency and togetherness. Formations are the ideal time for that.

Everyone talks about SM walking a mile in the cadets shoes....but no one every suggest that the cadets walk the SM's mile.   Why is that?

Formations need to have a purpose.    If there is a purpose for SMs to be in formation...then good.  If not...then they don't need to be there.

[lordmonar]

Similarly, if a member is going to join a composite unit, then he ought to participate in joint activities. A composite unit should be characterized by joint activities.

A composite unit is characterized by missions.....not activities. 

Even though the SMPD regs do not require D&C from SMs as individual PD, when SMs go beyond merely being individuals and actually join composite squadrons, they incur certain peculiar obligations that they might not otherwise occur. The SQ/CC can determine exactly what those are. And the very definition of the term ought to way heavily in his mind while making that determination.

Ehhhh......NO.

Just because I join a composite squadron....does not meant I MUST participate in the CP program.   Nor should I have a burden to be an example to the cadets any more then any senior member in a Senior Squadron.

But D&C teaches precision, followership/responsiveness to commands, and teamwork. Those are important principles, no matter one's membership category.

And that's why it's part of the Cadet Programs.

I say that D&C teaches universal lessons, and you respond that that's why it is only required by one half of the organization. We have a disconnect here.[/quote]

You might be right...that SM could benefit from formal D&C instruction.......but by regulations....there is no requirement.  And there my be other more age appropriate ways to teach the lessons then using D&C.

We're training senior member officers to be leaders and managers. The scope of their training is different. Perhaps when we open the NCO track to non-prior service, we could include D&C in their training curriculum.

D&C involves leadership and management, as well. I don't understand why you seem to think that it is not relevant.

Just because it is not regulatorily required does not at all mean that it is not relevant.

It my be NOT relevant because D&C is a poor tool to teach those lessons to adults.

When I attended COS at Maxwell in 1995, I noticed that the USAF SOS and OTS personnel certainly participate a great deal of D&C. Their officer status did not free them from such obligations.

So I don't understand why you or anyone else in CAP thinks that CAP SM officership should free CAP SM officers from such, either.

Since D&C teaches great universal lessons, then it ought to be a universal activity.

OTOH, if it's silly and ridiculous and unworthy of SM participation, then I don't get why it's OK to dump it on cadets.

Who is dumping on cadets.    The only reason why we force D&C on cadets is that it is formally part of their program.   I certainly would not spend nearly as much time on D&C if I did not have to.   

Again....sure there are lessons to be learned from D&C for the senior members.   But there is also better uses for their time.   There are other ways to teach those same lessons then using D&C.

I never suggested a categorical non-participation, but that it shouldn't be required.

Why shouldn't it?

If a SQ/CC can have UODs that go beyond service uniforms, to include work uniforms or PT uniforms or service dress uniforms, then why shouldn't a SQ/CC be able to require meeting activities for SMs that go beyond the bare minimum of the SMPD reg?

Just because he can....does not mean he should.   
The statment was that D&C should not be required.....why?   We got better things to do and more age appropriate ways of training then standing in foration for 15 minutes each week.

That said, this has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with the difference between a cadet and an officer. Their expectations and roles are different.

What is this difference of which you speak?

What about cadet officers? Why do they still have D&C requirements, long after they have left noncom status far behind? What point is there to having cadet officers, who are likewise learning about leadership and management, also continue with their D&C studies?

With that in mind, why not likewise have SM officers do the same?

What about CADET Officers?   And if you look...they do not have D&C testing requirements past Mitchell. 
As for Senior Members......I agree.   We do need to add some formal D&C requirements to the program.  And I don't have anything wrong with them forming up in formation.   But that is not quite the same thing as you are suggesting here.

I think it has more to do with the fact that many adults join Civil Air Patrol to participate in the "Air" part of the organization. Cadets under 18, on the other hand, are restricted from being aircrew members.

Would there be some measure of wisdom to having CAP units organized around entire missions, like USAF units? Ground team flights, and Air ops squadrons, and Cadet Program squadrons, and Information Technology flights, etc.? This would allow for personnel to specialize in just those kinds of activities that they like.

Or would that kind of balkanization be harmful to the organization?

Why isn't it already, here? Indulging personnel to pick and choose this or that, buffet style, and having an entire section of the membership exempt from important activities like D&C or PT seems to be very similar to what I just mentioned.

Actually I think that we really ought to go down that route.  Where Squadrons are organized at the county level and "units" are Flights and Elements that are more specialized in mission and scope.

The bulkanization would only happen if each "unit" could/would not integrate their activities/mission with the larger whole.

But specializing of units would be useful in a lot of ways.   It would allow the leaders of those units to focus their energies on a single aspect of our mission.    A quality over quantity argument.

Have you been a part of each of these type of units? I have. Their charter difference hast nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with a focus on different missions and roles.

I never had a need for a SM who didn't have a need for cadets, so no. I somehow found a way to work on my levels and proficiency ratings and Yeager Award and what-not while also working with cadets. There was never any call to drive a wall between my missions and roles and my cadets, like that. I didn't appreciate those SMs who thought that way when I was a cadet, and I didn't emulate them when I went senior, either.

So...those who don't understand cadets and the cadet mission....you don't understand.   So your answer is to marginalize them and force them to your standards of what a good senior member should be.

People come in all flavors.   Not everyone has to be everything to everyone else.  Some CAP members don't want anything to do with ES....should we dislike them?  Some CAP members don't want to do anything with ES or Cadets....but have no problem being the supply/admin/personnel/transportation officer for the unit.

There are some people who are excellent comm officers but are terrible teachers.....should I force them onto the cadets because "we should not pick and choose our missions"?

Remember if you make being a CP mentor a requirement to be a pilot....you are either going to lose pilots or your going to get pilots who hate "kids" forcing his way onto your cadets to get his box checked so he can fly.

A composite squadron is a unit that has Cadet and Senior Programs. While some senior members participate in both programs, they're not required. Your statements show little understanding of CAP's unit structures and missions.

It's not that I lack understanding of the CAP structures or missions. It's that I think CAP indulges too many people in their prejudices or fetishes by way of its structures and membership category differentiation. It's lets certain people get away with too much.

Why does CAP deem it perfectly OK to facilitate young people becoming dynamic Americans by requiring (in part) drill and PT, but then suddenly lose heart and, as you point out, NOT require such for SMs?

Because that is not the point of the senior program.  We (us seniors) are not in CAP to become Young Dynamic American leaders.  We are here to do a mission for community, state, and nation.     We do not have a PD program to make SM better people.   We have a PD program to make seniors more effective cogs in the mission machinery.   

Marching up and down the parking lot and being fit and healthy are not necessary for making sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed.  That the aircraft is preflighted and scannner training is done.

That is the difference between the cadet program and the senior program.   

Why have units with both membership categories, and then require the cadets to experience such things, while letting the SMs completely off the hook? You ask me what's the harm in something. Well I ask: what's the value in such a double-standard?

You fall back on "but it's not required in the regs for SMs". I ask, if it's such a good idea for cadets, then why not for the SMs too?

It is because you don't understand the mission and purpose of the Cadet Program vs the Senior Program.

The Cadet Program is to develop the cadets into good citizens.....using all those tools mentioned.
The Senior Program is to develop the seniors into better tools to get the missions of CAP (CP, ES, AE) done.   Anything outside of that is a fringe benefit.

I mean no disrespect, but this division or categorization has nothing to do with an elitist attitude. What's so wrong with a senior member who wants to participate in Emergency Services and not the Cadet Programs? I say nothing.

I never said that a SM should be required to participate in Cadet Programs. I said that a SM at a composite squadron should be composited, or put together with cadets at certain time, and that formations make the ideal time for such.

That said, what's so wrong with making them participate in both?

But to go further and answer your question: Because you don't afford cadets the same privilege. It's hypocritical, unfair, and inconsistent. That kind of thing hardly builds unit cohesion or contributes to unit morale and esprit. It creates an "us versus them" mentality.

To go one step further, letting SMs break away and form entire units without cadets smacks of an elitist, anti-cadet attitude.

I know that this reg doesn't require this, and that reg doesn't require that. It's not a lack of knowledge or understanding on my part. It's a familiarity with how it felt as a cadet to experience these kinds of double standards because of special opt-outs for SMs, which lingered with me throughout my previous CAP career. And it's the push-back that comes up anytime there's a recommendation to dial back on those kinds of special privileges in the present day.

Can't.  Won't.  Don't need to.
The US vs THEM is always going to be there....because it is CADETS vs SENIORS.    And never shall the two meet.   In high school students are not teachers.....even though teachers are sometime students.

Your point of view is often common among cadets....."those Seniors just don't know anything and don't do any thing and look like feces.  They are in a senior squadron because they hate us and think they are better then us".

And it is almost the same exact way that "those" sort of seniors look at cadets.   For they most part they see cadets either as 12 year olds who need to be baby sat or overly arrogant 19-20 year old with chips on their shoulder.

While most senior members are 40+ year old who have BTDT even if they never wore a uniform and cant salute.....they get dissed by some kid who thinks that marching up and down the parade field is the pinnacle of leadership.

And you seem to have not learned the difference since becomming a Senior Member

[GroundHawg]

I almost feel like we should assign elements, in order of grade, so they know ahead of time where they're expected to be, and then if someone doesn't show and the elements are uneven we move forward and fill in the gaps.

Another solution would be to have the Seniors fall into formation a few minutes before the Cadets enter the room, so they never see the confusion.

IMHO too much work.

fall them in by size and be done with it.

I agree. If you feel strongly about doing opening formation with senior members, you should keep it as simple as possible.

To be honest, I don't think senior members should be required to participate in formations, especially in composite squadrons. Unlike cadets, senior members are not instructed nor required to be knowledgeable about drill and ceremonies. In addition, not every senior member is interested or joined CAP to participate in this aspect of the organization, so why make it mandatory?

In 19 years in the Air Force, the only times I've participated in a formation (other than BMT and Tech School) are during formal change of commands or awards ceremonies. Even then, many of these are held in doors, in an auditorium. Opening formation, while part of military tradition, is not something the military (especially the Air Force) does every week. Officers, in particular, don't usually participate in those kind of formations.

Its strange how different our experiences with both CAP and the USAF are.

As someone who believes in leading by example, I always line up a "Sierra" flight in formations. I have found that cadets respond well to the Coaching Leadership model and respect our efforts.

While I was in the Air Force, the only time I didn't line up in formation at the beginning of the day is when I was deployed. Every morning (except Sundays) we went to the warehouse and formed up even if there wasn't anything to be briefed on.

What did you do in the Air Force?

I was a 2T271 Air Transportation Craftsman. Some folks referred to us as Port Dawgs though I never liked that title. My last duty station was in the Guard as the Aerial Delivery NCOIC. I think by the nature of my career field, it made sense that daily we would go over any flights coming in or out, special handling needs, hazmat, ammo loads, equipment that was in maintenance, pita loadmasters, etc...

[lordmonar]

My experience as a Comm guy was no formation for the most part.

We did once an in a while have open ranks...and special ceremonies (change of commands, retreat etc) but not as a routine part of our work day.

I know that other career fields do it differently...Security Forces for one had daily musters..but I never actually saw how they did it so I don't know how formal they were.

It just goes to show you that even the AF is not a homogenous as some people want to make it out to be.

[abdsp51]

SF hold guardmounts daily even down range and the are pretty formal for the most part. 

Everyone falls in
Roll Call/Post Assignment
Pass ons
News
Open Ranks

Usually lasts anywhere from 15 mins to 30. And occurs for every shift.  I think the only time I didn't do a traditional guardmount was at Bagram. 

[PHall]

Flying Squadrons don't do formations. Period...

You ever see pilots trying to march? It's not pretty.

[SarDragon]

Sailors can't march, either. 

[lordmonar]

Sailors can't march, either. 

Sure they do.....only for very short distances.    Then they swim. 

[Storm Chaser]

I disagree. D&C is part of the Cadet Programs and required for cadet promotions. It is not part of the senior program nor required for progression. Unless a senior member is working with Cadet Programs, there's no requirement for him or her to be knowledgeable in D&C.

You're changing the subject there. First you asked why should a SM drill if he's not interested in it? That's when I pointed out that lack of interest shouldn't matter for SMs, because some cadets lack interest too. Now you change the subject to what is required by regs. Interest and regulatory requirement are two totally different tacks.

There's no regulatory requirement for a SM to wear BDUs properly, either--since 39-1 does not require work uniforms, but only service uniforms. However, if a SM is going to go beyond the bare minimum and optionally wear a BDU, then he needs to do it properly and completely.

The lack of interest of a cadet in drill is irrelevant. Drill is required for cadet progression and cadet progression is required to remain in the program according to CAPR 52-16. Plain and simple. Such requirement doesn't exist for senior members. You BDU example is flawed. CAPM 39-1 may not required senior members or cadets to have or wear BDUs, but it does require that BDU be worn properly.

Similarly, if a member is going to join a composite unit, then he ought to participate in joint activities. A composite unit should be characterized by joint activities.

And I'm sure many/most composite squadrons do. However, there is no requirement for senior members in a composite squadron to participate or directly support the Cadet Programs. If you disagree, please provide the citation that supports your argument.

Even though the SMPD regs do not require D&C from SMs as individual PD, when SMs go beyond merely being individuals and actually join composite squadrons, they incur certain peculiar obligations that they might not otherwise occur. The SQ/CC can determine exactly what those are. And the very definition of the term ought to way heavily in his mind while making that determination.

Cite please. There's absolutely no basis to your argument here. If what you're saying is true, then drill and ceremonies would be part of the training curriculum for senior members. Heck, not even CAPP 216 or the Cadet Programs specialty track requires such knowledge or participation.

But D&C teaches precision, followership/responsiveness to commands, and teamwork. Those are important principles, no matter one's membership category.

And that's why it's part of the Cadet Programs.

I say that D&C teaches universal lessons, and you respond that that's why it is only required by one half of the organization. We have a disconnect here.

Yes we do.

We're training senior member officers to be leaders and managers. The scope of their training is different. Perhaps when we open the NCO track to non-prior service, we could include D&C in their training curriculum.

D&C involves leadership and management, as well. I don't understand why you seem to think that it is not relevant.

Just because it is not regulatorily required does not at all mean that it is not relevant.

When I attended COS at Maxwell in 1995, I noticed that the USAF SOS and OTS personnel certainly participate a great deal of D&C. Their officer status did not free them from such obligations.

So I don't understand why you or anyone else in CAP thinks that CAP SM officership should free CAP SM officers from such, either.

Since D&C teaches great universal lessons, then it ought to be a universal activity.

OTOH, if it's silly and ridiculous and unworthy of SM participation, then I don't get why it's OK to dump it on cadets.

You're mixing arguments here and making assumptions on my overall feeling or position regarding drill. For the record, I'm very knowledgeable and proficient at it. My comments are geared specifically to a non-existing requirement that every senior member who joins CAP needs to know and participate in drill and ceremonies. I say there's no requirement and my position is supported by regulations. If a senior member wants to participate in formations or learn how to drill, nothing prohibits it. On the other hand, nothing requires it either.

I never suggested a categorical non-participation, but that it shouldn't be required.

Why shouldn't it?

If a SQ/CC can have UODs that go beyond service uniforms, to include work uniforms or PT uniforms or service dress uniforms, then why shouldn't a SQ/CC be able to require meeting activities for SMs that go beyond the bare minimum of the SMPD reg?

Because it goes beyond his role as commander. As a commander myself, I can tell you that the authority of a CAP commander is not unlimited and he or she must use good judgment when making decisions or adding requirements to his or her members.

That said, this has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with the difference between a cadet and an officer. Their expectations and roles are different.

What is this difference of which you speak?

What about cadet officers? Why do they still have D&C requirements, long after they have left noncom status far behind? What point is there to having cadet officers, who are likewise learning about leadership and management, also continue with their D&C studies?

With that in mind, why not likewise have SM officers do the same?

Cadet officers are still cadets. Look at their flight caps and tell me what you see. That said, as cadet officers progress through each achievement and milestone, they should focus more on management, planning and executive roles and less so on drill (not saying they don't participate in it anymore).

I think it has more to do with the fact that many adults join Civil Air Patrol to participate in the "Air" part of the organization. Cadets under 18, on the other hand, are restricted from being aircrew members.

Would there be some measure of wisdom to having CAP units organized around entire missions, like USAF units? Ground team flights, and Air ops squadrons, and Cadet Program squadrons, and Information Technology flights, etc.? This would allow for personnel to specialize in just those kinds of activities that they like.

Or would that kind of balkanization be harmful to the organization?

It has been discussed before. The challenge lies with the fact that many of our members participate in different programs, functions and specialties within CAP. This division may work for some, but not for all.

Why isn't it already, here? Indulging personnel to pick and choose this or that, buffet style, and having an entire section of the membership exempt from important activities like D&C or PT seems to be very similar to what I just mentioned.

This is certainly your opinion. I doubt Congress and the Air Force are giving CAP millions of dollars every year because of drill or PT. These are "tools", not the mission.

Have you been a part of each of these type of units? I have. Their charter difference hast nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with a focus on different missions and roles.

I never had a need for a SM who didn't have a need for cadets, so no. I somehow found a way to work on my levels and proficiency ratings and Yeager Award and what-not while also working with cadets. There was never any call to drive a wall between my missions and roles and my cadets, like that. I didn't appreciate those SMs who thought that way when I was a cadet, and I didn't emulate them when I went senior, either.

There you go. You only speak from your experience with one type of unit. I've been in and enjoyed all three of them. I've met great people in all three.

In fact, one of my senior squadrons has some of the most professional members I've known in CAP. They take the mission very seriously and support many of our operational missions and tasking including SAR, DR, AP, CD, fire patrol, low-level surveys, just to name a few.

A composite squadron is a unit that has Cadet and Senior Programs. While some senior members participate in both programs, they're not required. Your statements show little understanding of CAP's unit structures and missions.

It's not that I lack understanding of the CAP structures or missions. It's that I think CAP indulges too many people in their prejudices or fetishes by way of its structures and membership category differentiation. It's lets certain people get away with too much.

"Elitism", "prejudices", "fetishes"... I can't believe I'm reading these comments from a CAP officer. I think it is you who have some prejudice against senior members who are not inclined to work directly with Cadet Programs.

Why does CAP deem it perfectly OK to facilitate young people becoming dynamic Americans by requiring (in part) drill and PT, but then suddenly lose heart and, as you point out, NOT require such for SMs?

Because cadets are one of CAP's missions; senior members are not. Senior members are there to support CAP missions. Some choose to support CAP through the Cadets Programs, others through Emergency Services or Aerospace Education or a combination of them. Some, choose to support and participate in all three primary missions. Every senior member who supports CAP in one way or another is important to the organization. To think otherwise, just shows prejudice against a sector of our membership.

Why have units with both membership categories, and then require the cadets to experience such things, while letting the SMs completely off the hook? You ask me what's the harm in something. Well I ask: what's the value in such a double-standard?

You fall back on "but it's not required in the regs for SMs". I ask, if it's such a good idea for cadets, then why not for the SMs too?

Already been answered... multiple times.

I mean no disrespect, but this division or categorization has nothing to do with an elitist attitude. What's so wrong with a senior member who wants to participate in Emergency Services and not the Cadet Programs? I say nothing.

I never said that a SM should be required to participate in Cadet Programs. I said that a SM at a composite squadron should be composited, or put together with cadets at certain time, and that formations make the ideal time for such.

That said, what's so wrong with making them participate in both?

You do realize that cadet squadrons have senior members too, right? And that those senior members, who primarily work with and support the Cadet Programs, are also encouraged to participate and progress in the senior program, right? What you're suggesting is to treat composite squadrons like cadet squadrons. If we were to do that, then why make the distinction?

But to go further and answer your question: Because you don't afford cadets the same privilege. It's hypocritical, unfair, and inconsistent. That kind of thing hardly builds unit cohesion or contributes to unit morale and esprit. It creates an "us versus them" mentality.

To go one step further, letting SMs break away and form entire units without cadets smacks of an elitist, anti-cadet attitude.

It is you who have an elitists attitude. You think that senior members who support the Cadet Programs are somehow better than those who do not. Fine example you're giving our young cadets.

I know that this reg doesn't require this, and that reg doesn't require that. It's not a lack of knowledge or understanding on my part. It's a familiarity with how it felt as a cadet to experience these kinds of double standards because of special opt-outs for SMs, which lingered with me throughout my previous CAP career. And it's the push-back that comes up anytime there's a recommendation to dial back on those kinds of special privileges in the present day.

I guess our experiences as cadets were different. I'm glad that not everyone feels like you and that there's room in CAP for members who want to support their communities, states and nation in different ways. You may want to review the Core Values. Respect, in particular, comes to mind. Have a good day, sir.

[almostspaatz]

Sure they do.....only for very short distances.    Then they swim. 

touche`
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[winterg]

The Composite in Composite Squadron.....is talking about the mission....not the people.

I'm not sure I get your meaning on this one since regardless of whether it is a Senior, Cadet, or Composite Squadron, all three CAP missions can be present.  And CAPR 20-1 specifically lays out the difference as having to do with the members in that squadron.

21. Squadrons. The squadron is the community-level organization of CAP. Wing commanders may activate squadrons in accordance with CAPR 20-3. Whenever the membership drops below the minimums outlined in CAPR 20-3, the wing commander may deactivate the squadron or redesignate it as a flight. The designation of each squadron will indicate whether it is a:
a. Senior Squadron. Comprised entirely of senior members.
b. Cadet Squadron. Comprised primarily of cadets with a minimum of three senior members to meet supervisory,
administrative, and training requirements in the conduct of cadet programs.
c. Composite Squadron. Comprised of both senior and cadet members, conducting both senior and cadet programs.

[lordmonar]

The Composite in Composite Squadron.....is talking about the mission....not the people.

I'm not sure I get your meaning on this one since regardless of whether it is a Senior, Cadet, or Composite Squadron, all three CAP missions can be present.  And CAPR 20-1 specifically lays out the difference as having to do with the members in that squadron.

21. Squadrons. The squadron is the community-level organization of CAP. Wing commanders may activate squadrons in accordance with CAPR 20-3. Whenever the membership drops below the minimums outlined in CAPR 20-3, the wing commander may deactivate the squadron or redesignate it as a flight. The designation of each squadron will indicate whether it is a:
a. Senior Squadron. Comprised entirely of senior members.
b. Cadet Squadron. Comprised primarily of cadets with a minimum of three senior members to meet supervisory,
administrative, and training requirements in the conduct of cadet programs.
c. Composite Squadron. Comprised of both senior and cadet members, conducting both senior and cadet programs.

My point is that just because a member joins a composite squadron...he/she may not be interested/proficient in doing the Cadet Program.  And as you point out there is no requirment for any senior member to do all three (or any) missions directly.

The aims and goals of the CP compared to the SP are vastly different.

[Mitchell 1969]

I've seen more than a few composite squadrons where the cadets met one night, seniors another and staff on a separate staff night in addition to their regular meeting. Makes it kind of hard to have a joint formation even if they wanted to.

And, no, it wasn't "elitism" or "I don't like cadets" which drove it. It was usually due to facility space limitations, mission differences or both.

[J2H]

We had the SMs in opening formation, but that was it