FO, TFO, SFO, and SM

[DarthAggie]

Looking at the 4 different epaulets, for each of the respective ranks, I have a question about seniority...

Between those 4 ranks, how would those ranks be lined up, in regards to which ones have the higher ranks?

I'm thinking (from bottom to top)...

FO
TFO
SFO
SM

...then 2LT, and so on...

Any thoughts...?

[SARDOC]

Senior Member is actually Junior to the Flight Officer grades.  Before a member can become a flight officer they have to spend at least three months as a senior member until the can promote to flight officer.

[Salty]

The FO ranks are for former cadets who earned milestone awards and regular senior members who are under the age of 21.

FO = 2nd Lt (Mitchell)
TFO = 1st Lt (Earhart)
SFO = Capt (Spaatz)

They all outrank SM.

[coudano]

The FO ranks are for former cadets who earned milestone awards and regular senior members who are under the age of 21.

FO = 2nd Lt (Mitchell)
TFO = 1st Lt (Earhart)
SFO = Capt (Spaatz)

They all outrank SM.

FO doesn't really equal 2d Lt

a SM 2d Lt out ranks a SFO



But, in order of progression,   SM, FO, TFO, SFO

[Salty]

How do you figure that?

The only difference is one person is under 21 and the other person is over 21.  There's a slight difference in time in grade requirements but that's about it based on what I'm looking at in 35-5.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The FO ranks are for former cadets who earned milestone awards and regular senior members who are under the age of 21.

FO = 2nd Lt (Mitchell)
TFO = 1st Lt (Earhart)
SFO = Capt (Spaatz)

They all outrank SM.

Or people who join too old to be a cadet but not yet 21. Regs (supposedly because of AF)  won't let us give <21 officer grade

[ßτε]

Also note that a SM without grade does not wear epaulet insignia of any sort.

[Spaceman3750]

And, just to make this perfectly clear...

Flight Officers ARE senior members. They ARE NOT "sort of cadets" or "technically maybe senior members". They are FULL, living, breathing, seniors with all privileges and responsibilities.

[Salty]

Bah, you're not a SM until you get the butter bars.

[ßτε]

How do you figure that?

The only difference is one person is under 21 and the other person is over 21.  There's a slight difference in time in grade requirements but that's about it based on what I'm looking at in 35-5.

It's the TIG requirements that do not equate.
TIG as TFO counts the same as TIG as 2d Lt, not as 1st Lt.
TIG as SFO counts the same as TIG as 1st Lt, not as Capt.

[Salty]

Right, but I was looking at the skill requirements for each.

[lordmonar]

One of the reasons why I think we either need to do away with the fligh officer ranks.....or make them part of the normal progression for all members.

[coudano]

How do you figure that?

The only difference is one person is under 21 and the other person is over 21.  There's a slight difference in time in grade requirements but that's about it based on what I'm looking at in 35-5.

35-5 only discusses how you get appointed to the various grades.
It doesn't talk about the "authority relationships".

Arguably there aren't any, anyway...  so we're talking basically about rendering customs and courtesies here.  Do you suppose a 2d Lt would salute a SFO?


I don't think any CAP regulation actually defines this clearly.
However generally speaking, a CAP Officer 'commissioned' (2LT-MG)
would outrank any "un-commissioned" (SMWOG & FO-SFO)
and any non-commissioned (SSgt-CMSgt)



SFO is actually (roughly) equivalent to 1st Lt insofar as experience and requirements.  You need to be an SFO (or 1st lt) for 18 months total or combined, in order to pin Captain on your 21st birthday.  **didn't used to be that way, the equal signs you drew used to be pretty much right, but not anymore.

--unless you were a prior Spaatz cadet, of course

[Spaceman3750]

The TIG might be wonky, but the skill level for FO progression is actually higher. While FO requires half the time that 2nd. Lt. does, TFO requires a technician rating while being roughly "equivalent" to 2nd Lt. - which does not require a tech rating. SFO requires Level II, which is roughly equivalent to 1st. Lt, which only requires a tech rating, not LVII. Note that I'm basing my equivalencies on what you revert to when you turn 21.

[Salty]

I became a TFO when I switched from cadet to senior so I guess that's why I look at it the way I do.  I've always come at this from a former cadet's perspective.

To answer your question, as a matter of personal principle I would salute a butter bar as a TFO.

[coudano]

The TIG might be wonky, but the skill level for FO progression is actually higher. While FO requires half the time that 2nd. Lt. does, TFO requires a technician rating while being roughly "equivalent" to 2nd Lt. - which does not require a tech rating. SFO requires Level II, which is roughly equivalent to 1st. Lt, which only requires a tech rating, not LVII. Note that I'm basing my equivalencies on what you revert to when you turn 21.

However, If you switch to TFO after having been an Earhart cadet, you now come with a free/automatic technician rating in CP.

[JeffDG]

Honestly, does it really matter in an organization where a Capt. is in command of a squadron where a Maj Gen is a member thereof?

Authority among SMs, most of the time, derives from position, not grade.

[DarthAggie]

I guess this is the reason why I asked...

http://www.vanguardmil.com/sr-grade-epaulets-male-epaulets-c-6_2513_405_2035_2039.html

They look like they're in a specific order, but I wasn't sure.

Now, if I wear the Senior Member epaulet (left of 2LT), then that would technically be under the ranks of FO, TFO, & SFO...?

[Eclipse]

Now, if I wear the Senior Member epaulet (left of 2LT), then that would technically be under the ranks of FO, TFO, & SFO...?

No.  It says "Senior Member Enlisted".



Supposedly the intention was for senior members who choose to wear their NCO-equivalent grade from another service to pin
that grade on the epaulet, however that idea was never fully implemented (they just wear USAF stripes, regardless of the
service they earned their grade).

Since then, misinformed commanders have been telling new members they should wear blank epaulet sleeves until they attain
a CAP grade appointment.

SMWOG do not wear anything on their epaulets - that's why they wear the cutouts on their collars (blues).

[DarthAggie]

OK.

I see that.

But what would a Senior Member wear, who's over the age of 21, before receiving 2LT (for that 6 month period)?

[SARDOC]

But what would a Senior Member wear, who's over the age of 21, before receiving 2LT (for that 6 month period)?

Since then, misinformed commanders have been telling new members they should wear blank epaulet sleeves until they attain
a CAP grade appointment.

SMWOG do not wear anything on their epaulets - that's why they wear the cutouts on their collars (blues).

[Майор Хаткевич]

OK.

I see that.

But what would a Senior Member wear, who's over the age of 21, before receiving 2LT (for that 6 month period)?

SMWOG do not wear anything on their epaulets - that's why they wear the cutouts on their collars (blues).

[Майор Хаткевич]

Bah, you're not a SM until you get the butter bars.

I never wore a butter bar...:/

[DarthAggie]

Is there a pic of these cutouts...?

[coudano]

you gotta search the right keywords at vanguard to get them to show up
http://www.vanguardmil.com/civil-air-patrol-collar-device-cap-mirror-finish-p-7046.html

[Salty]

Bah, you're not a SM until you get the butter bars.

I never wore a butter bar...:/

Neither have I so far.

[Eclipse]

Is there a pic of these cutouts...?

http://www.vanguardmil.com/civil-air-patrol-collar-device-cap-mirror-finish-p-7046.html

[SARDOC]

you gotta search the right keywords at vanguard to get them to show up
http://www.vanguardmil.com/civil-air-patrol-collar-device-cap-mirror-finish-p-7046.html

Or this as the uniform dictates

http://www.vanguardmil.com/civil-air-patrol-collar-insignia-cap-embroidered-p-7047.html

[RogueLeader]

Metal CAP cutouts on blues, white/greys, and embroidered CAP on BDUs and BBDUs.

[Spaceman3750]

Aaaand uniform thread

[SARDOC]

Aaaand uniform thread

Well in all fairness it is under the Uniform's and Awards heading.  Shouldn't really be surprised.

[Eclipse]

Metal CAP cutouts on blues, white/greys, and embroidered CAP on BDUs and BBDUs.

Cutouts are never worn on the white / grays.

[RogueLeader]

Opps, my bad.

[Sapper168]

Metal CAP cutouts on blues, white/greys, and embroidered CAP on BDUs and BBDUs.

Cutouts are never worn on the white / grays.

Both of Figure 4.2 and Table 6.1 in the 39-1 state that grade is displayed on the gray epaulet sleeve for the white aviator uniform. It doesnt differentiate for senior members without grade in any of the notes.  So the way i read this is that the grey sleeve without any embroidered rank, just the CAP letters, would be worn on the White Aviator shirt by a SM w/o Grade.

[SarDragon]

2. Grade Insignia: Gray CAP epaulet sleeves displaying grade insignia.

They have no grade; they don't need an epaulet sleeve.

Cadet and senior member officer grade insignia will be worn on those uniform items listed in Table 6-1.

A member designated as an SM is not an officer, and therefore needs no epaulet sleeve.

[adamblank]

My only issue in the whole FO business is that their grade is not noted on eServices.  To me that is unacceptable since all other grades to include SM NCOs are.

[Spaceman3750]

My only issue in the whole FO business is that their grade is not noted on eServices.  To me that is unacceptable since all other grades to include SM NCOs are.

Yeah, that's always bugged me too. Even C/Amn is tracked, which wasn't the case WIWAC.

[lordmonar]

Okay...now let's put another twist in this little debate.


Here is my take of CAP rank.

Cadets
SM (with out grade)
CAP NCOs
FO
TFO
SFO
2d Lt
1st Lt
Capt
Maj
Lt Col
Col
B Gen
M Gen

[SARDOC]

My only issue in the whole FO business is that their grade is not noted on eServices.  To me that is unacceptable since all other grades to include SM NCOs are.

I also agree.  I don't see what is so hard about adding another data entry field in eServices.  It would a great step in moving towards making all our records online.

[johnnyb47]

Okay...now let's put another twist in this little debate.


Here is my take of CAP rank.

Cadets
SM (with out grade)
CAP NCOs
FO
TFO
SFO
2d Lt
1st Lt
Capt
Maj
Lt Col
Col
B Gen
M Gen

When I first joined, though they called me sir or Senior Member Bowers (I actually preferred the latter at the time) I actually took a LOT of direction from cadets. I figured anyone who had put several years into the program, wore a uniform better than most AD Service Men or Women that I know and was polite and kind with their "suggestions" probably had a lot to teach me. That said I figured SMWOG ranked right up there with MAGGOT or CONSCIENTIOUS OBSERVER (see what I did there? heh) and I didn't say much other than "don't trip over that rock" for my first 6 months.

That is of course an opinion based partially on my lack of prior service. I just figured if I wanted the respect of the cadets later I needed to do my best to show them the respect they are due as early on as possible.

[davedove]

When I first joined, though they called me sir or Senior Member Bowers (I actually preferred the latter at the time) I actually took a LOT of direction from cadets. I figured anyone who had put several years into the program, wore a uniform better than most AD Service Men or Women that I know and was polite and kind with their "suggestions" probably had a lot to teach me. That said I figured SMWOG ranked right up there with MAGGOT or CONSCIENTIOUS OBSERVER (see what I did there? heh) and I didn't say much other than "don't trip over that rock" for my first 6 months.

That is of course an opinion based partially on my lack of prior service. I just figured if I wanted the respect of the cadets later I needed to do my best to show them the respect they are due as early on as possible.

Rank structure is not the same thing as experience.  In the RM the 2nd Lt outranks all the Sergeants, but he would be wise to listen to their suggestions.

[exFlight Officer]

My only issue in the whole FO business is that their grade is not noted on eServices.  To me that is unacceptable since all other grades to include SM NCOs are.

I also agree.  I don't see what is so hard about adding another data entry field in eServices.  It would a great step in moving towards making all our records online.

+1   

[bassque]

I've always wondered what would be the impact of going to a some level of stripes before the officer rank as a part of the professional development.  Personally, I think it would help some senior members get quicker results from professional development with a quicker rank structure (similar but different than the cadets of course) which may be motivation for some if they see that they are progressing in the program.  Complete Level 1 = TSgt (5 stripes)  1 stripe for each task in Level 1.  eServices and OpSec = Airman.  Intro to Safety = AFC, Cadet Protection = SrAmn. 


Dunno.  Not that that is the perfect way but just a though.  Just a thought which I'm sure has been addressed at some point in time. 

[SARDOC]

Just a thought which I'm sure has been addressed at some point in time.

Yes..The development of an "enlisted" rank structure has been discussed on many occasions.  I think there is some merit to it but you will soon find that there is a faction that will absolutely reject the discussion under the notion that what we have works well enough so if you don't like it leave.  I think it can provide more steps for advancement and recognition for continued service and expertise without really entering "management"

[bassque]

Just a thought which I'm sure has been addressed at some point in time.

Yes..The development of an "enlisted" rank structure has been discussed on many occasions.  I think there is some merit to it but you will soon find that there is a faction that will absolutely reject the discussion under the notion that what we have works well enough so if you don't like it leave.  I think it can provide more steps for advancement and recognition for continued service and expertise without really entering "management"

Yea I figured as much.  And I know the hardline stance of the status quo die hards.  Kind of a shame really. The garden salads can only get so big I guess but to you're point for recognition for continued service I think is a good.

[Spaceman3750]

I laugh a little bit when folk call me lieutenant because they don't know what to do with the little stripey things on my collar .

[exFlight Officer]

I laugh a little bit when folk call me lieutenant because they don't know what to do with the little stripey things on my collar .

One of my favorite lines that I have gotten, "Sir, what is the line between your Lt. bar mean?". This was back when I was a TFO 


Hey, Lieutenant is better than Cadet!  I've had Senior Members mistake me for a cadet many times. The awkward part is saying "Sir/Ma'am, I am not a cadet. I am a --insert FO rank here--. "

[Spaceman3750]

That hasn't been a big problem for me like I thought it was going to be. But I also conduct myself like a senior, so there's not really any room for error. I have come across a couple of people who recognize that I'm a senior, but think that being under 21 makes me less of one (think uber-cadet or something like that).

At a bivouac a few weeks ago a cadet walked up to me and said "Sir, I noticed that you're wearing warrant officer insignia" .

[Ned]

Hey, Lieutenant is better than Cadet! 

Better yet is Cadet Lieutenant!

But sadly, only about 15% of our members get that far.   

[johnnyb47]

When I first joined, though they called me sir or Senior Member Bowers (I actually preferred the latter at the time) I actually took a LOT of direction from cadets. I figured anyone who had put several years into the program, wore a uniform better than most AD Service Men or Women that I know and was polite and kind with their "suggestions" probably had a lot to teach me. That said I figured SMWOG ranked right up there with MAGGOT or CONSCIENTIOUS OBSERVER (see what I did there? heh) and I didn't say much other than "don't trip over that rock" for my first 6 months.

That is of course an opinion based partially on my lack of prior service. I just figured if I wanted the respect of the cadets later I needed to do my best to show them the respect they are due as early on as possible.

Rank structure is not the same thing as experience.  In the RM the 2nd Lt outranks all the Sergeants, but he would be wise to listen to their suggestions.

but does an OT joining the Air Force out really rank anyone for the first few weeks they're in new recruit training?

[lordmonar]

One of the reasons why OTS is a Maxwell and BMTS is at Lackland.

OT's and Cadets don't fit anywhere in the chain of command.

[titanII]

OT's and Cadets don't fit anywhere in the chain of command.

AFROTC cadets are enlisted members of the Air Force Reserve serving without pay, until they comission... 
(Kidding). I don't think that means they're part of that CoC. Not to say that I can't be corrected...

[coudano]

'course there's the meme idea to disconnect professional development from rank.

reserve "officer" ranks for those in positions of command and responsibility (minimum age 21?).
Everyone else wears something like a 5 tiered FO system.

Then, you reward the "hard jobs" with commissioned rank.


If you leave the "hard job", you leave the commissioned rank with it, and go back to whatever FO style stripes you are based on your PD completion.  Or possibly to a different 'commissioned' rank, based on the different position you take, after leaving the previous one.

I can see due respect being paid to those with 4 and 5 lines just like you see due respect being paid to a CW4 and CW5.  Yet still having the proper relationship between the GRW complete ex wing commander, being subordinate to the Capt squadron commander of the unit they are now just being the "AEO" in (or just drinking coffee and BSing at).

Go to a single PD ribbon, with attachments for level.

Find some way to show level besides commissioned rank (other than the ribbon // for wear on utilities)

[lordmonar]

I suggested the same thing way back.

I would not worry about the PD ribbon attachments....that's what your FO rank marks show.

[coudano]

Depending on how you draw the lines, there might be 49,262 "commissioned officer billets" in all of CAP using a system like this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjeM9Al0JSYXdGFwRGZYVjdpbzE4NjlrUWE2cmwxN2c

The actual allocation of billets could be up for debate.  And my estimates are certainly a little off.


Considering that there are only 34972 senior members in CAP right now,
It is more than feasible that every senior member in CAP over the age of 21 could hold an officer rank if they so chose to take a job that earns it.  That's even with the reality of one senior member filling multiple jobs, at multiple levels.

8830 members ranked captain and above.
Out of 35,000 senior members, that's 25% of our senior members.

Seriously, I expect that even with that, there will STILL be people around without a commissioned rank.  Because something like half of our senior members that we have on the books don't actually *DO* anything.  As it is, even with a system like this, you'll see "empty suits" appointed to jobs but not doing anything.  And admittedly, probably some GOBN, appointing of buddies to high ranking jobs.


Would I give up my Lt Col, in order to go be a Capt?  (i'm a squadron deputy commander for cadets)
If EVERYONE had to do this?  Sure.  (my current sqcc is a captain)
It (might) even motivate me to go take a 'difficult' job at a higher level to keep the silver oak leaf.

I would still appreciate a way to show my level 4 (and 5 when i get it finished) regardless of the rank I take.

[jimmydeanno]

Depending on how you draw the lines, there might be 49,262 "commissioned officer billets" in all of CAP using a system like this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjeM9Al0JSYXdGFwRGZYVjdpbzE4NjlrUWE2cmwxN2c

The actual allocation of billets could be up for debate.  And my estimates are certainly a little off.


Considering that there are only 34972 senior members in CAP right now,
It is more than feasible that every senior member in CAP over the age of 21 could hold an officer rank if they so chose to take a job that earns it.  That's even with the reality of one senior member filling multiple jobs, at multiple levels.


Seriously, I expect that even with that, there will STILL be people around without a commissioned rank.  Because something like half of our senior members that we have on the books don't actually *DO* anything.  As it is, even with a system like this, you'll see "empty suits" appointed to jobs but not doing anything.  And admittedly, probably some GOBN, appointing of buddies to high ranking jobs.


Would I give up my Lt Col, in order to go be a Capt?  (i'm a squadron deputy commander for cadets)
If EVERYONE had to do this?  Sure.
It (might) even motivate me to go take a 'difficult' job at a higher level to keep the silver oak leaf.

I would still appreciate a way to show my level 4 (and 5 when i get it finished) regardless of the rank I take.

While I think that people's primary motivation behind volunteering with our organization should be based around the rank they receive, I'm not sure that I agree with the elimination of that persons rank after they served in a position that warranted it.  We can argue that it might entice someone to move up, but even in that scenario, a National Commander would revert back to a FO5.  "Thanks for leading 65K volunteers, now get in line."  I'd probably be in favor of successful completion of two terms and keeping it, or something along that line.

I suppose the question becomes is the title "Former X" enough payment for the service that the person gave to the organization?

[coudano]

While I think that people's primary motivation behind volunteering with our organization should be based around the rank they receive, I'm not sure that I agree with the elimination of that persons rank after they served in a position that warranted it.  We can argue that it might entice someone to move up, but even in that scenario, a National Commander would revert back to a FO5.  "Thanks for leading 65K volunteers, now get in line."  I'd probably be in favor of successful completion of two terms and keeping it, or something along that line.

I suppose the question becomes is the title "Former X" enough payment for the service that the person gave to the organization?

The problem is that CAP isn't an "up and out" system.
In the military, you do a 20+ year career and you might spit out the top as a Lt Col or higher.
And then you retire, and you're gone (have a nice life, golfing)

However, in CAP, after 20 years, you might be the wing commander, and finish,
and then go back to being the squadron AEO, and you might stay for ANOTHER 20 years.  or longer...
Then back to a tour as a region staffer, then back to a squadron,
and so forth and so on...

Our structure doesn't quite work like a military structure,
so our rank system shouldn't behave (quite) like a military structure.

I'm wholly in favor of your 'retired' grade being your highest held.
And I could go either way on letting people wear their highest held for 'ceremonials'

[coudano]

In short, your rank can basically either show time and experience,
What have you done for me?

Or it can show current status position and authority relationship.
What have you done for me, lately...



In CAP we can't have it both ways.


Additionally, rank may have its privileges, but it also has its responsibilities.
But in CAP that's not particularly true.
If you attain the rank, you keep the privileges even when you completely abdicate the responsibilities.
Which seems a little silly, no?

It also lets those who want to, let's say, just fly airplanes, do that.  Without taking any staff position, they are a "flight officer" and all they do is "fly".  And i'm fine with that...

[Spaceman3750]

Or, you know, we could leave it like it is, because while it looks a little funny it works just fine. How would we do our three missions better by screwing with the SM ranks?

[coudano]

Or, you know, we could leave it like it is, because while it looks a little funny it works just fine. How would we do our three missions better by screwing with the SM ranks?

That's certainly an option, like I said above, the system we have does one thing.  A system like the one i've proposed does a different thing.  It's all about which one works better.

Theoretically, we could attract better and more motivated people to the positions requiring more motivation and responsibility, and keep performance of people in those positions up.  Cosmetically, we could avoid inversions that confuse other agencies that we bump up against from time to time (although I don't really believe that's THAT big of an issue).

How many members gripe about being "more like the military".
If you value that highly, this is a step in that direction.

[Spiritsoar]

35-5 only discusses how you get appointed to the various grades.
It doesn't talk about the "authority relationships".

Arguably there aren't any, anyway...  so we're talking basically about rendering customs and courtesies here.  Do you suppose a 2d Lt would salute a SFO?


I don't think any CAP regulation actually defines this clearly.
However generally speaking, a CAP Officer 'commissioned' (2LT-MG)
would outrank any "un-commissioned" (SMWOG & FO-SFO)
and any non-commissioned (SSgt-CMSgt)

This seemed like an easy corollary to Active Duty, until I realized that the Air Force is the only service that doesn't use Warrant Officers.  But if they did, that seems to be what FOs are.  They fall above enlisted, below officers, and are rendered salutes.  The fact that they probably know more about CAP than a 2d Lt fits right in, because in the Army a WO3 probably knows a ton more than a 2LT, but still salutes one.  SM reminds me of when we would get Officer Cadets in to do orientations with us AD.  Us enlisted rendered salutes to get them used to it, but they really had no idea what life in the real military was like, and followed around the officers getting the hang of things. 

[Spaceman3750]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

[SAR-EMT1]

OT's and Cadets don't fit anywhere in the chain of command.

AFROTC cadets are enlisted members of the Air Force Reserve serving without pay, until they comission... 
(Kidding). I don't think that means they're part of that CoC. Not to say that I can't be corrected...

Only the ones on a scholarship. It is possible to complete the program and never see a dime (or CAC card )

[SAR-EMT1]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

Except the 19 year olds at Rucker that are learning to fly the crashhawk ...

And the 20 year olds at the same location who are serving as IP's / CFI's

Personally I have always ENCOURAGED the comparison using exactly this example.
Because even active duty doesn't allow you to commission until you are 21. (At least that was the case when I was in )

[Eclipse]

There is no correlation whatsoever between FO and WO.  Further, I would not point to most CAP FO's as knowing more than the average CAP 2D Lt.

In most cases they are either new members under 21, or newly transitioned cadets who believe they know something, but in a high percentage have no clue how CAP actually works beyond the small window they personally experienced.

[lordmonar]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

That goes for all CAP rank.....so the argument is invalid.

[lordmonar]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

Except the 19 year olds at Rucker that are learning to fly the crashhawk ...

And the 20 year olds at the same location who are serving as IP's / CFI's

Personally I have always ENCOURAGED the comparison using exactly this example.
Because even active duty doesn't allow you to commission until you are 21. (At least that was the case when I was in )

according to the USAF web site....you only have to be 17 to go to OTS.
http://www.airforce.com/contact-us/faq/eligibility/#what-cut-off-age

[Ned]

There is no correlation whatsoever between FO and WO.  Further, I would not point to most CAP FO's as knowing more than the average CAP 2D Lt.

In most cases they are either new members under 21, or newly transitioned cadets who believe they know something, but in a high percentage have no clue how CAP actually works beyond the small window they personally experienced.

Well, there certainly is a historical connection.  I have been around long encough to have served with many senior member CAP warrant officers.  Then, as now, it was used as an officer rank for senior members under the age of 21, including (but not limited to) former cadet officers.

After the traditional lag period following the AF discontinuing the WO grades, CAP invented the FO system that tracked our old WO system pretty closely.

And as an aside, even in the rare circumstance of that newly transitioned former cadet that knows little beyond the cadet program, you still have an asset that knows more about the CP than most seniors ever will.

Which is a shame considering that CP is the largest single component of CAP.

But since the CP has to endure our fair share of seniors who nothing about it, so I suppose the reverse observation is fair.   

[SAR-EMT1]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

Except the 19 year olds at Rucker that are learning to fly the crashhawk ...

And the 20 year olds at the same location who are serving as IP's / CFI's

Personally I have always ENCOURAGED the comparison using exactly this example.
Because even active duty doesn't allow you to commission until you are 21. (At least that was the case when I was in )

according to the USAF web site....you only have to be 17 to go to OTS.
http://www.airforce.com/contact-us/faq/eligibility/#what-cut-off-age

How is this possible ? The USAF requires a BA or BS to be COMPLETED prior to OTS.
Same as every branch of the service (even the Army )


http://www.afoats.af.mil/ots/BOT/botapply.asp

Eligibility Requirements
"To apply for OTS, you are required to be a graduate of a regionally accredited college or university who is available to depart for training within 365 days.

[DBlair]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

Except the 19 year olds at Rucker that are learning to fly the crashhawk ...

And the 20 year olds at the same location who are serving as IP's / CFI's

Personally I have always ENCOURAGED the comparison using exactly this example.
Because even active duty doesn't allow you to commission until you are 21. (At least that was the case when I was in )

according to the USAF web site....you only have to be 17 to go to OTS.
http://www.airforce.com/contact-us/faq/eligibility/#what-cut-off-age

How is this possible ? The USAF requires a BA or BS to be COMPLETED prior to OTS.
Same as every branch of the service (even the Army )

I believe that by law the minimum age to commission in any branch is 21, but I believe there are various opportunities to attend earlier and then upon graduation from college, they receive their commission. I'm not sure of how each branch handles this, but an example of this would be the Marines having the PLC program where Officer Candidates attend 2 segments of OCS, split over the summer break during college, starting either Freshman or Sophomore year which could potentially make the candidate 17 or 18 years old.

[bosshawk]

In my experience with the military, the rules for commissioning change with the times: depends a lot on how many Lts they need.  Right now, the rules are tight, so a degree and age 21 seem to rule.

I happened to be commissioned in the Army when I was one week away from my 21st birthday: didn't seem to be a problem at that time.  I was only 51 when I retired after 30 yrs(they extended me 30 days past my commissioning anniversary for some strange reason.

IMHO, the comparison between Army Warrants and FO. TFO, etc in CAP is a bit off a stretch, but you guys go right ahead with the comparison.  In the Military Intelligence field where I spent most of my time, the Warrants were my right hands  I also flew with Warrants and they were great.  In fact, most of the IPs and SIPs were Warrants in the Army.

[SARDOC]

In reference to the Over 21 to be commissioned.  When I search I can only find a maximum age but not a minimum age.  The logical assumption that after 4 years of college one would be 21 or 22 years old...But I don't know that there is actually a rule against it.  Not one that I can find anyway.

The OTS referenced above says that one must be at least 17 toApply not graduate.  I would take that as definitive proof that one can be commissioned earlier than 21.  I can't find supporting documents either way.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

With the exception of Army Aviation, which takes pipeliners off civvy street.

However, by the time they've made it through Fort Rucker, they are quite worthy of a salute and address as "Sir/Ma'am."  My ex-brother-in-law (E-6) tried to do WO School and Army Aviation back in the early '80s and he washed-out.

The Navy has a "Flying Warrant Officer" billet whereby CWO's can qualify to fly helos, E-2's, etc.

The comparison made of SM to Officer Cadet is really more apropos to the Canadians...they have a grade called Officer Cadet, where they are known as "subordinate officers" and are not entitled to a salute, but are learning to be officers.

However, the RCN has a semi-joking term for their Naval Cadets, "quarter-inch Admirals, referring to the 1/4" gold braid around their cuff and the attitude that some apparently have of 'you DO owe me a salute'."

Officer Cadets from the three Canadian services (though two are Army)...I think they are broadly more like our SM's would be except they are, of course, Real Military.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_Cadet

[SarDragon]

Slightly OT, but the "Flying Warrant Officer" program sounds like the olde LDO aviator program from back in the '80s. Wonder how long this program will end up lasting. It's almost six years old. I don't think LDO Aviator lasted that long. The biggest hassles revolved around the non-flying duties.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It's still going.

http://www.navyflyingcwo.org/

Back on topic (hopefully!), I think that the FO ranks should be just for new members under 21...say a cadet with at least a Mitchell can go over to the officer side right away, as a 2nd LT.

Then again, and I'm in the unpopular minority here (what else is new!) I support stopping the cadet programme at 18.  At 18 they're adults, they have to go through CPPT, so why not treat them as what they are?

My first squadron produced a Spaatz cadet, and she stayed a cadet as long as she could and then came in as a Captain...she didn't much like it.

I would wholeheartedly support renaming the odious "SMWOG," "SM" etc. with "Officer Cadet," "Officer Trainee," or "Officer Candidate."

[GroundHawg]

Since warrant officers are highly-experienced NCOs/SMEs that have been promoted, I don't really think FO vs. WO is a fair comparison, and I discourage it at every turn.

Except the 19 year olds at Rucker that are learning to fly the crashhawk ...

And the 20 year olds at the same location who are serving as IP's / CFI's

Personally I have always ENCOURAGED the comparison using exactly this example.
Because even active duty doesn't allow you to commission until you are 21. (At least that was the case when I was in )

according to the USAF web site....you only have to be 17 to go to OTS.
http://www.airforce.com/contact-us/faq/eligibility/#what-cut-off-age

How is this possible ? The USAF requires a BA or BS to be COMPLETED prior to OTS.
Same as every branch of the service (even the Army )


http://www.afoats.af.mil/ots/BOT/botapply.asp

Eligibility Requirements
"To apply for OTS, you are required to be a graduate of a regionally accredited college or university who is available to depart for training within 365 days.

Two ways I can think of. Lots of our local high schools now have a college prep program in which when you graduate HS, you also graduate from a local university with an associates degree, and a few hard chargers have completed their BA within a year, and I thought I heard of one getting their BA at the same time as their HS diploma.
The second is that there is another local school that goes year round and is highly advanced. These kids graduate around the age of 15 and start college and university then, graduating around 18-19 years old.
http://www.covingtonlatin.org/default.aspx

Its highly unlikely but I guess its possible

[lordmonar]

How about this.

Every SM 21 or not starts as Flight Officer...from day one to six months....they are not SMWOG, or Officer Candidate, or SM....they are Flight officers.
Level I plus six months gets them TFO....TFO, Tech rateing plus 1 year gets them SFO...SFO 1 year and age 21 gets you 2d Lt.

Pros.....it makes the FO ranks part of the officer progression.  It eliminates the "FO's are just old cadets" syndrom.  It eliminats the wordy SMWOR designation and places them within a specif place in the chain of command.  It will low the number of high ranking officers.  1st Lt becomes the old Capt, Capt is major and major is LT Col.  We can make Lt Col a much harder rank to get (like actually get your Level V).....thus reducing a lot of the top heavy units.

Cons....change for change sake.  Changing all the regulations and training material to get it on line.
Develping all the uniform rule and items that have been over looked for so long because there are only a handful of FO's. 

[Eclipse]

^ I would sign this if it included a restriction on advanced grade within at least the first year or membership, regardless of
what you bring to the table.

[lordmonar]

^ I would sign this if it included a restriction on advanced grade within at least the first year or membership, regardless of
what you bring to the table.

That is a differnt argument....but I would go with advance grade is always level I plus six months before getting promoted.  That would solidify the idea that everyone.......even the retired Major General.....had to be a CAP FO before moving on.

[tsrup]

If you were going to do anything I would say get rid of the FO ranks all together.  Having been one I see no reason why they existed in the first place.  You get a 3 year SFO with a mission specialty and experience outranked by a new member with 6 months and level one just because they are a little bit older? 

It doesn't make sense, and anyone that encountered me when I was a FO was just confused anyways.


I mean I cannot see one logical argument that would qualify a 21 year old more than an 18 year old for cap officer ranks in our program.  None.

[SARDOC]

Every SM 21 or not starts as Flight Officer...from day one to six months....they are not SMWOG, or Officer Candidate, or SM....they are Flight officers.
Level I plus six months gets them TFO....TFO, Tech rateing plus 1 year gets them SFO...SFO 1 year and age 21 gets you 2d Lt.

Pros.....it makes the FO ranks part of the officer progression.  It eliminates the "FO's are just old cadets" syndrom.  It eliminats the wordy SMWOR designation and places them within a specif place in the chain of command.  It will low the number of high ranking officers.  1st Lt becomes the old Capt, Capt is major and major is LT Col.  We can make Lt Col a much harder rank to get (like actually get your Level V).....thus reducing a lot of the top heavy units.

Cons....change for change sake.  Changing all the regulations and training material to get it on line.
Develping all the uniform rule and items that have been over looked for so long because there are only a handful of FO's.

This actually would be the same justification to help bring in an "enlisted" style rank structure.  Making Lieutenant Colonel the organization crowning achievement that it really should be.  It Provides recognition to people who have no desire into going into group/wing staff or into the traditional leadership structure.  We still would not have quotas...we promote as many as we want just like we do now...just challenges members to do more.

[arajca]

I mean I cannot see one logical argument that would qualify a 21 year old more than an 18 year old for cap officer ranks in our program.  None.

There is only one arguement for it - the Air Force has so decreed. Not saying it's logical, but it is there.