Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 14, 2017, 04:50:07 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

 91 
 on: December 12, 2017, 03:04:00 PM 
Started by NIN - Last post by Eclipse
Is this that website all the old people go to?

 92 
 on: December 12, 2017, 02:52:07 PM 
Started by NIN - Last post by NIN

 93 
 on: December 12, 2017, 02:22:38 PM 
Started by therealfirstsergeant - Last post by TheSkyHornet
This isn't a defense of Ranger tapes, but a shot across the bow at Ground Team members.

 94 
 on: December 12, 2017, 02:20:55 PM 
Started by therealfirstsergeant - Last post by Eclipse
I've been waiting for one of these posts for a while.

+1  Expect more with Christmas vacation looming.

 95 
 on: December 12, 2017, 02:18:57 PM 
Started by deepblue1947 - Last post by TheSkyHornet
A huge issue, as I have said before, is the complete lack of knowledge of CAP among the general public. National seems to think ALL recruiting needs to be local. National, IMHO, needs to be doing public awareness and information campaigns about CAP. When the first 20 secs of your 30 sec elevator speech is explaining what CAP is, you don't have time to talk about what may interest your target.

100% agree with this statement.

When you say "Boy Scouts," or "Girl Scouts," or "Air Force," people don't hesitate to understand what these things are. It has nothing to do with the dates they were founded and everything to do with Public Affairs. CAP is so heavily advertised at the local level, and maybe a lot of that is because the squadron level is constructed based on who's available and not what/who is "provided."


 96 
 on: December 12, 2017, 02:03:15 PM 
Started by deepblue1947 - Last post by Mordecai

The absolute worst thing you can do, especially with seniors, is to recruit a bunch of warm bodies without a corresponding organizational need and a roadmap for their training. Sit down with your squadron commander, deputy commander and probably the PDO and look at what the squadron needs first.


Is there an 'ideal' squadron size? We have 37 seniors, with about 25 that show up to each meeting. From what I can see most every position is filled and with backup assistants. We have 5 (or more) MPs, so the plane is kept very busy and always exceeds the hobbs goals. Yes, I would like to see our Squadron double in size, but we would be recruiting for assistants to the assistants. Its hard to walk up to someone and be able to say 'we need your help' or 'we have the perfect spot for you'.

Any ideas GREATLY appreciated.

There are 34 positions in the squadron duty assignment list. Add 3 people for dedicated GSAR SQTRs and 3 people for Pilots/Aviation SQTRs, 2 more for fudge factor to assist with areas that require more work than normal and where people in other DAs can't help out... and the answer is 42.

Don't Panic.

 97 
 on: December 12, 2017, 01:40:36 PM 
Started by therealfirstsergeant - Last post by Pace
I've been waiting for one of these posts for a while. Seems past due. My opinion of CAP Rangers on real world missions outside of PAWG is poor, but this may be sampling bias also. My experience with them during my time in PA unfortunately is limited since I only went on one sortie with a group of CAP Rangers. They seemed on par with most of GTMs I've met over the years. More spirit for running through the woods, but knowledge and skills were virtually equal, not superior.


Next...

 98 
 on: December 12, 2017, 01:26:50 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by CAPSOC_0pur8ur
I guess what's surprising to me is that even with issues like the fake ABU's and other poor quality uniform items, another company hasn't been able to earn the contract yet  :-\

 99 
 on: December 12, 2017, 01:21:00 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by Ned
We've talked about this several times before, but it's worth remembering that CAP formerly ran our own uniform and insignia sales (along with a bunch of doodads and trinkets) in the form of the Bookstore and CAPMart for decades.  And despite multiple reorganizations and restarts, we lost our shirts trying to do so.  That lost money came from your dues and mine.  Tens of thousands of dollars.  And members often complained about the level of service.

So the volunteer leadership decided that running a retail operation was not one of our corporate core competencies, and wisely decided to outsource the function.  There was a competitive process where several companies submitted proposals, and after a careful vetting, VG was selected.  They are granted a license by CAP to produce those items which are exclusively CAP property - things like our unique insignia and other items that are reserved to the corporation by law.  The license does NOT cover things like uniform clothing items, which members are free to purchase at AAFES, military clothing sales, or eBay.

The license agreement is a "win-win" for the membership and CAP.  We stopped losing thousands of dollars annually (dues money, remember) and gained a small, but significant revenue stream from licensing fees.  Initially that money was fenced for use at training sites like Hawk, Blue Beret, and others. 

This kind of licensing is the norm, not the exception.  No one can produce or sell official Boy Scout, NFL, NCAA, or (insert your favorite rock band)'s merchandise except licensed manufacturers/venders who pay a licensing fee for the privilege.  The groups get to control the quality of the gear, and some control over distribution.  Good for both sides.

The members gain reliable and rapid delivery of their orders, reasonable prices, and a responsive customer service staff that go out of the way to make it right should there be errors or quality issues in a member's order.

We should also remember that VG has absolutely no interest in poor customer service or substandard products, because they know that the license is for a limited term (3 years at a time, IIRC), and accordingly is up for renewal periodically.  When other companies can make a pitch to take over the license because they can show that their service would be better and the products of higher quality.  It is actually reassuring that so far, VG continues to earn each renewal of the license.

Members should absolutely complain if their order is incorrect or of poor quality.  VG's staff genuinely wants to make it better.  Ultimately, if after dealing with VG staff, the matter can't be resolved, members should send feedback on VGs performance to NHQ through the chain, so that we will have it available to discuss with the VG folks, especially around license renewal time.

Finally, VG has nothing whatsoever to do with policing other venders who might be pirating CAP's intellectual property by manufacturing CAP stuff that is protected by law.  VG has no rights to CAP IP; all they hold is a license to produce it.  It is our corporate legal staff at NHQ that is responsible to the occasional letter to offending businesses to remind them of the protected status of IP that belongs to CAP, Inc..

I buy my insignia at VG, and have always had a good experience personally.  I don't buy my uniforms there, because I can get both my AF-style and corporate uniform components elsewhere because I can get a better price.  Not everyone has choices, but I do.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
Former Senior CAP Leader


 100 
 on: December 12, 2017, 01:06:06 PM 
Started by SAREXinNY - Last post by jeders
Shortfall:
There is no option to enter TLC. Probably because the last rev of the original (paper) Form 11 did not have an option to circle for the Training Leaders of Cadets course (which now has/will have a basic, intermediate, and advanced set of sessions).

TLC belongs to Cadet Programs, not Professional Development. Form 11 has never been applicable for TLC.

Really, then how do you guys record completion of TLC? Because we've always done it with a Form 11.

Edit to add:
From the TLC Course Director Handbook
Quote
Send completed CAPF 11 to NHQ

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.371 seconds with 15 queries.