Cultural Shift in CAP

[arajca]

I've watching and I have noticed a very slow cultural shift occuring in CAP. CAP is starting to become a more professional organization. Standardized training. Standardized processes. Standardized equipment. As witnessed on multiple threads here, there is a hunger for professionalism.

Law enforcement underwent this type of cultural shift in the 50's and 60's. EMS went through it in the 70's and 80's. The volunteer fire service did it in the 80's and 90's. It is a change for the better, although it's not an easy change. We also have a unique issue - cadets.

I feel the pace needs to speed up. CAP needs to set forth a plan for this shift. For the past few years, we've heard tales of such and seen occasional outputs (new SLS & CLC curricula, ES tracking, ORMS, wing banker, etc), but no one has ever put forth a roadmap or destination. Right now, there are hundreds of members who would eagerly contribute, if there was a plan.

Issues that continue to simmer and slow the process down include branding, or lack thereof, uniforms (you knew that was coming), <insert preferred group> vs everyone else, "we just volunteers" attitude, and perceived lack of appreciation and support from the AF.

Two major issues can be, I think, easily handled if someone at the top has the intestinal fortitude to do so. National has been throwing the term "branding" around for the past couple years, but hasn't done anything about except introduce a new logo the many do not like and do not use, and establish a committee to review our branding program or lack thereof. Uniforms. Easily the most visible (pun intended) and contentious issue to the folks here and for many in the field. The CAP/CC needs to develop - or bring in a small team of members to develop - a comprehensive uniform plan and program and submit it to the AF for approval followed by NB approval. Then uniforms are DONE. At least for the CAP/CC's term. No annual proposals at the winter NB. No back door changes at the NEC.

The "we're just volunteers" attitude needs to be squashed by command. Yes, we'll lose some members, but are they really productive or just filling a spot on the org chart. When a member comes out with that attitude, un-volunteer them. Send them home. Ops Quals has (or had) a Member Availability application that members could use to list the days and times they are generally available for CAP missions. Most members do not know about this. That needs to change. Every member with an ES qual should be using it. Using it would provide a good general idea of how many members CAP can pull out on any given day. It would also help with notion of activity level, if members are not listed if they do not have a current ES qual.

This shift is most seriously needed in the Emergency Services arena. The "Boy Scouts with planes" notion needs to be killed. Hard. Please keep in mind as you read the couple of lines that I am not anti-cadet. Cadet participation in ES needs to be limited by age. 14 or 15 should be the lowest age for a cadet doing ES. They should be limited to base staff or flight line duties until age 16, when it would be appropriate to involve them in ground teams. Cadets should not be in supervisory roles in ES until age 18. I've seen a change away from the flying club mentality, toward a more well-rounded team based mentality in many of the senior units I've visited. We need the ICs to accept that they cannot run everything from their kitchen table and if a mission runs into a second day or needs more than an aircraft or two and a ground team, they need to stand up a base. CAP needs to be able to integrate into existing ICS structures, not merely attach a CAP branch. We need people, members or staff, to talk to other ES groups. We should be having displays and seminars at SAR conferences, police chiefs' conventions, DR conferences, etc.

These are just a few ideas. I don't have all the answers. I'm sure many here will agree and many will disagree.

I think after this thread runs its course, it should be consolidated adn forwarded to National for consideration.

[Hawk200]

Sounds good, especially "un-volunteering" those who choose not to contribute in meaningful capacity. The Boy Scout stuff needs to stay with the Boy Scouts.

Defined destinations seems to be something that needs to be put out there, not just "understood."

[Eclipse]

Yes, please.

[Smithsonia]

arajca is Colorado Senior Member of the Year. He knows of what he speaks. I agree.

I can't tell if we are more professional than we used to be. I wasn't here "in the day." I think you are right but I don't have enough time in the Patrol to compare. I know the skill sets that are my core competency do not exist in the Military. Not that there aren't pieces and parts and those are good pieces and parts... but not the whole package. Working every darn day in media for past 44 years. Working for magazines, newspaper, in radio, TV, developing Networks both domestic and international, spending thousands of days inside too many news rooms to remember - gives me some insights that the military begs and pays me for. For CAP I do it for free and don't cut a corner in my presentations.

Lots of people on CAPTALK run us down for one reason or another. I don't join in this abuse. It is simple.

I fly with combat vets and longtime commercial captains, I practice my work to the highest standard I know. I do the same in history. I do the same in Aerial Photo. I am new (4 years) to Ground Teams and other search cadre but I try my best. Those around me do too.

I think we could use some more missions. Bigger brains than mine are working on it. In the meantime I work to the highest professional standards I know. You do too. We all should. And while we do... shouldn't be discouraged by those that aren't - but complain and run down the program.

If we complain less and do more we'll do better. By the way most of the regular Air Force Officers that I have spoken with about this issue recognize this self degradation with a chuckle and agree. We ain't perfect. BUT, we ain't bad either.

[capmaj]

It's hard to choose a path if you aren't sure of your destination. But that is up to our leadership, with our input.

[FW]

It's hard to choose a path if you aren't sure of your destination. But that is up to our leadership, with our input.

If it was all up to the leadership, we'd be there by now.  Fact is, without getting total buy in from the membership, we aren't going anywhere fast.  We need to know exactly where we are now and then, together, figure out a way ahead.  All leaders can do is create the environment for us to get there.  It is a symbiosis.  We all want the highest standards possible however, orders and mandates will not make it happen.  It takes a well motivated membership to train and perform to professional standards and, until we realize we are all in this together, it will be much more difficult to succeed.
(BTW; I'm plagiarizing Townsend here..)

IMHO, the only way to "squash" the "I'm only a volunteer" attidtude is with an environment that encourages professionalism.  That includes everything from a PIC flying to the highest standard to the newest SMWOG and CB wearing our uniforms correctly.  That, starts with a leadership which follows the standards to the highest level possible as an example.  A leadership which insists on following every principle we believe in.  And, a leadership not afraid to solicit and hear the input of the membership.

Just my  $.02   :angel:

[coudano]

There are a number of (better and worse) articles and talks on the rise of the pro-am.

I have actually (in some contexts) told the "just a volunteer" crowd, that we can only usefully employ pro-am's.
Puts the ball in their court to re-consider their orientation and attitude.  Sometimes you will see people step up, other times you will see people step away.

In other contexts, 'just a volunteer' is just fine, and i'm happy to use them in that role, in those contexts.

[arajca]

I hear the "I'm just a volunteer" when a member has stepped up to do a job, does a crappy job, refuses to accept responsibilty for their 'work', and throws that card as a justification for failing to do a satisfactory job. We don't need those members. On the other hand, those who, for whatever reasons, volunteer for only certain duties, but perform those duties well, won't pull that card. They understand that professional is a mindset and act accordingly.

When I was an active volunteer firefighter, we had those volunteers who would show up once a quarter and for the 'good' calls. They complained when the company officers left them behind and took rookies who were making all calls they could. The chief's response was "Thanks for your time. See the asst. chief for your exit interview." He set the expectation and followed through with it.

[RiverAux]

I don't think there has been a real shift in CAP towards more professionalism.  I think it has been there all along. 

There most certainly has been a shift towards more bureaucracy in the name of professionalism. 

Yes, we have moved towards greater standardization in ES training, but has that really improved our abilities?  Are our missions better organized now than 15 years ago?  Are our aircrews finding targets faster?  I think that the people who just achieved a qualification are probably better prepared to do work than newly qualified people in the old days.  But, in the old days they also had plenty of real world missions to use to maintain and increase their skills.  I wouldn't be surprised if our aircrew's ability to locate ELTs has already begun to degrade over what it was 5 years ago due to lack of practice. 

I guess I just haven't run across of the "we're just volunteers" attitude to be seriously worried about it.  Any good commander knows what the strengths and weaknesses of their folks are and works around them.   I'm sure my commander has begun to think of me as being in the "less than fully active" category over the last years as I have cut back on my CAP participation.  I certainly don't expect to be near the top of the call list anymore. 

I very much agree that CAP does need to spend more time being part of the local and state SAR and DR communities.  Unfortunately, that is one of those things that needs to be pushed from the top to emphasize that this is actually important.   

[Eclipse]

CAP's challenge with standardization is people who believe they "know better" - so they ignore history and past success in favor of reinventing the wheel every mission.

Worse, it's not usually the experienced members who do the worst damage - they know there will be plenty to do and
plenty of accolades to go around when things go well.

It's usually marginal players with little real-world CAP experience under their belt who decide to do things "their way", which is never briefed, generally over-complicated, and almost never scales outside their involvement.

CAP experience is the key.  I've seen slick-sleeve professional ES managers walk in the door believing they are going to rock everyone's world, only to find that not only is CAP something unto itself, but the volunteer / uneven experience / uneven expectations paradigm is different from the professional ES world as well (though it shouldn't be).

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.  We can spend a year arguing in committees about what should be in the can - get NESA people, HMRS people, bring in the Fossett, Challenger and Katrina guys, find people who actually have graphic and IT experience beyond AOL, lock the door and let them fight it out.

Then it's done.  Period.

A big chunk of time, effort, and money is spent reinventing the wheel, or "re-answering" baseline questions because somebody abdicated a tough decision in favor of making everyone happy, so then no one is happy and the mission suffers.

[Spaceman3750]

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.

While I understand what you're going for here, I don't think it works in practice. Let's take our wing for example. Let's assume for argument's sake that we get one ICP in a can from NHQ and that kit is located at Wing HQ. Let's say that ol'fido puts together a SAREX or actual mission in the nether reaches of our wing. That's a significant amount of AvGas to fly in the kit and assuming they have 2-3 exercises & actuals annually down there that money adds up quick (heck, at the last SAREX my squadron hosted it was expensive just to fly DPA-BMI-DPA, in the $200 range IIRC). I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly but I know that a DPA-ALN-DPA flight wouldn't be cheap.

The logical solution to that would be to allocate 2 or more cans to big wings like IL, CA, TX, FL, etc but you're still spending a lot of money just to move equipment and a couple of people around.

[Ron1319]

Why wouldn't you take a smart, motivated, well trained 14 year old on a UDF mission?  One of my first activities as a 14 year old cadet was a mission and it really set the mission oriented tone for my CAP cadet career.  I was later a GTL and mission observer with real mission experience in both capacities.

[davidsinn]

I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly

8gal/hr for a 172. 10-11gal/hr for a 182R and 11-12gal/hr for a 182T NavIII. I think the Airvans are 16+ gal/hr.

[ol'fido]

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.

While I understand what you're going for here, I don't think it works in practice. Let's take our wing for example. Let's assume for argument's sake that we get one ICP in a can from NHQ and that kit is located at Wing HQ. Let's say that ol'fido puts together a SAREX or actual mission in the nether reaches of our wing. That's a significant amount of AvGas to fly in the kit and assuming they have 2-3 exercises & actuals annually down there that money adds up quick (heck, at the last SAREX my squadron hosted it was expensive just to fly DPA-BMI-DPA, in the $200 range IIRC). I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly but I know that a DPA-ALN-DPA flight wouldn't be cheap.

The logical solution to that would be to allocate 2 or more cans to big wings like IL, CA, TX, FL, etc but you're still spending a lot of money just to move equipment and a couple of people around.

The solution to this is not to have "ICP in a Can" in the literal sense. The solution is to mandate and publish a "ICP Kit" in much the same way that we have 24 and 72 hour kits. This would include standards and formats for status boards, comm/radio packages(which would have to come from wing and which could be added to the TA), hard copy manuals and forms, etc.

National could also put together on a CD-ROM all the needed software to support such a ICP Kit.

In another thread, I said that if you couldn't go into any little airport out in the middle of nowhere and set up a mission base, you were doing it wrong. I still believe this. We cannot rely on fixed bases or a kit several hours away at Wing HQ to do this. Every group and those squadrons that can should have one of these kits in a central secure location where it's available when need it.

[Thom]

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.

While I understand what you're going for here, I don't think it works in practice. Let's take our wing for example. Let's assume for argument's sake that we get one ICP in a can from NHQ and that kit is located at Wing HQ. Let's say that ol'fido puts together a SAREX or actual mission in the nether reaches of our wing. That's a significant amount of AvGas to fly in the kit and assuming they have 2-3 exercises & actuals annually down there that money adds up quick (heck, at the last SAREX my squadron hosted it was expensive just to fly DPA-BMI-DPA, in the $200 range IIRC). I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly but I know that a DPA-ALN-DPA flight wouldn't be cheap.

The logical solution to that would be to allocate 2 or more cans to big wings like IL, CA, TX, FL, etc but you're still spending a lot of money just to move equipment and a couple of people around.

The solution to this is not to have "ICP in a Can" in the literal sense. The solution is to mandate and publish a "ICP Kit" in much the same way that we have 24 and 72 hour kits. This would include standards and formats for status boards, comm/radio packages(which would have to come from wing and which could be added to the TA), hard copy manuals and forms, etc.

National could also put together on a CD-ROM all the needed software to support such a ICP Kit.

In another thread, I said that if you couldn't go into any little airport out in the middle of nowhere and set up a mission base, you were doing it wrong. I still believe this. We cannot rely on fixed bases or a kit several hours away at Wing HQ to do this. Every group and those squadrons that can should have one of these kits in a central secure location where it's available when need it.

What he said.

It's not about 'things' it is about processes and procedures. Simply saying that everyone will use this procedure for tracking active sorties, and these are the standard forms (which can be downloaded and printed on demand) which every ICP will use for each necessary function. Some guidance on software such as 'Everyone will use IMU if possible' or, alternately, 'No one will use IMU' would go a long way in standardizing and regulating our mission support capabilities. None of which should in any way be tied to 'things' kept in a box 200 miles away.

We need to get out of the mindset of 'did Joe bring the Mission Base box?' and get into the mindset of 'Here's what an ICP is supposed to look like, and here's what I have, now how do I best fulfill the ICP needs, following as closely as possible the National Standard'. If I happen to have the 'big box' on hand, then I have all my neat toys, like the big laminated state map and prelabeled whiteboards, etc. If I don't have that, then I make do with printer paper taped to a wall and a dogeared sectional for planning, etc.

That's what Professionals do.


Thom

[Eclipse]

+4 (or whatever).

I didn't mean "literally" a physical piece of equipment, I meant primarily the spec, though Spaceman fell right into the groove
which tends to thwart these initiatives, which is letting trivial logistics dictate the process and procedure.

Once the spec is published, it is an administrative process to insure what is required is where it is needed.  If that means
12 kits, so be it, however in most cases the majority of what is needed is online, or preprinted forms.

In this day and age, if you publish the spec for a document, there will then be 12 ways to access it and use it.

Status board spec?

Print a few big ones at Kinko's and laminate them - that's your main set.

But you can also print them on regular paper, use them on your phone, laptop, tablet, or even draw the same spec
on a whiteboard, chalkboard, or side of the building.  When you have the resources, a shared Google version
projected on the wall and accessible in real-time at the FOB's is a great solution, but when you don't hand-written
works, too (for those who will espouse Armageddon).

The key is the format and the data, not the physical medium.  That way everyone is asking for, and expecting, the same
information, in the same field, no matter where you are.

For those areas with special needs, you add to the standard, in a way which is obviously an addition, not reinvent the process.

This is what ICS is about, and what form flexibility means.

I pick this particular issue not because it is the #1 thing, but because it is important, simple to fix, and sends a clear message.
We've had an ongoing fight about this issue for five years and 6 evals, with people just doing their own thing, sometimes expending considerable time and money on the "solution", then getting bent when they are told their idea is missing the mark and isn't usable.

Scalability and ease of use tend to be lost in these discussions.  Bottom line, if the "system" requires a specific person be involved, it is a fail.

Top-down, above the wing, answer the questions, move on.  No room for "not invented here", anymore than any other part of the
ES curriculum.

Rinse, repeat in every other directorate.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This "cultural shift" is very much subject to YMMV.

[RADIOMAN015]

The "we're just volunteers" attitude needs to be squashed by command. Yes, we'll lose some members, but are they really productive or just filling a spot on the org chart. When a member comes out with that attitude, un-volunteer them. Send them home. Ops Quals has (or had) a Member Availability application that members could use to list the days and times they are generally available for CAP missions. Most members do not know about this. That needs to change. Every member with an ES qual should be using it. Using it would provide a good general idea of how many members CAP can pull out on any given day. It would also help with notion of activity level, if members are not listed if they do not have a current ES qual.

This shift is most seriously needed in the Emergency Services arena. The "Boy Scouts with planes" notion needs to be killed. Hard. Please keep in mind as you read the couple of lines that I am not anti-cadet. Cadet participation in ES needs to be limited by age. 14 or 15 should be the lowest age for a cadet doing ES. They should be limited to base staff or flight line duties until age 16, when it would be appropriate to involve them in ground teams. Cadets should not be in supervisory roles in ES until age 18. I've seen a change away from the flying club mentality, toward a more well-rounded team based mentality in many of the senior units I've visited. We need the ICs to accept that they cannot run everything from their kitchen table and if a mission runs into a second day or needs more than an aircraft or two and a ground team, they need to stand up a base. CAP needs to be able to integrate into existing ICS structures, not merely attach a CAP branch. We need people, members or staff, to talk to other ES groups. We should be having displays and seminars at SAR conferences, police chiefs' conventions, DR conferences, etc.

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal    For the most part I don't think updating that availability data base does much for planning, because things come up in adult members lives that they can't control, whether it be at the work place on the day of need OR personally, and most aren't going into the data base to update those changes.  I think that's why (at least in my wing) they use a simple short text message/email alert.  Regarding volunteers performing in certain positions in the squadron, forcing anyone (especially a volunteer)  to do something they don't want to do usually produces poor results.  The volunteer leadership needs to be able to carefully understand what the volunteer member wants to do (and has the aptitude to do).  Personally I don't want to do the same things I do at work all day long at CAP.  I know we've had members only show up once a month, but they contributed to the unit, due to their specialized training/skills/experience e.g. Character Development Officer.


As far as cadets in ES, I think they are all highly motivated would really want to saves someones life if the opportunity arose.  The challenge is some states (and even counties) have some age restrictions, so that may prevent some ground type operations with the cadets.   At least the training is a good cadet retention tool,and maybe in their lifetime the skills learned will be valuable to them.

Basically, I find that it's the same "core" people throughout the wing involved in emergency services, emergency services support (e.g.radio comms), cadet encampments, etc.  Not sure that will change very much in the future -- it can be frustrating 
RM
     

[Eclipse]

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal.

Basing your response plan on "I sure hope you can make it." and "You're lucky I showed up at all." is how we got where we are.
We have leaders at all echelons reluctant to commit resources they cannot count on, while at the same time those "twice-a-year" members are whining we don't have enough actual missions.  You cannot have it both ways and be taken seriously.

Which is the ultimate goal here.  Our members don't want to be considered "the best volunteers" for the job(s), they want to be considered the best resource, with their pay status being irrelevant to the discussion.  A volunteer force will always have people
with legit reasons why they can't respond, that's part of the game, but there's is a Grand Canyon's difference between "my whole family is sick..." and "I won't commit until I know what you want me to do, and I probably can't stay the whole day."

Or #2 on the hit parade, I'm not coming to training, but you can count on me for "the big one".  No thanks.

For the most part I don't think updating that availability data base does much for planning, because things come up in adult members lives that they can't control, whether it be at the work place on the day of need OR personally, and most aren't going into the data base to update those changes.   

It will make a huge difference if not updating it includes ramifications.  On the duty roster and you don't respond?  Perhaps you're not
called until round two next time, etc.  Can't make it this weekend?  Take your name off the lists.  (There's an app for that).

Just like volunteer fireman, auxiliary policemen, municipal emergency volunteer teams, whatever.  You're a volunteer in the respect that
you don't have to be here and we can't make you answer the phone, but if you expect to be taken seriously, then you should put on your big-boy pants and accept the responsibilities you swore to when you signed your app and accepted than pretty badge or
requested the final sig on the fancy qualification.

A lot of people like to tell their friends they are part of an emergency resource, far less actually want to do something when the phone rings.

[AirDX]

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal    

YGBSM.  Hohum, Monday Night Football's on, guess I'll stay here with my lard ass in the La-Z-Boy instead of going out to look for some ELT that will turn out to be nothing.

Yeah, buddy, that'll earn some respect.

I've been part of volunteer fire departments and paid-on-call rescue squads ($10/call! Yay!) and then part of a team that ran the ONLY civilian hyperbaric chamber in the central Pacific that treats DCS victims.  I was a VOLUNTEER - but and I took my commitment seriously.  When I was an ambulance crew leader in Virginia, if I just decided not to show up, our unit was out of service, and a significant portion of MY city had degraded EMS response times.  I FELT the responsibility and shouldered it happily, knowing I was protecting MY family, and MY town.

When the doc would call from the hyperbaric treatment center telling me we had a patient being flown in, I got my BUTT in there ASAP - minutes count.  I didn't just DECIDE if I was going to show up or not.

For any of those, if I didn't show up... the chief would happily excuse me from further participation.  No whining about recurrent training, mandated by both the state and the county.  Whatever they said, you did it, or you lost your certifications.  And then... buh-bye!

Anyone who claims to participate in CAP ES and does NOT have an "I'll be there if at all possible" attitude needs to quit.  Sure missions pop up at inopportune times, but you know what, you can't pick and choose.  Sometimes you CAN'T go - there are times, fortunately only a couple of times a month, when I can't leave work because I'm running a real world Air Force mission.  That's why we develop some depth on our roster, so enough qualified people will show regardless of day, date or time.

But you DON'T pick and choose based on a whim.  When I was on the ambulance, there were calls I HATED - going to the old folks home to hook someone up, read the DNR, call the ER doc, watch them die and have the doc certify it just sucked.  Picking up wildly incontinent old folks just sucked.  But I raised my hand, I volunteered, I WENT.

Personally in my 18 months back in CAP, I see a lot of YOUR attitude, RM, and a lot of flying club folks.  Screw that.  I think you've just steeled my resolve a bit more to lead by example, and pressure those in command to restore professionalism to CAP ES.

If you just  want to work with the cadet program, or AE, fine, be a slacker (though the GOOD folks in those programs don't need your version of fair-weather volunteering either).

In ES, you are committing to serve your neighborhood, your city, your county, your state, and your nation.  If you won't commit to getting out of the La-Z-Boy, just stay home.  Get the heck out of CAP and join the quilting circle.