CAP Talk

I've been trying to figure out if there is any way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system in which people could join and after some initial training would primarily be expected to be participate in emergency services when needed and would not participate in meetings, CAP professional development, etc. 

I imagine them as being limited to no more than 2nd Lt. rank no matter their prior service, pilot ratings, medical license, etc. since they would not be contributing those skills to the organization.  Perhaps they would have reduced dues as well and perhaps not get the Volunteer (so their actual cost to the organization isn't very high). 

I would expect them to maintain currency in their ES qualifications. 

Now, given these parameters, I don't see any way could use Reservists as Mission Pilots or even Transport Mission Pilots since that requires quite a bit of regular training, safety briefings, etc.  I really wish we could as I know there are a lot of pilots out there who would probably be interested in a low-commitment membership that would allow them to help. 

Mission Observer Reservists might be possible.  However, it does require a fair amount of training, especially of non-pilots to get initially qualified and if someone is going to all that trouble they may as well become a full member. 

What positions could they fill?  Scanner, Mission Radio Operator, Mission Staff Assistant would be the most likely.  Maybe Mission Chaplain.  Also, just general support around the base (drivers, cooks, gofers, etc.).  I could maybe see them doing GTM3 or UDF team member as both could be learned fairly quickly, but they do require some investment in equipment that Reservists may not be interested in. 

Basically, I'm trying to come up with a way to recruit people who might not be willing to go all the way, but who could come in handy when you're in a pinch for personnel.  Although I see it primarily as a way of possibly bringing in new people, it might be a good place to park some formerly active members who are beginning to cut back on their CAP commitments due to age or other reasons.  I'd rather have these old hands drop back to being reservists for a few years before having them quit entirely.   

This program might also be somewhat attractive to people such as the spouses of full members or parents of cadet members.  They may not want to participate all the time, but may want to when their loved ones are in the thick of it. 

I also see this as a way of getting people involved with CAP who live too far from a squadron to participate regularly, which probably represents a whole lot of people in each state.  Consider the number of people who would probably join if they only had to drive in a few times a year for training or SAREXs who would then be available in a pinch.  Think of all those towns that are really just too small to support a whole squadron.  (Yes, this is a slight homage to some of what is being tried in Iowa). 

How to manage them?  Well, you could do an all-state squadron like Iowa has for its cadets or you could assign the Reservists to the nearest squadron or you could even do both.  Hard to say what might work best.  Having a single unit oversee them would probably be better administratively and for training, but would probably leave them out of the loop when a mission came around (unless it was a very large one).  I guess I see reservists in the same town as a squadron being available for more routine local missions if a regular isn't available.  Perhaps those in the all-state squadron would be those too far from a unit to do regular missions but who would want to be available for the bigger missions. 

Now, just about any way you want to look at it, this would involve some work on the part of the Wing.  You would most likely need to set up special times for training them, requalifying them, etc.   I would probably suggest having a few Wings interested in the concept get NHQ approval to test it out to see what methods work best and to test the overall concept.  For example, if we were to find that 75% of the people who join and get scanner training drop out and don't recertify when their 101 expires, then that is probably a good sign that the initial effort wasn't worth it. 

Thoughts?

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 12:27:45 AM
I've been trying to figure out if there is any way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system in which people could join and after some initial training would primarily be expected to be participate in emergency services when needed and would not participate in meetings, CAP professional development, etc. 

We got that system now.

After Level I training and monthy safety meetings there is NO requirment for senior members to attend any meetings.

On the other hand....if you don't attend meetings you are not going to become one of the boys and won't get called out on any operations.

This assumes that Active members are actually Active... The reality is that many are Reservists already.  I would much rather have a quasi-patron status than to develop yet another membership category which if I read it correctly caters only to one mission.

We are all "CAP Reservists".  We cant count on them to train, but we can count on them to show up for the "big one"?.....No thanks.

I really wish we could as I know there are a lot of pilots out there who would probably be interested in a low-commitment membership that would allow them to help. 


Yeah.....I want to fly with that guy in a high stress environment.

Sorry, you cannot be a "part-time, part-timer" and still be considered a ready asset.  As mentioned, we've got too many of those already.

These are the guys who think they have ES so knocked they can ignore it until the REDCAP pager goes off.

They are also the ones with expired quals, bad uniforms, no 101 card, incorrect equipment and out dated pubs.  They spend the whole day asking question answered over and over at meetings and training activities and begging people to sign off their SQTRs because they won't be around again for 6 months.

No thanks, if a couple hours a week and a few days a quarter are too much of a burden, look elsewhere for your service.

Note: This does not include people who encounter "life issues" and need to take a break, that happens in the real world and isn't any different in CAP

Folks, you missed the point here --- these folks would be required to maintain their ES qualifications to be "Reservists".  That would require at a minimum level of mission participation and training that would not change.  I would say that anyone who let their ES qual dropped would have a choice of either becoming a patron member or leave. 

This would give us the ability to clearly separate our most active members from those who are not (something that many on this board constantly harp on). 

QuoteYeah.....I want to fly with that guy in a high stress environment.

Which is why I said that this category would not be appropriate to pilots. 

I'm not talking about lowering any standards or training requirements. 

As to uniforms, I would probably propose that they only wear corporate style or golf shirt uniforms.  With the minimum level of activity I also wouldn't trust them to have AF-style uniforms in proper shape to be worn.  In fact, getting to wear the AF-style might be a little bit of incentive to eventually get out of Reserve status. 

Yes, this would be geared towards one mission -- ES, but frankly we're not going to get people who want to only part time do cadet or AE work.  In any case, it doesn't hurt those programs if this is an extra option for those interested in ES work.  Not a zero-sum game. 

CAP has to realize that more and more people are not interested in participating in volunteer programs like ours.  They are more interested in periodic volunteering.  This proposal would allow us to take advantage of that without lowering our standards any. 

Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty.  Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area.  If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions, they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.  A scanner does not need 24 meetings. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty.  Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area.  If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions, they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.  A scanner does not need 24 meetings. 

True, you only need to showup for 1 SAREX every 3 years to keep your quals current (except MP's who have to requal every 2 years).  But that goes to the question of who wants to put their life or mission in the hands of a guy who did something twice at a SAREX 8 years 11 months ago ago and once every 3 years since?  As an IC, he's not going to be anywhere near the top of my call list... YMMV

And I wouldn't suggest that they be.  Heck, thats sort of what "reserve" means.  However, you ask that IC whether he would rather put a plane up with only a pilot and observer because all the regulars were unavailable or whether he would like the option of calling in a qualified, but not active scanner to look out the back window. 

I know what call I'd make. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
CAP has to realize that more and more people are not interested in participating in volunteer programs like ours. They are more interested in periodic volunteering.  This proposal would allow us to take advantage of that without lowering our standards any.

I partially agree with the periodic volunteerism, however frankly CAP is not for them, and all this would do is formalize a sub-class of members between active and patron for no particular reason. This gives people an excuse to not participate.  They don't need that and we don't need to encourage people to show up for the "fun stuff" and then leave before the clean up.

Every CC worth his pin knows exactly who is active and who isn't.  If they don't, they are too disconnected to be effective.  The only issue here is the reluctance of some CC's to pull the "000" lever because they think an inflated membership number has some kind of value.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty. 

Correct, 24 meetings is not enough, you also need SAREX's, non-mission training days and home study.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area. 

Then change the meetings to be appropriate for your people.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions,

They need to join CAP, not walk in like they are the god of radio.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.

Then we don't need them, and if all your meetings are about is flying safety, then either you need to adjust your meetings, or perhaps your unit's ability to operate safely.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
A scanner does not need 24 meetings. 

See above.

This attitude of "my ticket's punched, so I don't need to be bothered.." along with "tonight's meeting is about "x" and I don't do "x" so I don't care..." is precisely the problem with CAP right now.

We need more people to treat this as a vocation, not a hobby.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:24:00 AM
Folks, you missed the point here --- these folks would be required to maintain their ES qualifications to be "Reservists".  That would require at a minimum level of mission participation and training that would not change.  I would say that anyone who let their ES qual dropped would have a choice of either becoming a patron member or leave. 

This would give us the ability to clearly separate our most active members from those who are not (something that many on this board constantly harp on). 

QuoteYeah.....I want to fly with that guy in a high stress environment.

Which is why I said that this category would not be appropriate to pilots. 

I'm not talking about lowering any standards or training requirements. 

As to uniforms, I would probably propose that they only wear corporate style or golf shirt uniforms.  With the minimum level of activity I also wouldn't trust them to have AF-style uniforms in proper shape to be worn.  In fact, getting to wear the AF-style might be a little bit of incentive to eventually get out of Reserve status. 

Yes, this would be geared towards one mission -- ES, but frankly we're not going to get people who want to only part time do cadet or AE work.  In any case, it doesn't hurt those programs if this is an extra option for those interested in ES work.  Not a zero-sum game. 

CAP has to realize that more and more people are not interested in participating in volunteer programs like ours.  They are more interested in periodic volunteering.  This proposal would allow us to take advantage of that without lowering our standards any. 

Lets face facts -- you don't need to go to 24 meetings a year (the usual for seniors) to stay current in any ES specialty.  Most meetings will not apply at all to what you're doing in that area.  If a RACES member wants to help with the radio on some missions, they're not going to be interested in going to those 24 meetings to hear about flying safety all the time.  A scanner does not need 24 meetings.

Again...I understand what you are saying....but you are just playing name games....an US vs Them sort of thing.

Right now...today.....everywhere in CAP....there is no, none, zilch, nada, requirement to attend any meetings.

So  SM X has his GTL rating....all he has to do is show up to at the mission base and he is in....even if he has not attend a single meeting in the last year.

Why create an administrative nightmare of keeping track of "active duty" and "Reservist" CAP members?  What would a reservist be able to do or not be able to do compared to an active member?

Too much hassle, little or no gain in efficiency.

Another point, most ground teams train together - that includes training at meetings. As a GTL (or any kind of supervisor) I would be hesitant to put the "reservist" in the field or to use without a known qualified person who is active to "guide" or "assist" them until I am confident they have a clue. When I was training officer on my haz mat team (all volunteer) I dismissed/retired/ fired/etc about 15% of the team who didn't come to training regularly and only showed up at enough incidents to indicate they were still alive. By the rules, they were considered qualified, but I wouldn't trust them to do more than watch the clock and certainly not with any offes\nsive tasks.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 02:40:36 AM
And I wouldn't suggest that they be.  Heck, thats sort of what "reserve" means.  However, you ask that IC whether he would rather put a plane up with only a pilot and observer because all the regulars were unavailable or whether he would like the option of calling in a qualified, but not active scanner to look out the back window. 

I know what call I'd make. 

If it were a real mission, I'd probably send the guy home or put him to work as a staff assistant.  Sitting in the back seat of a hot airplane at 1000' AGL working a grid or expanding square is physically hard on an experienced scanner.  Putting someone in the airplane who is inexperienced, not used to the physical stress, and then adding the mental stress of a real mission is just asking for him/her to get nervous and sick, which means a likely aborted sortie which doesn't help the mission at all, not to mention embarassing the member, and probably losing them for good.  YMMV  

Speaking as someone who has flown a ton of flights as a scanner and taught scanner training classes multiple times, I'm calling BS on anyone that thinks that people fulfilling that position need much more than the required sorties in order to be pretty competent.  We're not talking about ARCHER or SDIS people here, but your basic Mark-1 eyeball scanner.  Basic radio operations also aren't that terribly  difficult and don't require much classroom or meeting time either. 

This stuff isn't rocket science.  I'm on the record in another thread as saying that our current sortie requirements for aircrews, including scanners, are probably low.  But you're not going to convince me that any squadron out there is spending much time on scanner-level training during regular meetings throughout the year.  We just have way too much stuff to cover to do more than skin-deep refresher training for most positions during regular meetings. 

As I indicated earlier, using them for GTM/UDF work is only probably marginally possible.  It will be even tougher when CAP is forced to start imposing physical requirements on GT members due to NIMS. 

The primary purpose of this membership category would be to attract people to CAP, especially those that face geographic challenges to regular squadron membership, that probably would never decided to go the full route.  This offers them a way to help, and gets us some additional qualified people that would be available to us when needed. 
 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 03:41:11 AM
Speaking as someone who has flown a ton of flights as a scanner and taught scanner training classes multiple times, I'm calling BS on anyone that thinks that people fulfilling that position need much more than the required sorties in order to be pretty competent.  We're not talking about ARCHER or SDIS people here, but your basic Mark-1 eyeball scanner.  Basic radio operations also aren't that terribly  difficult and don't require much classroom or meeting time either. 

Fine, then call BS, because I'm saying it.

The 2-ride guys will spend the whole time being excited / scared about the plane ride and looking for their house.

It takes more than the required sorties and training to do >ANY< >>>N-E<<< CAP ES job, from MSA to IC.

You want the badge?  2 missions. 

You want to be worth a crap in a real-world?  We need to see you a whole lot more.

There was a Civil Air Patrol reserve during the 1940s.  I rememeber reading about it in FLYING magazine, back when they had a section a called "CAP WING TALK."

Quote from: Eclipse on December 22, 2007, 01:03:51 AM
Sorry, you cannot be a "part-time, part-timer" and still be considered a ready asset.  As mentioned, we've got too many of those already.

Thank you!

Look RiverAux...I know what you are trying to do, and while I applaud your heart, I rail against your reasoning.

Why?

Simple...we need to get away from the "body count" mentality. CAP IS different than handing out food to the homeless, or building a Habitat for Humanity home, or working a few days here and there are the local pound.

We may be volunteers, but we ARE a professional organization. Heck I want to go the OTHER direction. I want us to be up-front, and honest with new members. We want you, but we want you to understand that this is a SERIOUS business that requires dedication and time.

In the end lives can be at stake, this is about the downed plane, not making someone feel inclusive if they have four hours a month free time and want to "feel good".

We meet EVERY week, minus a few holidays, and we have 15-20 seniors show up at least 80% of the time, out of 60 on the roles! We do not need any more "part-time, part-timers" added to the mix. Heck we need more full-time, part-timers!

And I wouldn't disagree about needing more active members, but having an option to have some less active members who meet our standards is an entirely separate issue. 

As I envision it the Reserve would NOT be the place to park people who joined CAP and were never seen again.  This is not supposed to be the new ghost squadron, but for people who do maintain their ES qualifications as per CAP regulations.

I would not be opposed to having them be required to attend some sort of annual training weekend outside of what is necessary for ES qualifications. 

Just because someone can't devote their every waking hour to CAP doesn't mean that we can't find a useful role for them.     

And while I primarily see this as a way of attracting in new members, it could answer some of the issues revolving around those who aren't actually terribly active in the squadron.  Those who aren't meeting some specificied meeting attendence rate could be given the choice of going on Reserve status or being sent to the ghost squadron.  Those in Reserve status would know very clearly that they are not going to get mission calls on a regular basis and will not advance in CAP rank.  That cuts out all the complaining about "you never call me" from those who don't like the fact that those that come to the meetings usually get called first.  And if they don't continue to meet the standards to be in the Reserve, off they go to the ghost squadron where no one will call them.  It also gives squadron commanders a very firm and clear basis for not promoting people who aren't active in the unit. 

Negative, I do not agree.  I have had my fill of "absentee CAP-ism."  This is where we never see "Capt Johnny Flyforcheap" until he is ready to milk the system.  The new safety culture of CAP is going to require regular attendance of safety, Stan-Eval and other meetings.  Having folks that are not attending meetings and keeping up, with policy and even with newer members of the unit, creates more harm than good.

Not being able to attend is one thing (arrangements can be made, and we all have times when we are "earning a living"), but having persons that never show but once a year is folly.

What am I supposed to tell those that show up religiously?  Why put someone on a rotation who is never around. 

Body Count mentality is not what is called for, active body mentality is what is needed.  We need to have units where members realize that one must "maintenance" and staff a unit as much as on would an aircraft.

I've already said several times that Reserve members would be IN RESERVE.  They would not generally be flying missions unless no other members could be found. 

Good thing you guys weren't around when they thought of having an Air Force Reserve.  Obviously those guys who just show up once a month can't ever be of any use to the organization like those out there working every day. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 04:41:22 PM
 

And while I primarily see this as a way of attracting in new members, it could answer some of the issues revolving around those who aren't actually terribly active in the squadron.  Those who aren't meeting some specificied meeting attendence rate could be given the choice of going on Reserve status or being sent to the ghost squadron.  Those in Reserve status would know very clearly that they are not going to get mission calls on a regular basis and will not advance in CAP rank.  That cuts out all the complaining about "you never call me" from those who don't like the fact that those that come to the meetings usually get called first.  And if they don't continue to meet the standards to be in the Reserve, off they go to the ghost squadron where no one will call them.  It also gives squadron commanders a very firm and clear basis for not promoting people who aren't active in the unit. 

I think your missing our point.  What "issues" are there in people that dont show up?  CAP is already set up that way.  People dont have to come, dont have to train.  CAP is designed to show up when you can.  If you dont train, you dont go on missions.  If you dont train or study, you dont advance in rank or hold staff positions.  There is nothing different in your plan except putting a new bureaucratic animal in place.  Who is going to manage or keep track of a Reserve unit of people who never show up.  I say "No." Keep them in active units.  My unit has several people on our roster whom Ive never met.  They dont even respond to my emails where Ive introduced myself to them as the new Deputy Commander for Seniors.  And you know what, it makes absolutely no difference to me.  Keep sending in your dues, and stay on the books.  They know we are here.  One day they will find the time, or they will just fade away.
Placing them in a "Reserve" capacity will not change anything about it.  Its makes much more sense to have each unit responsible for their handfull of no-shows than to make a giant pot of people that nobody knows, with a "commander" who doesnt know any of them.

Our standards are pretty much as minimum as it is, lets not degrade it anymore, then hope we can count on them when the big one hits.

Again, really, what is the "problem" with people on your roster who dont show up?  You not counting on them anyway, your not calling them for missions, they arent promoting, your not doing paperwork for them.

The folks you are talking about wouldn't be in the Reserve.  They're not active by any definition and obviously are not keeping up with their ES qualificiations.  Thats a whole different group of people and we're not talking about them.

Inactive does not equal Reserve.  Reserve = lower activity level than regular members, but still active. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
I've already said several times that Reserve members would be IN RESERVE.  They would not generally be flying missions unless no other members could be found. 

Good thing you guys weren't around when they thought of having an Air Force Reserve.  Obviously those guys who just show up once a month can't ever be of any use to the organization like those out there working every day. 

Apples and oranges, this is CAP they are the USAF.  You join a Reserve unit and are obligated to maintain your functions as a paid member of the USAF structure.

Also, the USAF Reserve is well trained and can be activated.

CAP is locally driven and requires that the local unit be more than "in name only."  I can't see why you don't have a problem handing the keys to a CAP aircraft to a person who be virtually unknown to the regulars.   

I can see it now...at a REDCAP, some Capt in an obsolete flight flight suit of whom no one knows walks up and wants to fly a mission.  While the other five aircrew members and pilots, who have been building the unit and attending weekly and monthly activities to maintain proficiency, look on in distain and disbelief.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 10:05:25 PM
The folks you are talking about wouldn't be in the Reserve.  They're not active by any definition and obviously are not keeping up with their ES qualificiations.  Thats a whole different group of people and we're not talking about them.

Inactive does not equal Reserve.  Reserve = lower activity level than regular members, but still active. 

We are already part timers.  SARexs are not weekly activities and meetings are not daily. This plan of yours is moot.  The only levels down from us are the PATRON SQUADRON and INACTIVITY!

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
I've already said several times that Reserve members would be IN RESERVE.  They would not generally be flying missions unless no other members could be found. 

And how is that different that what we have today?  No really....how is it different than what happens today?  A mission call goes out.....the A team. (the more active, current, and known members) get called out.  When they are not available you start calling everyone else...including that guy who showed up six months ago and you have not seen him since. 

We are already what you want us to be......but now you want to add a new administrative level to the mix.

Again.......zero gain in efficiency and an increase in administrative overhead.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PMGood thing you guys weren't around when they thought of having an Air Force Reserve.  Obviously those guys who just show up once a month can't ever be of any use to the organization like those out there working every day.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges.

It would be different because this membership option would be presented to potential members up front when they join and may attract new people who would never have considered CAP.  It has the potential to increase the total number of trained personnel available to us. 

Another way this could help:
I know the cadet programs guys are not going to like this, but this membership category would also probably be of great interest to seniors in communities that only have cadet squadrons.  I have the greatest respect and admiration for the seniors who run cadet squadrons or cadets sides of composite squadrons because this represents a major time committment and I'm very appreciative of them doing it. 

However, if a potential senior member comes in who is primarily interested in ES, they are generally going to be turned off by the implication that they're going to have to attend weekly cadet meetings to do it.  These meetings will almost never be of much use to seniors, especially those interested in aircrew roles.  Not everyone is willing to do weekly meetings, especially cadet meetings,  but if that is their only option at that unit they will probably never join and we will never get the benefit of having them on board for what they can do. 

QuoteI can't see why you don't have a problem handing the keys to a CAP aircraft to a person who be virtually unknown to the regulars.   

Because never said that we should do that.  I said that this would not be an appropriate status for CAP Pilots, only for the more basic ES positions. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:01:00 PMthey are generally going to be turned off by the implication that they're going to have to attend weekly cadet meetings to do it. 

SAYS WHO!?!?!?

Who is "making" these people attend weekly meetings?  I'm not.  If you are my MLO....guess what....you only have to show up on MLO night.  If you are a pilot you only have to show up for the month safety meeting.  If you a GTL the only meeting I need you to show up for is when I want you to teach an GT class.

If you are going out there trying to recruit SM...and telling them they have to attend every meeting.....then there is your problem.

But look at from the squadron ADMIN side of it.......What are the different benefits vs costs of reserve/Active status?

Sure you can "sell" the more limited commitment up front.....but why can't you do that for regular SM membership?

We already have a problem getting people to meetings to check up on things like professional development, uniform wear, training status, health status.  Now you want to make a class of member who can look the commander in the face and say "you can't make come to a meeting.....I'm a reservist!".


I say again.....you get zero real benefit and an increase in administrative overhead.

QuoteSure you can "sell" the more limited commitment up front.....but why can't you do that for regular SM membership?

So, you're going out there telling potential recruits that they don't have to have regular meeting attendence and they'll just be hunky dory with you?  Doesn't seem to be the standard approach.   I think we all tell people that they don't have to make every one (life happens), but we all expect people to attend on a fairly regular basis. 

Once people stop attending regularly (less than 25% of the time) they are usually on the slide towards total inactivity or disenrollment in the current system because we don't really have a formal way of dealing with that.  Not many people start out and stay at that level that I've ever seen.  Once they stop showing up regularly they are usually totally ignored and forgotten about unless your unit happens to have an unusually aggressive retention program which is not the norm. This option could be used as a way to combat that issue.

Okay, but lets address this "administative burden" argument.  As I have proposed you would not need to worry about their professional development, promotions, etc. because I would limit people joining CAP as a Reservist to 2nd Lt.  I'd even take it a bit farther and say that people transferring from active to reserve would not have time spent in Reserve count towards promotions.  So, you can concentrate your efforts on the professional development of the active members and not have to worry about them at all. 

Also, for those in your unit who are already in an informal version of Reserve status, having them transferred to this wouldn't make a huge difference either positively or negatively in terms of admin time for you.  However, since I envision putting the burden on the wing to provide annual training for these folks it would actually reduce the squadron's responsibility to try to keep them up to date on everything. 

Perhaps the implementation of this system we could do away with the Patron membership category.  My wing has less than a handful of patrons and this category seems to be a waste of time.  Further reduces "burden" in favor of a membership class that can actually be of some use. 

How would this empower people to tell off their squadron commander any more than the current situation?  We're already civilians with no contractual obligations. 

Regarding uniforms I have already said that I would probably limit their uniform wear to the golf shirt or corporate uniforms which severely reduces the potential for them to be wearing something so messed up that its an embarrasment.     

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 10:27:59 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
I can't see why you don't have a problem handing the keys to a CAP aircraft to a person who be virtually unknown to the regulars.   

I have to call you out on this one Major. I often fly an airplane where another Squadron is incharge of it. They dont know me and sometimes I wonder if they want to give me flak. Its not their airplane. Anyone in the Wing can use it

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PM

QuoteSure you can "sell" the more limited commitment up front.....but why can't you do that for regular SM membership?

So, you're going out there telling potential recruits that they don't have to have regular meeting attendance and they'll just be hunky dory with you?  Doesn't seem to be the standard approach.   I think we all tell people that they don't have to make every one (life happens), but we all expect people to attend on a fairly regular basis.

Sure...I tell them the truth.  I tell them exactly what we need and I tell them that what they get out of CAP is directly proportional to what they put it.  But I certainly don't tell them they have to attend every meeting....nor is there a "minimum" number or frequency.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMOnce people stop attending regularly (less than 25% of the time) they are usually on the slide toward total inactivity or disenrollment in the current system because we don't really have a formal way of dealing with that.  Not many people start out and stay at that level that I've ever seen.  Once they stop showing up regularly they are usually totally ignored and forgotten about unless your unit happens to have an unusually aggressive retention program which is not the norm. This option could be used as a way to combat that issue.

And you want to make this a normal membership status?  I though you wanted this to happen?

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMOkay, but lets address this "administrative burden" argument.  As I have proposed you would not need to worry about their professional development, promotions, etc. because I would limit people joining CAP as a Reservist to 2nd Lt.  I'd even take it a bit farther and say that people transferring from active to reserve would not have time spent in Reserve count toward promotions.  So, you can concentrate your efforts on the professional development of the active members and not have to worry about them at all.

Yes...but the fact that we now have a new class of membership we have an increase in admin work.  We now have to process active to reserve request, requests to go to reserve status.  We have to be more proactive in making contact with the reservists to make sure they are still "active reservists" and have not quit.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PM
Also, for those in your unit who are already in an informal version of Reserve status, having them transferred to this wouldn't make a huge difference either positively or negatively in terms of admin time for you.  However, since I envision putting the burden on the wing to provide annual training for these folks it would actually reduce the squadron's responsibility to try to keep them up to date on everything. 

Oh right....like the wing wants that job, and some boy-o who lives 300 miles away is going to care about any of these names on a roster.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMPerhaps the implementation of this system we could do away with the Patron membership category.  My wing has less than a handful of patrons and this category seems to be a waste of time.  Further reduces "burden" in favor of a membership class that can actually be of some use. 

Patron status works very well for some units.  The good thing about patron status is that don't have to be "professional" they just have to be there to do what any parent can do.  They don't need qualifications, ratings, license or any thing that your reservists are going to need.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMHow would this empower people to tell off their squadron commander any more than the current situation?  We're already civilians with no contractual obligations. 

No...but we are under a moral obligation to do what we need to do.  If you give someone a "legal loop hole" you are stealing what little authority our commanders have now.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PMRegarding uniforms I have already said that I would probably limit their uniform wear to the golf shirt or corporate uniforms which severely reduces the potential for them to be wearing something so messed up that its an embarrassment. 

So your idea is to have a bunch of ES rated guys who you never see, who don't know anything about CAP, who don't really want walking about in "our"uniform, all so that you can recruit more people to do ES work.

I don't know....is this really a problem?  

Are there really units out there that are having trouble meeting their ES requirments....but darn it.....if we only had a part time position we could really fill in those missing mission base slots!

River....you usually have some good ideas....but this one is just silly.

If a member says he can't make every meeting but can make the SAREXs and can swing getting off work for a real mission......you say "Okay, see you at next month's SAREX".  

No extra work, no special status, no fancy titles.

K.I.S.S.

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 08:29:01 PM
Negative, I do not agree.  I have had my fill of "absentee CAP-ism."  This is where we never see "Capt Johnny Flyforcheap" until he is ready to milk the system.  The new safety culture of CAP is going to require regular attendance of safety, Stan-Eval and other meetings.  Having folks that are not attending meetings and keeping up, with policy and even with newer members of the unit, creates more harm than good.

Gotta go with the Major on this one. There are a few pilots that come for the cheap flying, but when it comes to missions, they're not around. Before someone gets in a huff, they're not all like that. To those that fly their proficiency so that they are an asset during missions, I gotta give props.

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2007, 10:27:59 PMI can see it now...at a REDCAP, some Capt in an obsolete flight flight suit of whom no one knows walks up and wants to fly a mission.  While the other five aircrew members and pilots, who have been building the unit and attending weekly and monthly activities to maintain proficiency, look on in distain and disbelief.

A valid point, but to carry it a little further, do you want to work with someone you don't or barely know? I wouldn't. It's different with my flying on the military side, I'm trained, and I have proficiency requirements to meet. Any aircrew I "drop" into is going to ask me three things: One, how long have I been flying? Two, am I current? Three, how many hours do I have? All three are documented, and fairly easy to obtain.

Not so with a guy that walks in off the street in our uniform. Not all his flying is with CAP, so the 2000 hours he's telling you he has could be the absolute truth, or a complete whitewash. You can't take those risks when it comes to flying, be it military or general aviation.

Let me address a little further the idea that we currently have an unofficial "reserve" system.  We do have a certain percentage of folks in every squadron who have obtained some ES qualifications, but for whatever reason are no longer attending meetings on a regular basis. 

Generally these are either CAP veterans who are starting to get a little too old for active service or relatively new people with 1-2 years under their belt who are starting to question their membership in the organization-- perhaps they aren't getting a lot of what they want from the meetings and aren't going any more. 

Yes, these people are still on your alert roster in case you need them just like Reservists under my proposal.  However, what you don't have with them is any sort of planned system for keeping them current and up-to-date.  Yeah, they may attend a meeting every other month, but the chances are that the particular meeting they attend won't have anything applicable to their ES specialty, so it won't be of much use for keeping them current.  So, what you end up with is a qualified scanner who maybe gets 6-8 meetings a year that probably weren't of much use in keeping up his skills. 

Compare that with someone in a reserve who also has to keep up his ES qualifications but has to attend an annual training day or weekend in which he is getting 8-16 hours of concentrated refresher training in techniques, regulations, etc. 

Which person is more likely to be of use to you on a mission?  The Reservist or the guy who has gotten a hodgepodge of random meeting-level training, if anything? 

That is where I see the difference.

On a related note, I do not see the Reserves being used as a place to plant people who are cluttering up your roster and who aren't attending meetings.  I'm not one of those who thinks a "clean, active" roster is important.  Becoming a Reservist should be a voluntary decision on the part of the member in full recognition of what their status would be.  I would not be in favor of involuntary transfers to the Reserves like some squadrons send "inactive" members to their Wing's ghost squadron. 

Incidentally, it is the norm for my Wing to use crews combined from different squadrons on major missions.  It isn't ideal, but that is what you sometimes end up with and sticking a Reservist in the mix wouldn't be any different. 

All in all, why create a new member status for people like that? You can do that now, just track their progress. You would have to anyway, an additional member status is adding more steps to a process that wouldn't be too complex in the first place.

Well there you go....you see we don't do much training at all during our regular meetings.  It is more like a staff meeting where each department head gives a little report of what is going on and what the issues are.

ES training takes place at.....ES training events like our monthly SAREXs.  We sometimes hold specific classes during the month for specific skills, such as charting, comm, Flight Release, using the computers at mission base, etc.

If you can set up a specific plan to train all your inactive members.....why not just do it....instead of mandating another personnel program to it?

Again.....I understand where you are coming from....but when you do the cost/benefit analysis I'm sure that you will find that it is just not worth the hassle

If your squadron is having monthly SAREXs, I'd say that you are far outside the norm and maybe this wouldn't be of much help to you.  Hey one size doesn't fit all.  Yes, if a squadron has the resources to reel back in their inactive members, that would be vastly preferable to having them in Reserve status.  Keep in mind that that isn't the main point of this proposal. 

I still do not get what you are trying to do?

Look....the CAP requires a good time commitment. If you cannot do it, then you cannot do it, period.

Why have "barely there" guys and gals?

Great: join CAP, and we'll promise you only get to come out when something REAL and IMPORTANT happens, as opposed to the rest of us who work their butts off the rest of the year to keep the wheels of the CAP machine working AND maintain proficiency in various ES specialties.

when the stuff hits the fan, I wouldn't give up MY seat to some tire-kicker that I only see when the balloon goes up. . . .

Quotewhen the stuff hits the fan, I wouldn't give up MY seat to some tire-kicker that I only see when the balloon goes up. . . .

and you wouldn't.  They would be in the seat while you were at work and couldn't get away...

As I shake my head while reading this I have to say that this is definately a solution looking for a problem. Even our most active members are still comparable to a reserve component for the RealMilitary. We just don't put in as much time and don't need a whole class of members that area only there for a fraction of the fraction of time we spend with CAP. If you have people that just don't want to be active, fine. But we don't need a whole new membership class.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 24, 2007, 11:21:56 PM

Quotewhen the stuff hits the fan, I wouldn't give up MY seat to some tire-kicker that I only see when the balloon goes up. . . .

and you wouldn't.  They would be in the seat while you were at work and couldn't get away...

Great, large amounts of less than proficient people operating CAP equipment.  Can we say safety issues.

I think this idea is officially unpopular and likely unworkable.  I've looked at it from all the angles I could possibily see objectively, and each time it comes up negative.

Back in WWII, when CAP oeprated 24/7 coastal patrols the idea of a CAP Reservce was necessary.  However, Modern CAP is not 24/7 and filled the spot of a RESERVE.  Now, if you were on the other end of the coin pressing for FULL TIME CAP for retirees as sentinals of a RESERVE with the rest of CAP as a reserve, then I could entertain the idea you mention.  (I told you I looked at it from ALL angles to try to make it workable)

QuoteI think this idea is officially unpopular and likely unworkable. 

I get that there isn't a lot of support from those willing to post.  I don't mind.  Just because its unpopular doesn't necessarily mean that its a bad idea...

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2007, 11:49:10 PM
Once they stop showing up regularly they are usually totally ignored and forgotten about unless your unit happens to have an unusually aggressive retention program which is not the norm. This option could be used as a way to combat that issue.

Wrong.  It couldn't be used to combat that issue...at least, I'm in that situation, and it wouldn't help me.  In fact, it would make me LESS likely to come back.  I'd feel incredibly unwelcome and unwanted and would probably stop showing up altogether and maybe even change my phone just in case someone actually DID call at some point. 

Who wants to only be wanted on a VERY part time basis? And frankly, like you said, those very part timers are going to be ignored and forgotten and won't be able to get or keep ES qualifications anyway.

You have to outline what a "regular member" has to do that a "reserve member" doesn't.

Right now, as long as I stay current with my ES ratings and safety briefings, I don't have to do much else.  As a SM, there's no attendance percentage to keep from getting 2B'ed.  As long as I'm sending back "C/W's" to the mandatory safety briefing e-mails and showing up for missions, I could avoid meetings forever.  I may not get promoted, but it's not like I'd miss the pay increase.

And I'll say again that this is geared mainly at people not currently in CAP and that probably wouldn't join CAP under normal circumstances, primarily people too far from a unit to participate often enough that anyone would consider them "regular" members.  Any benefits involving existing members would be an extra.  A good retention program cannot be topped, though judging by our numbers, there are not many units focusing on that issue.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2007, 04:31:29 PM
And I'll say again that this is geared mainly at people not currently in CAP and that probably wouldn't join CAP under normal circumstances.

Why would we want to do that?  If these people don't have the passion to join CAP nor the time to dedicate to it, then their interest lies elsewhere.  "Normal circumstances" is the ambient condition of CAP, if they cannot exist in that reality then it is not yet their time to be in CAP. 

I don't see how these people would be anything more than undertrained.  We already have a status for people on "sabbaticals" and "leaves of absense," its call Patron Status.

This issue suffers from "inherency" problems, it lacks "significance" and "solevency" and it may produce "harms."  In terms of policy debate, this policy is somewhat lacking as far as the stock issues go.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2007, 03:13:18 PM

QuoteI think this idea is officially unpopular and likely unworkable. 

I get that there isn't a lot of support from those willing to post.  I don't mind.  Just because its unpopular doesn't necessarily mean that its a bad idea...

No, you don't consider a bad idea because it's yours. Sorry, RiverAux, but you have yet to show any real increase in efficiency over the time and cost to implement it.

If it takes more time or money to implement than is gained through application, it's not worth it. It can be done now, but you would add another extraneous step.

Adding extra steps for the sake of extra steps is the kind of stuff that causes organizations to waste away under the burden of their bureaucracy.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2007, 04:31:29 PM
And I'll say again that this is geared mainly at people not currently in CAP and that probably wouldn't join CAP under normal circumstances, primarily people too far from a unit to participate often enough that anyone would consider them "regular" members.  Any benefits involving existing members would be an extra.  A good retention program cannot be topped, though judging by our numbers, there are not many units focusing on that issue.

Say it with me. "Quality, not quantity."

And just who said that they're not quality?  If they meet our ES standards, they meet the standards.  If you don't like them (and I don't like all of them myself), work to get them raised.  Different issues entirely. 

The person who has 20 hours a week to spend on CAP is great, but they are very few and far between.  They are the backbone of the organization.  However, you need a whole lot of other stuff to put over that backbone to have a fully functioning organization.  Heck, science has even recently figured out why we probably have an appendix, which everyone had thought was useless. 

Quality not quantity is a great motto, but it is not always true. 

If I've got 5 planes to crew and have enough pilots and observers, but only 2 scanners, it will not matter how great the observers in the 3 planes without scanners are, they are not going to be able to look for the target on the left side of the plane.  Would you rather have that seat go empty and have to send another sortie over that grid to ensure full coverage?  In these cases, quantity does matter more than quality.  A scanner that does his 2 flights every 2 years is going to be better than an empty seat.   

Yeah sure, some of these scanners probably won't get a lot of airtime compared to the regulars and might get a little queesy, but given that I've never heard of anyone in CAP ever worrying about getting scanners enough flight time, I don't think that that is an argument that is going to carry much weight.     

Back at mission base would you rather have to have the Wing Director of Communications serving as the radio operator because of a shortage of personnel?  Obviously he can do the job, but his experience is better used in other jobs.  I've seen this done often.   Wouldn't it be better to call in a Reservist?  Same goes for quite a few other jobs that don't require significant training or refresher work to do around the mission base.  Put Reservists in those slots and let the regulars go do the jobs that require a bit more experience. 

River you are just barking up the wrong tree.

Sure you can use your reserve status to recruit those people who only want to help out once in a while, every now and then.

But......

Why can't we do that now?

Why create a whole new membership class just to make what we already have more complicated?

Because I think that it would help get the concept across a little better.

Its not like we would need to totally revise all of CAP to make this change.  Heck, it would just take a few paragraphs in the regulations and a different category in the CAPWATCH database. 

However, I think that this would need to be something that would need to be field tested in a few wings first.  We would need to come up with a template for a wing supplement outlining the program that could be used by those in the testing program. 

In the chosen Wings, I would first work on developing a statewide Reserve squadron and would find a real go-getter to lead it.  That person would have to be extremely dedicated to recruiting, especially in towns somewhat outside our normal sphere of influence.  I would probably want a former squadron commander, well versed in ES, heading up the program.  He would need to do the organizing for the training classes needed to get the recruits up to speed on everything. 

Once we had a few Reserve squadrons up and going, I would want to observe how they do for a few years in terms of participation, overall retention and in how well they stayed up-to-date on their ES work.  Also, I'd want to keep track of their mission participation in terms of what they did and also what they were asked to do, but didn't (for whatever reason). 

If it turned out that we did great at recruiting, training, and retaining Reservists but that they just didn't show up for missions when they were needed (or that they had a worse show-up rate than others), then we could conclude it didn't do the job. 

I would also want to look at whether any significant percentage of Reservists ever went active as well. 

If I was running the overall test program I would be pretty rigorous about tracking various aspects of the program before considering taking it nationwide.  Not every idea works well in practice. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 03:26:52 AM
And just who said that they're not quality?  If they meet our ES standards, they meet the standards.  If you don't like them (and I don't like all of them myself), work to get them raised.  Different issues entirely. 

The person who has 20 hours a week to spend on CAP is great, but they are very few and far between.  They are the backbone of the organization.  However, you need a whole lot of other stuff to put over that backbone to have a fully functioning organization.  Heck, science has even recently figured out why we probably have an appendix, which everyone had thought was useless. 

Quality not quantity is a great motto, but it is not always true. 

If I've got 5 planes to crew and have enough pilots and observers, but only 2 scanners, it will not matter how great the observers in the 3 planes without scanners are, they are not going to be able to look for the target on the left side of the plane.  Would you rather have that seat go empty and have to send another sortie over that grid to ensure full coverage?  In these cases, quantity does matter more than quality.  A scanner that does his 2 flights every 2 years is going to be better than an empty seat.   

Yeah sure, some of these scanners probably won't get a lot of airtime compared to the regulars and might get a little queesy, but given that I've never heard of anyone in CAP ever worrying about getting scanners enough flight time, I don't think that that is an argument that is going to carry much weight.     

Back at mission base would you rather have to have the Wing Director of Communications serving as the radio operator because of a shortage of personnel?  Obviously he can do the job, but his experience is better used in other jobs.  I've seen this done often.   Wouldn't it be better to call in a Reservist?  Same goes for quite a few other jobs that don't require significant training or refresher work to do around the mission base.  Put Reservists in those slots and let the regulars go do the jobs that require a bit more experience. 

River, you seem to have this idea that because someone is in a membership category of "Reservist", they will be automatically available at any and all times that a full member is not. That's a dream.

Just because you create a new class of membership doesn't mean that those people will always be available. If they're showing up less than the more involved members, they will have lower quality training. You can spend a month training a scanner, and if they don't use it in a years time, they're going to be lower quality.

If you want people to organize into a team dedicated to mission training, then do it. What you're advocating can be done, right now. What does christening them "Reservists" do to advance anything? I can't see a single thing that having a "Reservist" membership would do for anyone, other than make the personnel system a little more complex. We have AE, and CSM's, and they have legitimate places, there really is no need for anything else.

QuoteRiver, you seem to have this idea that because someone is in a membership category of "Reservist", they will be automatically available at any and all times that a full member is not. That's a dream.

No, I don't think that at all.  The reason I think it might be a good idea is that I've had to rustle up aircrews before and ran out of members before running out of jobs.  However, simple logic tells me that the more qualified people I have to fill a slot, the better chances I have at finding at least one of them to fill it when needed. 

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 26, 2007, 03:52:46 AM
River, you seem to have this idea that because someone is in a membership category of "Reservist", they will be automatically available at any and all times that a full member is not. That's a dream.

Just because you create a new class of membership doesn't mean that those people will always be available. If they're showing up less than the more involved members, they will have lower quality training. You can spend a month training a scanner, and if they don't use it in a years time, they're going to be lower quality.

Plus, if they can't participate in normal stuff, what makes you think that they'll have time to go out a 3 am and stay our for the duration of the mission.

And also, CAP is a reserve organization. We don't need an additional reserve group within a reserve organization.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 03:54:37 AM

QuoteRiver, you seem to have this idea that because someone is in a membership category of "Reservist", they will be automatically available at any and all times that a full member is not. That's a dream.

No, I don't think that at all.  The reason I think it might be a good idea is that I've had to rustle up aircrews before and ran out of members before running out of jobs.  However, simple logic tells me that the more qualified people I have to fill a slot, the better chances I have at finding at least one of them to fill it when needed.

So....recruit.   Tell your recruits that once they are mission qualified they only have to go to 1 meeting per quarter (just to throw out a number) and enough SAREX to stay current.

Also you can always ask other units to support.

QuotePlus, if they can't participate in normal stuff, what makes you think that they'll have time to go out a 3 am and stay our for the duration of the mission.

Because I see them primarily being used in the larger missions.  If your unit can't handle routine ELT missions with its regular members then you've got other problems.  Could Reservists be called out for ELT missions?  Sure, most likely if you've got a few assigned to your unit that are in that local area, then they might be the last on your call out list and you might get to them every now and again. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 02:54:43 PM

QuotePlus, if they can't participate in normal stuff, what makes you think that they'll have time to go out a 3 am and stay our for the duration of the mission.

Because I see them primarily being used in the larger missions.  If your unit can't handle routine ELT missions with its regular members then you've got other problems.  Could Reservists be called out for ELT missions?  Sure, most likely if you've got a few assigned to your unit that are in that local area, then they might be the last on your call out list and you might get to them every now and again. 

River, if units aren't growing regular members, why do you think that this "Reservist corps" is going to have more people?

It almost seems like you  think this Reserve idea is the be-all, end-all answer to the lack of ES qualified members. People in a lesser needed status are going to pick easier jobs, not more technical ones.

Sorry, man, but this concept is a non-starter. It doesn't solve any actual problems. It just creates a new membership type with no gain in efficiency, manpower or administration.

QuoteRiver, if units aren't growing regular members, why do you think that this "Reservist corps" is going to have more people?

How often do I have to say that the primary target for Reserve recruitment would be people who live too far from a unit to regularly participate in activities?  These people have not and would not have joined CAP in the first place.  Therefore, if they joined as a Reservist it logical to assume that this would result in a net increase in members who would potentially be available for missions. 

QuoteIt almost seems like you  think this Reserve idea is the be-all, end-all answer to the lack of ES qualified members. People in a lesser needed status are going to pick easier jobs, not more technical ones.

Not all all.  Ideally every unit would be fully staffed with plenty of extras to ensure that they could meet all missions.  Ideally these people would be participating fully in CAP.  I am all for traditionally recruiting and training and under any scenario that should remain our primary focus.  Unfortunately, the "ideal" situation is not where we are always at.

I see a Reserve program as a way to supplement the traditional programs only.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 05:17:02 PM
How often do I have to say that the primary target for Reserve recruitment would be people who live too far from a unit to regularly participate in activities?  These people have not and would not have joined CAP in the first place. 

With good reason - we need people who can participate beyond a "ticket punch" level.  If they can't attend meetings regularly, they will not be current enough to be of any use.  They will be the official underclass of people who are out of currency, with outdated credentials and little knowledge of SOP and nuances of changes.

At least one person indicated training doesn't happen at the unit meetings, while that may (sadly) be true for some, its not for my most effective units.  With so little contact time as it it, we've relegated "what's new" to the internet and moved to hands-on training at most meetings.  SAREx's are supposed to be situations where you show up and practice what you already know, not walk-in with a wet 101 and start asking the IC how you get started.

The reserves will show up to our highest-visibility, highest-stress missions with uniform issues long since changed, outdated pubs, and their lack of recent activity will increase the ORM numbers on every sortie they run.  At a time when we need our most experienced, able, members to be playing their "A" game, these members would be stumbling into each other trying to spell ICS.

And when we challenge them on it, they will flash their ID with the "RSV" next to their name and look at us like >we're< nuts for making an issue of it.

We already have that today.  If anything, we need to push people to participate MORE to retain membership and currency, not less.

QuoteIf they can't attend meetings regularly, they will not be current enough to be of any use.

They would receive training as part of an annual training day/weekend that would be more than sufficient to keep them proficient in the basic jobs I see them performing. 

QuoteThe reserves will show up to our highest-visibility, highest-stress missions with uniform issues long since changed,

Already said that I'm open to limiting them in their uniform choices as a way to prevent this.

Quoteoutdated pubs

Obviously there would be a way to keep Reserve members updated on changes in official policies or procedures that take place between annual training.  Not that difficult of an issue to address. 

QuoteIf anything, we need to push people to participate MORE to retain membership and currency, not less.

And this wouldn't keep you from doing it and I would strongly encourage you to do so. 

And now, the 64 Thousand Dollar Question...

What are your motives for being so passionate about this?

Do you want to be one of these reservists?  Do you want to admminster this program in your Wing?

Also, I have noiced even in my own CAP experience that "Out of sight is out of mind."  I stay active in CAP because I am actively working to build it, creating new programs and seeing me blokes on a weekly basis.  When I went, less than active, a few years ago, it was as I said.  I didn't think of CAP, so when thye would call it was like..."uh...who is this?  Oh...meeting on Tuedays?  Uh...that's Church Bingo night.  Sorry?  SARex on Satruday, uh...I'm doing something for the Knights of Columbus that day, sorry.  Mayebe nextime."

You have to be realistic, CAP Reservists are not going to want to do this.  Plus, I can see it full of "fair weather" CAP officers.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 05:51:59 PM

QuoteIf they can't attend meetings regularly, they will not be current enough to be of any use.

They would receive training as part of an annual training day/weekend that would be more than sufficient to keep them proficient in the basic jobs I see them performing. 

Sorry, once a year is not enough for church or CAP.

One positive would be that if you established minimum standards for a "Reserve" you could then RAISE the standards for full members.

For example, you could mandate meeting attendance for CAP officers and mandate they hold staff jobs.  If someone doesn't want to do that, then turn in the oak leaves and join the reserve.

We've set our bar awfully low in order to attract as many folks as possible.   This could be a way to raise that bar without alienating the masses.

Quote from: Dragoon on December 26, 2007, 06:48:25 PM
One positive would be that if you established minimum standards for a "Reserve" you could then RAISE the standards for full members.

For example, you could mandate meeting attendance for CAP officers and mandate they hold staff jobs.  If someone doesn't want to do that, then turn in the oak leaves and join the reserve.

We've set our bar awfully low in order to attract as many folks as possible.   This could be a way to raise that bar without alienating the masses.

We operate fine for what we are, persons serving while living a full time lives.  In units where people are working and building, then they need regular attendance.  Create a place where peopel can, "take the path of least resistance" and guess what we will have?

What people fail to realize here is that we are exisiting as we should.  People show up because they want to, those are the best kind.  Others are excused if "ife gets in the way," but when it comes down to it he standards are still there.  Each unit creates is own culture in its isolation.  There is no National Standard, some units meet weekly others monthly.  You can have a unit where everyone has a vision or you can have the sitautions you and Riveraux are describing. 

Why is it that some units are effective and others not?  It is based on the culture established.  If you are a Civil Air Patrol, USAF Auxiliary mindset of "Service Before Self," those that enter will conform to that.  If you are a group of people doing it "purely as a hobby," "Guys Night Out" or "for cheap flying alone," then that is the culture established.  A CAP Reserve Corps will not solve that, nor allow someone too busy for CAP activity to suddenly "be ready."

Regular attendance (be that one a week, twice and month or once a month) is the only way.  Having people who "attend CAP Christmas and Easter" and none of the rest smacks of the little red hen who gets no help all year in growing, cultivating, harvesting, milling and baking but gets plenty of takers when it is time to eat.  

Creating a CAP Reserve is a meaningless effort.  Why alter our standards to accomodate the lowest levels of participation?  Raising Standards unqually is more destructive than accross the bar.

So you can't attend meetings?  Attend when you can and do what you can based on that.  If a CAP Officer can only make it for regular attendance during the Summer, then take that time they are there to be most active.  When they can't return...read their name at the meeting, keep up with what they are doing, keep them informed of what the unit is doing and keep them a part of it.  Don't lie to all involved by having them show up once a year for some SARex while everyone else is busting a gut to get it done.

Again, there is not need to add this fifth and six wheel to this cart.

QuoteWhat are your motives for being so passionate about this?

Do you want to be one of these reservists?  Do you want to admminster this program in your Wing?

Already been a squadron commander and already have enough other CAP duties on my plate.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but I just happen to think it is a good idea, but thanks for getting personal about it. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 07:11:00 PM

QuoteWhat are your motives for being so passionate about this?

Do you want to be one of these reservists?  Do you want to admminster this program in your Wing?

Already been a squadron commander and already have enough other CAP duties on my plate.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but I just happen to think it is a good idea, but thanks for getting personal about it. 

No bubble to burst, and not to "get personnal."  I just want to know your motivation for taking this past three pages.  It sometimes helps me to understand and empathize with your position to know what you "feel" on the matter.  But since you seem to think that is somehow"getting personal" in a negative way, that may be more of your creation than mine.

After all you began this by stating...

QuoteI've been trying to figure out if there is any way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system in which people could join and after some initial training would primarily be expected to be participate in emergency services when needed and would not participate in meetings, CAP professional development, etc. 

People have told you that they believe there is no way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system.  You have failed to accept that only offering peacemeal replies and nothing that says "Hey, I am FOR this BECAUSE..."  The default answer, which most have gathered who are in oppositionto your plan, it "change for change sake."  The other position which is less than default is "he's trying to find a way to get "goldbrickers who never show up" into an aircraft or on to the field."

So, what is it?  Tell me, why you care about this?

I've said it numerous times throughout this thread that the primary purpose of having a Reserve system would be to increase the numbers of people available for use in ES.  If you don't like the proposal, thats fine by me.  This board is about discussing ideas -- if you don't like the idea, say so and leave it at that. 

Again, we've got members today who are willing to do certain things, but not lots of things.

We have the CFI who will do checkrides all day long, but doesn't want to attend meetings, hold any staff job, or do ES work.

We have the pilot who will do O rides at the drop of a hat, but other than that has no interest in CAP stuff.

We have the once a month (or less) AE or ML instructor.  Normally a dad or something. Willing to show up and teach the occasional class, but that's about it.

And we have the retired guy who is happy to go hunt ELTs (he's retired, dontcha know) but is pretty ambivalent about anything else.

These are all good people and we accommodate them today.  But I think they set a bad example.  If THEY can get away with not coming to meetings, why should I have to show up?


But what might be nice would be to recognize the contributions of these part-timers, but save more of the recognition for the guy who holds a staff job AND chaperones cadets AND shows up for every SAR, etc. etc.

We kind of handle that now - the part timers don't tend to get promoted.  But perhaps we would make it more formal.  Perhaps we could restrict the part timers from some CAP privileges (like grade, fer example.  Or making them wear some kind of "I'm just a part timer badge."  or restricting them to utility uniforms.)

This wouldn't be about accommodating the minimal contributer.  It would be about rewarding the folks who do most of the work.

Yup, what I'm suggesting is that a Reserve designation could be used as a motivator to get folks more involved.  "Sure, you can just do your little thing.  But understand you're officially a second CAP class citizen.  If you want full privileges, start coming to meetings and pitching in!"

So, we get you in the door to do a little.  Then we start reeling you in.......

This isn't exactly what RiverAux is aiming for, but I think it has merit. 

I'm not really sure that would gain us much of anything either.  The highly motivated people are already highly motivated and those less motivated would probably tend to be discouraged by something like this.  That is why I was approaching the Reserve concept as a voluntary option rather than something that "under-performers" would be forced into.  Personally, I think there probably should be some sort of specific attendence/participation requirements linked to senior member promotions, but that is a somewhat different issue.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 07:33:26 PM
I've said it numerous times throughout this thread that the primary purpose of having a Reserve system would be to increase the numbers of people available for use in ES.  If you don't like the proposal, thats fine by me.  This board is about discussing ideas -- if you don't like the idea, say so and leave it at that. 

No, this board is to try to make ideas workable via discussion.  Several people have demonstrated that your idea is unworkable.  

Here are five plans that would better solve the problem than a CAP Reserve...

1) The CAP Station model where a small core/corps of CAP Officers meet in a town that is isolated from the main unit.  The group trains as its own unit, less than a flight, save for one meeting monthly in the main Squadron.  These people, since they are local, can deploy for ES, ELT searches and the like, in their town.  They, under the auspicies the Squadorn Commander, attend regular SARex activity.  They grow into a flight, and, if necessary, one day into a Squadron.

2) Realistic Mission Profile Expectations upon joining.  Some busy individual in a CAP heavy area wants to join butis limited on time.  This person, by definition, cannot attend regularly.  A unit Personnel Officer, or the OPS Officer, meets with the member and discusses REALITY.  The reality is the member cannot be a regular.  So, this pair would come up with a meeting schedule that could "take the new member as far as it could go."  This would be a realistic mission profile.

If there can be no solution, then CAP is not an option for them at that time.

3) The Status Quo, persons who cannot make regular attendance simply sit it out until they can.  Training comes as time allows.

4) SARex can be used for what they were meant to be, and Exercise and Training activity.  We spend a lot of time "Training for the Training."  Ideally a SARex should provide the necessary training from Start to Finish.  

Thus, instead of a CAP Reserve, a module be incorporated into the SARex itself where a person could attend "classes" on GES, OPSEC and the like on the first day; break off into classes in their "Track" on the second, and get a sortie on the third.

This would mean that people could be active and still "pay their dues."

SARexs would have to be more "regular."

5) All standards could be rolled back to preculde the necessity for GES, OPSEC, SAFETY BRIEFING and UNIT training.  Elimate the unit meeting altogether and replace it with the ALL SARex model.  Make it so easy any body can do it at anytime.


Five viable models that I offer as counter plans on the drop of a hat!

Quote from: Dragoon on December 26, 2007, 07:39:41 PM
Yup, what I'm suggesting is that a Reserve designation could be used as a motivator to get folks more involved.  "Sure, you can just do your little thing.  But understand you're officially a second CAP class citizen.  If you want full privileges, start coming to meetings and pitching in!"

Boy, I think I'd hate to be a member of CAP, especially if I was a "fat & fuzzy" reservist.  YAY! More segregation ideas!

Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 26, 2007, 08:02:26 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on December 26, 2007, 07:39:41 PM
Yup, what I'm suggesting is that a Reserve designation could be used as a motivator to get folks more involved.  "Sure, you can just do your little thing.  But understand you're officially a second CAP class citizen.  If you want full privileges, start coming to meetings and pitching in!"

Boy, I think I'd hate to be a member of CAP, especially if I was a "fat & fuzzy" reservist.  YAY! More segregation ideas!

Unlike the old fat and fuzzy thing, the idea of "those who do the work get the bennies" ENCOURAGES folks to do more.  It ain't segregation if you have complete control of what category you're in.

Right now, you can get virtually all the bennies in CAP by doing very little.  I'm all for rewarding the ones carrying the weight.  It might encourage more to step up to the plate.  YMMV, of course.

QuoteSeveral people have demonstrated that your idea is unworkable.  

Actually, several people have ASSERTED that the idea is unworkable.  Nothing has been demonstrated by them (or me for that matter).  

The station model has serious potential problems of its own and is probably only really feasible in an Iowa-type system where you are having monthly weekend-long training meetings.  3 CAP members in an isolated town are not going to be able to do any sort of real training in their own meetings and they're not going to drive 2 hours to and from what essentially is a typical CAP squadron meeting once a month, but may go to a Wing Training or Group Training assembly where they've got the chance to get some real work done.  Otherwise I don't see them continuing to operate as a station (of less than flight size) on a continuing basis.  
But, I wouldn't rule out the station idea completely and wouldn't have a problem testing it in a few places as well.  It might work.  

I wouldn't disagree that having some classroom training associated with SAREXs could help.  Our wing has done it on occassion with mixed success.  

I never said that this was the answer to all our problems, but CAP does have to recognize that fewer Americans are interested in volunteering their time in our type of organization.  The average American who volunteers, only volunteers about 40-50 hours a year and we ask a lot more than that.  

We have increased the professionalism of our ES force but that comes at a cost.  Just ask any volunteer fire department out there.  I don't suggest we drop any of our ES standards, but we have to be willing to explore ideas that might require adjustments in other aspects of our senior program in order to maintain our ES capabilities.  

How would the administration for these people work?

Who is going to track them?

Who will be responsible for their training?

What kind of time schedule would they have to meet?

What happens if they don't show to required training?

How do you deal with behavioural issues?

What kind of dues will they pay?

Those questions need to be answered before such a program is implemented. You need to address some legitimate issues of such a system and carry it a little further than "Gee, it would be nice if we had some people that could show up to a mission if I don't get many regulars."

No kidding.  I never pretended that this was a formal proposal that I would be presenting to the National Board.  Lots of things would need to be worked out.  Some of the items you asked about have already been discussed, but I'll do it again:
Tracking -- probably have a wing or group level reserve unit with an "active" commander.  Possibly have reservists attached to squadrons in which case they would be administered by the squadron.

Training -- probably group (if you have them) or wing.  Would have the opportunity to attend training classes (I would open them to everyone as long as we're doing them).  If they never achieve qualification in an ES specialty, I would not allow them to renew membership.  If ES qual lapes, I wouldn't renew their membership. 

Time schedule -- Besides the time to meet Level 1, OPSEC, etc. they would need to either attend SAREXs or missions to keep up their ES qualifications and I think a yearly training day or weekend for refresher classroom training on specialties, policies, procedures, etc.  No other meeting requirements. 

"Behavioral issues" -- not sure what you're talking about, but I'd treat them just like any other CAP members.  Follow the rules as written or get out. 

Dues -- As I said very early on, I would probably have them pay reduced dues.  If that was the case,  I wouldn't send them the Volunteer.  It is available electronically and if they wanted to see it, they could.  Keep in mind that I also proposed limiting their rank and professional development.  So they wouldn't be "getting" as much either. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 09:26:56 PM
Tracking -- probably have a wing or group level reserve unit with an "active" commander.  Possibly have reservists attached to squadrons in which case they would be administered by the squadron.

NHQ just addressed this specifically and said "no". Wings were forced to retire their reserve squadrons and move members to either an inactive "000", (which are designated as non-operational), or an active unit.  In fact, I would say that is where the idea dies, because in fact many wings did maintain reserve units for years for members who didn't want to, or couldn't participate in a local unit, but were still active on some level.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 09:26:56 PM
Training -- probably group (if you have them) or wing.  Would have the opportunity to attend training classes (I would open them to everyone as long as we're doing them).  If they never achieve qualification in an ES specialty, I would not allow them to renew membership.  If ES qual lapses, I wouldn't renew their membership. 

Neither Groups nor wings are operational echelons, and should not be conducting training classes or other similar activities (that many do is not the point).  What you are essentially suggesting is making these people members of group or wing staff for the purposes of their training - that's a Squadron CC's job.  Group / wing is supposed to be more experienced members guiding and coordinating the activities of units and their members.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 09:26:56 PM
Time schedule -- Besides the time to meet Level 1, OPSEC, etc. they would need to either attend SAREXs or missions to keep up their ES qualifications and I think a yearly training day or weekend for refresher classroom training on specialties, policies, procedures, etc.  No other meeting requirements. 

So when do they get their 101's done, tasks certified, and other important things to make them functional? These non-trivial administration issues are what causes chaos today with "active" members.  Who's going to hand-hold the minutia of ES credentials for members who are so disconnected from CAP that they can't be bother to come to unit meetings?

Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2007, 09:26:56 PM
"Behavioral issues" -- not sure what you're talking about, but I'd treat them just like any other CAP members.  Follow the rules as written or get out. 

Discipline of members is first and foremost the responsibility of a respective unit CC, the idea being that they take the time to groom members, and in turn its their fault if they act inappropriately.  Without the personal relationship local unit participation engenders, the ability to impact (or anticipate) attitudinal issues is lost. i.e. "I don't know you, so I don't care what you think, and BTW, I'm just a reservist anyway, so let me fly my sortie and go home."

River,  in your defense, you're trying to flesh out a program here without much forethought in direct reaction to people's negative comments,  but I'm sorry, this is an answer to a question that doesn't exist, and serves no purpose to the end your are seeking.

I think creative answers to our problems are needed, and each wing should address their specific problems.  If Iowa's solution works for them and increases their readiness, great for them, but let's not assume we can all work like them (or that the Iowa model doesn't work there because it doesn't scale well).

The reservist idea, though, is a dog of a different color in two hands of the bush that won't fly while hunting....

QuoteNHQ just addressed this specifically and said "no". Wings were forced to retire their reserve squadrons and move members to either an inactive "000", (which are designated as non-operational), or an active unit.  In fact, I would say that is where the idea dies, because in fact many wings did maintain reserve units for years for members who didn't want to, or couldn't participate in a local unit, but were still active on some level.

I've never heard of a "reserve" unit that wasn't the 000 unit every wing has before.  Commonly known as the ghost squadron.  Some renamed them "reserve" because they thought it sounded better, but they were still the ghost squadrons. 

Besides, what I'm proposing would already require some regulation changes, and setting up Reserve units would just be one more. 

QuoteNeither Groups nor wings are operational echelons, and should not be conducting training classes or other similar activities (that many do is not the point). 

Boy, thats news to me.   Commanders at all levels are responsible for training their people.  Ideally most would be done at the squadron level but this is not always possible given that very few people in any single unit need the same exact training at the same exact time. 

QuoteSo when do they get their 101's done, tasks certified, and other important things to make them functional? These non-trivial administration issues are what causes chaos today with "active" members.  Who's going to hand-hold the minutia of ES credentials for members who are so disconnected from CAP that they can't be bother to come to unit meetings?

The commander of the reserve squadron would be the one overseeing those things.  FYI, I don't see any need for a typical squadron staff for reserve squadrons and a very much reduced org chart would be needed for those units. 

Quote from: Eclipse on December 26, 2007, 10:15:16 PM

Neither Groups nor wings are operational echelons, and should not be conducting training classes or other similar activities (that many do is not the point).  What you are essentially suggesting is making these people members of group or wing staff for the purposes of their training - that's a Squadron CC's job.  Group / wing is supposed to be more experienced members guiding and coordinating the activities of units and their members.

That is exactly what Iowa is going to.  In IAWG, the Wing is the ONLY Operational unit.  All Missions have to be approved.  While what you say is the way it should be going, that is not what is being done.  When a Mission is activated, personnel are drawn form the Squadrons into an Operational unit.  Say an ELT goes off around Waterloo IA, members from Dubuque, East Iowa Cadet and Cedar Rapids will be deployed as an IAWG CAP force.*

I don't know how the IAWG Model will spread, but that seems to be the future

*IIRC, CPG or ISU, feel free to correct me.  Been a little while. . .

^Many wings had units other than triple-zeros' for semi-active members.  They were subject to SUI's but were not being inspected. The wing cc's were told to retire them, or prepare for inspection.

Groups and wings are there for unit oversight, not operational activity.  Many coordinate training to share resources and avoid duplication of effort, but they should not be having a weekly meeting to show their people how to use a compass. A group staffer's job is to be overseeing the respective program he is in charge of and visiting units to insure they are meeting the group CC's expectations and to provide for resources the groups may need.  Group staffers who remain active in ES, as most do, should be participating in unit training activities as an >extra< activity to their group staff jobs.

Any unit which contains active members will be subject to the same rules for SUI and finance operations as any other unit (that's the point of the 000's, they aren't), which means a fair number of staff, not to men tion the logistical nightmares of coordinating people all over the state who again, for the most part, can't be bothered to just join a local unit.

Keep in mind that squadrons really aren't operational units either when it comes right down to it. Who gives the training matters less than the fact that it is being given in the first place. 

I'd like to know the Wings and squadron names of these "reserve" units of which you speak and when they were shut down.  Thanks.

PM sent...

Just because some wings operate at the squadron level....not all do nor do they have to.

I know that 90% of the CAP units out there can't operate on their own...they just do not have enough people to do all the jobs that need to be done.

For example a Fosset type mission.

Granted 99% of our missions are single asset mission but what Iowa is doing in not necessarily a step in the wrong direction. 

It does not mean every wing has to do it Iowa's way....but there is nothing really wrong with what Iowa is doing.

Here in Southern Nevada we operate as a defacto group when it comes to SAREXs and larger missions and we it that way because it works.

Here is a piece of trivia for you: 

Back in November 2005 there was only one unit in the country called a "Reserve" Squadron, the "Chicago Reserve Composite Squadron" in Illinois.  Since then we now have 4 wings that have renamed their 000 unit from Headquarters Squadron to Reserve Squadron (Indiana, Iowa, Washington, and Ohio), also we now have NHQ-995 the "National Commander's Reserve Unit".

The National Commander's Reserve Unit was first to use it in early 2006.  Then, Iowa adopted it in November 2006, Washington in December 2006, Ohio in January 2007 and Indiana sometime since then.  Info from CAPWATCH database downloads I've made every months since Nov 2005.

The name has nothing to do with the use of one or more units as holding units for semi-active members who can't or don't want to be members of a squadron.

Capwatch isn't going to show you that. 

And members in 000 cannot participate in ES or similar activities as these units do not have proper command structures, nor are they subject to SUI or FM rules.  They are literally holding units for inactive members.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2007, 12:16:38 AM
Just because some wings operate at the squadron level....not all do nor do they have to.

I stand by the statement that the only operational echelon in CAP, by design,  is the local squadron. 

Groups and the Wing are supposed to be there to insure that the units have the resources they need and are meeting spec for their missions.

The unfortunate reality that our current manpower and number of units requires that most ES response is a coordinated effort from all over the region doesn't change that, nor does Iowa's model.

I'm speaking, of course, blue-sky, and regardless it doesn't mean that members can't and don't regularly do triple duty at three different echelons.

But they shouldn't have to.   If the proper training and activities are happening at the squadrons, then the groups and wing can concentrate on larger exercises and resource coordination.

If wing-level staff are doing wing-sponsored "Intro to ES", not because they want to, but because they have to or no one else will, the question has to be asked: 

When are they doing what they are supposed to be doing, and in turn, what are the units doing with their time?

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 12:51:31 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2007, 12:16:38 AM
Just because some wings operate at the squadron level....not all do nor do they have to.

I stand by the statement that the only operational echelon in CAP, by design,  is the local squadron. 

Are you telling me you have squadrons out there with enough personnel to fly all the assigned aircraft, field ground teams and man a full up mission base?

If so cool!  But I am in a 100 member strong unit and we don't have enough people to that!

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 12:51:31 AMGroups and the Wing are supposed to be there to insure that the units have the resources they need and are meeting spec for their missions.

Right....

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 12:51:31 AMThe unfortunate reality that our current manpower and number of units requires that most ES response is a coordinated effort from all over the region doesn't change that, nor does Iowa's model.

Where there you go.....if the mission is being coordinated at levels higher then the unit....it is by definition the operational level for large ES missions.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 12:51:31 AM
But they shouldn't have to.   If the proper training and activities are happening at the squadrons, then the groups and wing can concentrate on larger exercises and resource coordination.

If each and every one of your units were 100+ maybe....but reality is that most units have 50 on the books with maybe 20 active. (this is just a SWAG on my part)

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 12:51:31 AMIf wing-level staff are doing wing-sponsored "Intro to ES", not because they want to, but because they have to or no one else will, the question has to be asked: 

When are they doing what they are supposed to be doing, and in turn, what are the units doing with their time?

Well the answer is the best that they can with the manpower they have.  We know for a fact that we have a recruiting problem.

Iowa took a look at the problem and they found that centralized training and operations worked for them.  ILWG may be different....I know that the Iowa plan would not work here in Nevada and most large wings.....but the simple fact is....most squadrons cannot organically run and maintain large operations.

Ergo they are being planed and executed at the wing/group level with unit either providing bodies for the manpower pool or sorting single assets for the mission.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2007, 01:31:18 AM
Are you telling me you have squadrons out there with enough personnel to fly all the assigned aircraft, field ground teams and man a full up mission base?

Yes, though the IC and AOBD have to come from group.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2007, 01:31:18 AM
...if the mission is being coordinated at levels higher then the unit....it is by definition the operational level for large ES missions.

Large-scale SAREx's and similar activities such as encampments are >supposed< to be coordinated at the group or wing level.   A SAREx is not the environment for low-level training - that is the squadron's job.
SAREx's are supposed to be places where you execute on the training you already have, and hone your skills.

I've seen wing-level exercises where 8 planes sit on the flight line while pilots get tasks signed off, this is not how its supposed to work, and it is what propagates the lack of urgency in our real-world missions.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2007, 01:31:18 AM
Iowa took a look at the problem and they found that centralized training and operations worked for them.  ILWG may be different....I know that the Iowa plan would not work here in Nevada and most large wings.....but the simple fact is....most squadrons cannot organically run and maintain large operations.

This is correct, but IAWG's model doesn't really fit CAP's design (which doesn't mean it doesn't work), as they indicate themselves, IAWG is functioning essentially as a single squadron, which is why I keep saying it can't be used as a model for larger wings or in the reserve argument.  With only one unit, the amount of staff they need is probably 1/6th what IL has, and their ability to force everyone into UTA weekends makes it much simpler to short-hand the administrivia.

...and we're also drifting here from the reserve discussion...

Yep, a little bit of drift. 

It seems to me that the lowest operational unit of CAP is actually the Wing, at least for ES. 

Only the Wing has a Corporate Officer who can set up agreements with outside agencies.
Only the Wing appoints ICs.
ICs, when operational, are the representative of the Wing CC, not the squadron CC.
AFRCC calls down a Wing alert roster for missions.  They don't call squadrons.
USAF inspects Wing ES ops at SAREVALS, and gives the Wing, not the squadrons, a rating.
Squadron Commanders have no command authority during ES ops at all.  It flows from the Wing CC to the ICS staff, led by a guy he appoints.


On the CP side it's different - Squadrons do most of the work.  Wing just coordinates and runs the occasional big activity.

Sadly, I can't disagree, but I believe that is because of evolution, not design.

When you go back a few decades you see units acting fairly autonomously, at least interms of "team deployment".

Unless we double or triple are numbers we'll never get back there.

My argument isn't that the majority of operations aren't >coordinated< at the wing level, it is that the operational echelon is >supposed< to be the unit, at least from a training and preparation standpoint.

The majority of training and tasking is certified by the squadon commander, even in those states where wing staff rubber stamps the activity.

I still say that if the only ES training is happening at the wing level (IAWG not withstanding), the pyramid is upside down.

Got it - you're talking "should" not "is." 

And there is a difference between training and operational independance.  You're right - the model is for individuals (aircrew, GT, MRO, but not really staff) to be trained at Squadron and utilitized at Wing.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2007, 04:02:30 PM
Sadly, I can't disagree, but I believe that is because of evolution, not design.

When you go back a few decades you see units acting fairly autonomously, at least interms of "team deployment".

Unless we double or triple are numbers we'll never get back there.

My argument isn't that the majority of operations aren't >coordinated< at the wing level, it is that the operational echelon is >supposed< to be the unit, at least from a training and preparation standpoint.

The majority of training and tasking is certified by the squadon commander, even in those states where wing staff rubber stamps the activity.

I still say that if the only ES training is happening at the wing level (IAWG not withstanding), the pyramid is upside down.

Sir, what wing are you?

Wings, groups and squadrons are considered "operational" units by CAP.

Regions are not "operational", but rather "supervisory & administrative" -- for now.

Scuttlebutt is that the regions are about to become "operational" HQs in the near future.

Makes sense to me.....the GA-9's are regional assets...not Wing.  The Fossett search proved that adjacent wings do not always operate well together....heck even neighboring squadrons do not work and play well with others sometimes.  ;D

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 04, 2008, 11:27:57 PM
Wings, groups and squadrons are considered "operational" units by CAP.

Regions are not "operational", but rather "supervisory & administrative" -- for now.

Scuttlebutt is that the regions are about to become "operational" HQs in the near future.

What regulation is that delineation made in?

I was under the impression that the only operational units in CAP were squadrons and flights while Groups and above were all supervisory/administrative.

Why was I under that impression? Because it is squadrons/flights that are tasked with training personnel and it is squadrons/flights that employ members who are not staff officers, but rather line officers (you know, the ones that do the operating and not supervising/administration). Neither Groups nor Wings do that. They are there to support Squadrons in accomplishing the mission.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2007, 04:02:30 PM
Sadly, I can't disagree, but I believe that is because of evolution, not design.

When you go back a few decades you see units acting fairly autonomously, at least interms of "team deployment".

Unless we double or triple are numbers we'll never get back there.

My argument isn't that the majority of operations aren't >coordinated< at the wing level, it is that the operational echelon is >supposed< to be the unit, at least from a training and preparation standpoint.

The majority of training and tasking is certified by the squadon commander, even in those states where wing staff rubber stamps the activity.

I still say that if the only ES training is happening at the wing level (IAWG not withstanding), the pyramid is upside down.

Eclipse... don't confuse ES training with ES training support.  Wings make training possible. Training happens at individual level at CAP. We do it whenever we're free with whomever we like (as long as they can sign us off).

The Wing doesn't have to be involved in anyone's training at any time. They help organize and pay for training and evaluation sessions. Any squadron with a good train the trainer program can handle all the ES training in house. All they'd need from Wing would be an occasional training mission number to place onto the SQTR and to reimburse aircraft/vehicle fuel costs.

Except for perhaps an ELT mission or perhaps ground SAR a squadron is not an operational unit in CAP because it only has 1 airplane.  Any major mission is going to require multiple airplanes.  Maybe back at the dawn of time a CAP squadron had enough planes to do a major search on its own, but I doubt it. 

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 05, 2008, 08:35:59 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2007, 04:02:30 PM
Sadly, I can't disagree, but I believe that is because of evolution, not design.

When you go back a few decades you see units acting fairly autonomously, at least interms of "team deployment".

Unless we double or triple are numbers we'll never get back there.

My argument isn't that the majority of operations aren't >coordinated< at the wing level, it is that the operational echelon is >supposed< to be the unit, at least from a training and preparation standpoint.

The majority of training and tasking is certified by the squadon commander, even in those states where wing staff rubber stamps the activity.

I still say that if the only ES training is happening at the wing level (IAWG not withstanding), the pyramid is upside down.

Eclipse... don't confuse ES training with ES training support.  Wings make training possible. Training happens at individual level at CAP. We do it whenever we're free with whomever we like (as long as they can sign us off).

The Wing doesn't have to be involved in anyone's training at any time. They help organize and pay for training and evaluation sessions. Any squadron with a good train the trainer program can handle all the ES training in house. All they'd need from Wing would be an occasional training mission number to place onto the SQTR and to reimburse aircraft/vehicle fuel costs.

Um, that's precisely what I said...

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2008, 12:59:53 AM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 05, 2008, 08:35:59 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2007, 04:02:30 PM
Sadly, I can't disagree, but I believe that is because of evolution, not design.

When you go back a few decades you see units acting fairly autonomously, at least interms of "team deployment".

Unless we double or triple are numbers we'll never get back there.

My argument isn't that the majority of operations aren't >coordinated< at the wing level, it is that the operational echelon is >supposed< to be the unit, at least from a training and preparation standpoint.

The majority of training and tasking is certified by the squadon commander, even in those states where wing staff rubber stamps the activity.

I still say that if the only ES training is happening at the wing level (IAWG not withstanding), the pyramid is upside down.

Eclipse... don't confuse ES training with ES training support.  Wings make training possible. Training happens at individual level at CAP. We do it whenever we're free with whomever we like (as long as they can sign us off).

The Wing doesn't have to be involved in anyone's training at any time. They help organize and pay for training and evaluation sessions. Any squadron with a good train the trainer program can handle all the ES training in house. All they'd need from Wing would be an occasional training mission number to place onto the SQTR and to reimburse aircraft/vehicle fuel costs.

Um, that's precisely what I said...

What I meant was... Wing isn't an operational unit. It is strictly a support unit. The actual training happens at or below squadron level (i.e. individual level). Wing simply provides organization and funding.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2008, 09:31:40 PM
Except for perhaps an ELT mission or perhaps ground SAR a squadron is not an operational unit in CAP because it only has 1 airplane.  Any major mission is going to require multiple airplanes.  Maybe back at the dawn of time a CAP squadron had enough planes to do a major search on its own, but I doubt it. 

River... I don't think you're quite grasping the term "Operational" and "Organizational".

Operational means where personnel to run the operation actually come from. As in which unit supplies pilots, ground team members, incident commanders, etc.

Organizational means which unit allows for funding for operational units to flow. Which unit makes sure all legal and paper work issues are worked out so that the operational unit can perform the training and missions.

It doesn't matter who owns aircraft. What matters is who flies them. Aircraft are not owned by Wing anyway. They are owned by Civil Air Patrol, the corporation and that corporation has the right to move aircraft from one wing to another at will. Same for vehicles. The only thing that matters is who does the actual work. Who trains cadets. Who goes out to teach aerospace. Who goes out to shut down ELTs and find missing people. That's who operational people are.

And most likely on your typical ELT mission it will probably be led by an Incident Commander from another squadron and in some places, they will probably actually be assigned to Group or Wing staff.  Missions are almost never "assigned" to squadrons for that very reason. 

CAP operates with task forces made up for each individual mission that draw personnel from multiple layers within the organization, but when it gets right down to it, the AFRCC activates the Wing and the Wing decides who within the organization prosecutes the mission. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 06, 2008, 01:13:36 AM
And most likely on your typical ELT mission it will probably be led by an Incident Commander from another squadron and in some places, they will probably actually be assigned to Group or Wing staff.  Missions are almost never "assigned" to squadrons for that very reason. 

CAP operates with task forces made up for each individual mission that draw personnel from multiple layers within the organization, but when it gets right down to it, the AFRCC activates the Wing and the Wing decides who within the organization prosecutes the mission. 

Missions aren't assigned to Wings or Regions either. They are assigned to Civil Air Patrol. They are then tasked down from NHQ to the geographically appropriate subordinate unit. In a case where such unit is unable or unwilling  to take the mission, another unit is assigned the mission. Be it Region, Wing, Group or Squadron... doesn't matter.

For typical missions our ICs on the Wing alert list get the call directly from AFRCC -- it does not go through the NOC or other higher headquarters.  I think we're way off topic, if you want to discuss alerting procedures and "operational" units further, I suggest you start a new thread.