Addition To The Professional Appointments Category On The SM Promotion Chart.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I am personally against any professional appointments or early bumps, for any reason. 

So no one earning above Mitchell as a cadet should be promoted according?
I don't know, I think that NHQ has set up (in most areas) a rather good system of promotion for officers. However a good system for NCOs would be a positive addition. I have never met anyone that thought C/CMS is the pinnacle of the CP. WIWAC we had ONE prior service NCO, she was a USAF SSG. She was the one that most cadets go to for questions on what to do about this that and the other. I can't think of a single time she was wrong with her answer, and she had ZERO past experience with CAP.

Prior service anything combat related has a working knowledge of ES Ops. Army Infantry know from experience of rescue raids, the search aspect (to include questioning civillians) of SAD. Not EVERYTHING is related to killing in the Army or the Marines. Heck if you find someone who has been to ADV. AASLT at Campbell, they even know SPIES and FRIES. Anyone to Basic AASLT or Pathfinder knows LZ set up and directing landing traffic.

"But CAP doesn't do air ops with helicopters."

Check your GT manual it's in there.

There are many other things that prior service (both enlisted and officer) has to offer CAP.

[Eclipse]

Duplicate posting...

[Eclipse]

So no one earning above Mitchell as a cadet should be promoted according?

Frankly, no.  That is a retention initiative, not one based on the reality of 21 year old squadron cc's.
I have yet to meet a Mitchell cadet, fresh out of the program, who is ready to lead senior members, and if your service
was "years ago", you'd have to ask how relevant that specific experience is any more.

Conferring some credit for general program knowledge things like the CPO tech rating is one thing, but cadets do not serve or train
in the same dynamic as adults, and I am not the only one not excited about this.

"But CAP doesn't do air ops with helicopters."

Check your GT manual it's in there.

CAP does not do air operations with helicopters.  Setting up an LZ is not helicopter "operations".

It is this mentality (i.e. "the word appears in one of the books, so we do it...") which has caused much of the problem.

There are many other things that prior service (both enlisted and officer) has to offer CAP.

Yes, there are.  All of them related to skill, none of them related to grade or "NCO vs. Officer" status.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

You still have to know it don't you? Either you test and pass knowing all the information you need, or you don't have the qual, am I right? Yes I am. You still have to know it. I guess you can study it then brain dump it when it is done. But then what if, just what if you need that knowledge down the line, someone is hurt and in an area that is not hospitable to carrying a litter, and even less accessible to EMS, what to do?
("YOU" is used as a general term.)
Mission Base "Roger stand by we are sending air EMS to evac, place position markers for pickup."
You "What? I don't know how to do that."
Mission Base "You should your a GTL."

OOPS!!!

If it is in an operations manual you need to know how to do it. If someone has working knowledge of some of the equipment used on that helicopter even better. But not having the knowledge means you are a liability to the team.

[Eclipse]

Yes, you need to know it.

If, you are involved in ground ops, which is a relatively small part of the membership, and anyone can teach it.  Based on my ten+ years in CAP, you will practice it once in a while, and if you are lucky get to do it for real with a Lifeflight Orientation.

If you recruit a helo pilot with the carrot of CAP "Helicopter Operations", don't be surprised when he gives you the stick in 6 months after finding out we don't fly them and never will.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Yes, you need to know it.

If, you are involved in ground ops, which is a relatively small part of the membership, and anyone can teach it.  Based on my ten+ years in CAP, you will practice it once in a while, and if you are lucky get to do it for real with a Lifeflight Orientation.

If you recruit a helo pilot with the carrot of CAP "Helicopter Operations", don't be surprised when he gives you the stick in 6 months after finding out we don't fly them and never will.

Why would you feed someone that rotten carrot? Needles to say, there is no and probably never will be "Hell Ops". Yet there is a need for the knowledge of part of how it works. You need to know how to set up an LZ, you need to know how to assume command of the helicopter, tell it where to land and how far off the ground it is, and then tell the pilot what direction to take off in. Having this kind of knowledge is useful, though it is a small part of ES Ops, and it doesn't in any way warrant a promotion. The useful knowledge that prior service has should be recognized and utilized in the best manner possible. If allowing that member to retain their NCO grade is part of making them valuable so be it. If giving that officer their promotion is part of it good. Lets utilize the assets and reward them. Telling someone they can't wear their prior rank or at least get an officer promotion, just tells them that you don't think that they are valuable. Which is what you are telling people who get these promotions and appointments, that their prior work, knowledge and commitment is worthless.

[tsrup]

Frankly, no.  That is a retention initiative, not one based on the reality of 21 year old squadron cc's.
I have yet to meet a Mitchell cadet, fresh out of the program, who is ready to lead senior members,

Then I'd like to introduce you to my squadron commander.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

Ummmmmmmmmmm. Photoshop?

[tsrup]

Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

how about it's caption that says "Unofficial CAP helicopter"...


.. and while the Colors look legit, the lettering and logo's do look suspect.. 


Edit:

the N number shows up invalid as well.
looks like a myth to me...

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

Ummmmmmmmmmm. Photoshop?

I would highly doubt that the CAP Historians would add a photo shopped picture to be put into their site.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

how about it's caption that says "Unofficial CAP helicopter"...

could not see that down there with my IE browser, good catch. I retract my blunder.

[SarDragon]

The N-number is not a US issued number. I suspect some 'Shoppage. FWIW, the other two pictures on that front page also have issues.

And, this has drifted WAY off topic. We need to rein it in or get it locked.

[FARRIER]

Starting from the original premise of this thread, there shouldn't be any additions to the Professional Appointments Category, there should be less. There should be only two advanced promotion categories total, prior military service and prior Mitchell/Earhart/Spaatz cadets. No gimmes on the tech and senior ratings for prior cadets in the CP track. All members have to complete the professional development program to insure a pool of senior members that can hold leadership positions. With th prior military there is a garauntee of some level of leadership skill. Prior cadets bring organizational knowledge and if they were active in ES, ES ratings.

Respectfully

[DakRadz]

Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

The picture right before that one is Shooped to say Gunner C.

Anyone wanna wager that a CT member of some sort was involved with these pictures?

Anyone wanna wager that these were designed to screw with people on CT?

[Eclipse]

Starting from the original premise of this thread, there shouldn't be any additions to the Professional Appointments Category, there should be less.

Concur.

All members have to complete the professional development program to insure a pool of senior members that can hold leadership positions.

Concur on principle, but it will not likely impact who can/will be commanders, though one would like to think that a better understanding of the program would foster more personal ownership and cause some people to pick up their corner.

With th prior military there is a garauntee of some level of leadership skill.

Non concur.  Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Non concur.  Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

That is why there is no advancement for E-1 - E-5. That should stay where it is.

[ZigZag911]

What he just said, ditto!

[Ned]

Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

Bob,

Wow.   Just wow.

Let me just stare at that for a moment . . . . .


Leaving aside for a moment that we have been talking exclusively about NCOs (and a bit about military officers), that is such a [darn]ing statement that it is not hard to imagine that almost every military veteran would take it rather personally.  Especailly coming from someone who has not served in the armed forces.

Nope, there is no way around it.  It is simply wrong on every possible level.

By definition, Every single military NCO and officer is a leader in a very real and not particularly abstract sense.

Sure, there have been some problematic military leaders.  After all, to paraphrase Garrison Kielor, about half of all NCOs and officers are belolw average. . .

But for you to bad mouth every military veteran who has achieved NCO and/or officer status is inconsistent with your normal common-sense posts.  I can only imagine that you responded quickly without giving the matter as much thought as you usually do.

Did I misread that somehow?

[Eclipse]

But for you to bad mouth every military veteran who has achieved NCO and/or officer status is inconsistent with your normal common-sense posts.

I'm not bad mouthing anyone, and to characterize it as such is just trying to make this into a non-objective discussion.

Did I misread that somehow?

Does it say the word NCO or officer in that sentence?

Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

But even with that said, are you asserting that just because you can lead people in a military environment you
can lead them in a volunteer environment?  These are two completely different situations, especially at
enlisted "doer" level.

Success as a military commander does not guarantee success as a CAP commander.  That doesn't mean CAP is harder, just different.