Quote from: Holding Pattern on February 17, 2020, 06:44:12 PM

Quote from: bd5av8r on February 17, 2020, 06:06:53 PMSimple: Eliminate rank, put people in Polos and grey slacks.

Now everyone is equal and won't have authority and rank to get all wound up over. Let alone uniforms. lol

That may even "cure" some of the toxic leadership issues I see talked about from time to time.

The simple solution for those that want to do away with rank is to join the Scouts or CERT or both. If you want to further divest CAP away from the USAF, perhaps the solution for those people is to join an org that already is divested.

There are ways of making the NCO and officer program work together and complementary. The current method is IMO poorly executed, but that is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

98 percent of what Senior members do, do not require "rank" in any way form or fashion. It doesn't require uniforms like the AF has either. A lot of the animosity I see in the ranks has to do with "rank" or "Uniforms." I can see rank for emergency services and FEMA missions, but at the home squadron or wing, the Polos and no rank would work just fine.

Your mileage may vary.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 17, 2020, 08:18:26 PMMaybe in your AOR, but that's not even remotely true nationally.

My opinion is based upon not only my AOR, but the various Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and wing websites that post photos of cadet activities and ES training (and occasionally missions). It's nearly all polos by the adults in those photos (cadet program officers, aircrew members, mission base folks, and PD classes seem to get the most photos posted).

Admittedly, I have not done a scientific study on this, so it's a perception thing to be sure. I'm also ignoring the non-mission related photos that are posted of national board meetings and fancy diners, I'm only talking about members engaged in our missions.

Importantly, that's not to say there aren't still pockets where military-style uniforms aren't still enthusiastically worn. I respect your opinion and if you say it's the norm where you're at, I believe it.

Quote from: Fubar on February 18, 2020, 07:34:14 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 17, 2020, 08:18:26 PMMaybe in your AOR, but that's not even remotely true nationally.

My opinion is based upon not only my AOR, but the various Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and wing websites that post photos of cadet activities and ES training (and occasionally missions).

Several squadrons in my area have deliberately shut down all PAO ops because rather than Wing or higher HQs being helpful in correcting uniform issues those directorates feel that their mission is to find a pixel out of place in a uniform and come down on the squadron leadership like a ton of bricks.

There are plenty of people wearing uniforms; they just avoid the limelight like the plague.

Quote from: Fubar on February 18, 2020, 07:34:14 AMAdmittedly, I have not done a scientific study on this, so it's a perception thing to be sure. I'm also ignoring the non-mission related photos that are posted of national board meetings and fancy diners, I'm only talking about members engaged in our missions.

Is it too on the nose to remind folks that the Cadet Program is a mission, arguably 50% of
CAPs total mission?

Uniform wear is a big part of the mission for the CP, and arguments that "we can do what we need to
just fine in a golf shirt" don't fly in that context.

If the adults interacting with Cadets can't be bothered, why should they?

Quote from: Eclipse on February 18, 2020, 08:41:10 PMIs it too on the nose to remind folks that the Cadet Program is a mission, arguably 50% of
CAPs total mission?

Uniform wear is a big part of the mission for the CP, and arguments that "we can do what we need to
just fine in a golf shirt" don't fly in that context.

If the adults interacting with Cadets can't be bothered, why should they?

And how does wearing a polo negatively affect the Cadet Program mission? The "uniform?" Well, if you're going to make that leap, it's not that much farther to state that anyone ineligible to wear the same "uniform" as cadets shouldn't interact with them. And where does that leave us?

Seniors don't need anything beyond a polo and gray pants. Full stop.

Quote from: Gunsotsu on February 18, 2020, 10:35:37 PMSeniors don't need anything beyond a polo and gray pants.

This, for starters, is objectively false.

Quote from: Holding Pattern on February 18, 2020, 06:54:44 PMSeveral squadrons in my area have deliberately shut down all PAO ops because rather than Wing or higher HQs being helpful in correcting uniform issues those directorates feel that their mission is to find a pixel out of place in a uniform and come down on the squadron leadership like a ton of bricks.

There are plenty of people wearing uniforms; they just avoid the limelight like the plague.

You know, I never thought of that. Excellent point.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 04:02:01 PMWhat if...and just spitballing here...people joined CAP, completed internal training
>or< "proficiency-ed out" via (the same) objective tests, and were promoted based >purely<
on their demonstrated objective abilities?

Want to be the FM?  No one cares you say you're a CPA - take this test.

Want to be a small-squad leader?  First point to the small squad you will lead. Cadets?
You won't be leading them, you'll be training them like everyone else.
But you say you were an NCO in the military?  Interesting. Did your job involve motivating
12 year old volunteers 1 night a month? No? It was manning a radar station at Elmendorf
with 3 other people the same age? OK, take this class and pass this test.

This way everyone has the same relative internal experiences in regards to
training and testing, nothing is handed to anyone, and these conversations are moot.

I know, crazy.

Oh sheesh, I somehow missed this when you posted it. It's awesome and completely agree. So much drama and angst is generated from expectations of advanced promotions, advanced promotions that don't seem to positively impact CAP, and advanced promotions that actually hurt CAP.

Give everyone the same expectations and watch everyone work relatively towards the same goals.

Quote from: Fubar on February 19, 2020, 03:48:33 AMGive everyone the same expectations and watch everyone work relatively towards the same goals.

But members have different goals. Some want to teach Cadets Aerospace, some want to be Ground Team SAR, some want to be Airborne Photographers, some want to be Mission Pilots, some want to work Mission Base, some want to be a Squadron Commander one day and maybe Wing.

Each has its own path, different sets of goals and ways of 'getting there'.

The "Senior Program" is a trade school. Learn a trade and then get to work doing it, perfecting it, and mentoring those who follow that are interested in your trade.

Multiple threads knocked off topic by uniform wear discussion.  Sheesh.

I don't believe what type of uniform your in (including the polo) has anything to do with rank structure, or whether there should or should not be senior members.

Also, the USCG Aux model would be effective at least you would know who's in charge.  CAP could also adopt a TDA/TO&E structure, that basically requires you fill a position equivalent to your Grade.  Not sure if this would work because it would constantly force you upward in duty position assignment to promote.  This would have to be carefully though out before even seriously considered, it could have the effect of bottlenecking upward movement, and therefore member development. 

Quote from: catrulz on February 19, 2020, 12:47:24 PMUSCG Aux model would be effective at least you would know who's in charge.

Been saying this for a couple of decades now. My oak leaf and $7.99 will get you a double mocachino soy latte...

Quote from: Fubar on February 19, 2020, 03:48:33 AMGive everyone the same expectations and watch everyone work relatively towards the same goals.

From a minimum training perspective, that already happens. Do Level 1. If you decide to do more, it's there. If all you want to do is show up, move paper from one bin to the other, never "promote" and never take on "more responsibility", we're glad to have you. Cadets have to do the CP. That is their job in the unit. SMs have to do their job in the unit. Some, on both sides, want to do more. Plenty of opportunity to do that in ES or AE or STEM or Cyber or WAA....but if you don't want to...

So, my USCGaux Heavy model would look like this:

In my model each commander/vice/staff roll has an authorized grade.  You may serve in role at a lower grade, but you may not exceed the authorized grade.  Squadron Commanders could move to Group Vice Commander or Wing Staff.  There is upward eligibility for all.

So a Lt or Captian could serve on Wing Staff, but shouldn't if there is an available Major to fill the slot.  I would Also build within Each Wing Ghost Squadron an Operations only staff.  This unit could hold additional members without a unit duty assignment, and mainly want to work ES, Flight Ops or Comm.  This unit would have an inflated TDA:

Squadron Commander: Major
Squadron Vice Commander(s): Captains
Squadron Staff:  SGTs or 2ndLT Assistant, 1st LT Primary

Group Commander:  Lt Col. 
Group Vice Commander: Major
Group Staff:  1st Lt Assistant, Captain Primary

Wing Commander: Colonel
Wing Vice Commander:  LtCol
Wing Staff:  Captain Assistant, Major Primary

Once you moved up, you would only be able to move into an equivalent or higher grade slot.

The Unit Ghost Squadron:

IC  LtCol
MP+Check Pilot(STAN EVAL)+FRO LtCol (any 2)
MP  Major
CUL Major
MSO Major
GBD/ABD Major
GTL Major

You get the idea.  It allows you turn the Ghost Squadron into a responder unit.

Continued:

This means a Wing the size of Missouri would have in the area of:

1  Col
10 LtCol
65 Majors
75 Captains
100 LTs
Rest Sergeants (only 1 1LT and 1 2LT in staff area in the squadron).

SM until Level 1 Complete, then SrA) until promotable to SSGT via qualification.  I hate to bring this up in fear of having this become a uniform thread again, I would allow NCOs to wear the plain CAP Gray Epualettes with Stips pinned to them on the White corporate flight shirt.

Quote from: catrulz on February 19, 2020, 12:47:24 PMMultiple threads knocked off topic by uniform wear discussion.

Not really.  Both of them are really "corporate vs. military vs 'just come and go as you please"
discussions. The multiform is just a symptom of the larger problem and a broken compromise
to appease people that actually just causes more issues.

So a Squadron TDA would look like this (incomplete, example):

100 Command Section Composite Squadron:
101 Commander         Major
102 Deputy Commander Seniors     Captain
103 Deputy Commander Cadets      Captain (a Senior or Cadet Squadron Eliminates this position)
104 Squadron Sr. NCO      MSGT

200 Staff Section Composite Squadron:
200 Personnel Officer      1st LT (requires Tech Rating in Personnel)
200A Asst Personnel Officer   2ndLT (Requires Tech Rating in Personnel)

The intent would be the Tech rating requirements at Group and Wing would be minimum Sr Rating in their Specialty.  If they are serving on Wing Staff and they are a Tech Rated Captain, they remain a captain until they achieve the required rating.
200B Personnel NCO      TSGT (Requires Tech Rating in Personnel)
201   Public Affairs Officer   1st LT (requires Tech Rating in PAO)
201A Asst PAO         2ndLT (Requires Tech Rating in PAO)
201B PAO NCO         TSGT (Requires Tech Rating in PAO)
204   Professional Development   1st LT (requires Tech Rating in PD)
204A ASST PD         2ndLT (Requires Tech Rating in PD)
204B Training NCO      TSGT (Requires Tech Rating in PD)
205   Admin Officer        1st LT (requires Tech Rating in Administration)
205A Asst Admin PD      2ndLT (Requires Tech Rating in Administration)
205B Admin NCO              TSGT (Requires Tech Rating in Administration)
206   Logistics Officer     1st LT (requires Tech Rating in Logistics)
205A Asst Logistics      2ndLT (Requires Tech Rating in Logistics)
206B Logistics NCO      TSGT (Requires Tech Rating in Logistics)
213   ES Officer        1st LT (requires Tech Rating in Emergency Services)
213A Asst ES         2ndLT (Requires Tech Rating in Emergency Services)
213B Readiness NCO      TSGT (Requires Tech Rating in Emergency Services)

I don't understand why people bother doing this sort of math.

You can't have manning tables and staff requirements if your SOP is "you're lucky I showed up at all".
That's not going to change in a volunteer organization that depends on the benevolence of
it's members to exist and provide little, if any, tangible benefits for the effort of being
a member.

Many, many moons ago CAP had manning tables for all units. They also regulated the number of slots available for each grade, all controlled by the number of members on the roster of that unit.

We gave it up because it wasn't workable...

Quote from: Eclipse on February 19, 2020, 05:16:11 PMI don't understand why people bother doing this sort of math.

You can't have manning tables and staff requirements if your SOP is "you're lucky I showed up at all".
That's not going to change in a volunteer organization that depends on the benevolence of
it's members to exist and provide little, if any, tangible benefits for the effort of being
a member.

I think there is little motivation or encouragement in most units to actually contribute above baby sitting (my apologies to cadet who read this not implying that you need it).  For those members let them be sponsor members or allow them to make SSGT and that's where they stop. 

If you don't train, or contribute, the unit/organization doesn't owe you anything.  I have been is position where real life gets in the way.  There is a always a way to contribute remotely, whenever you have time.

The problem is we promote people for sitting around for 6 months, or a year and half, and pencil whip their personnel record to justify it.  You blame this on poor leadership, but the guy in charge has the overall access in e-services.  So, its up to them if you get recommended/approved.  I knew a safety officer in a unit that had been SO for three years, wasn't tech rated, and didn't know where to get his specialty track pamphlet.  Hadn't stopped them from being promoted.  Missouri Wing had a group commander that was a former O4, and refused to take any CAP PD and therefore made terrible decisions.  We had a couple of Army O4's and they did the CAP PD recognizing that they need to understand the organization.  These guys were excellent commanders and staff officers.

Remember, Its not about  us.  In that case this system is perfect, you want to just come in and help when you can, you remain an NCO.  You want to learn and take on more and more responsibility, then you advance based on what the organization gets out of you.  I think thats fair, it still provides room for everyone, but recognizes those that get a deep understanding of CAP and volunteers to participate.  We still show appreciation to the casual participants through ribbon and certificates.

The other place manning tables and similar break down is CAP's lack of,
the the general inability of in a volunteer organizaiton "up and/or out".

Members cycle through legit PD and progression over a 10-15 year period,
then cycle back to the unit and the whole thing breaks as FGOs are sitting
back in rank and file.

And if you try to "up and out" in CAP, the whole thing comes down around you in what,
5 years?