Any chance we can do away with this remnant of He Who Shall Remain Nameless as well?
Nothing official in any of the regs has been changed, nor has eServices, the WMU, our ID cards or the grade structure. It is an improper description of a large portion of our members, and it isn't even used consistently by the very people who push it.
Senior Member has worked for decades, but if we need a different term "Officer" isn't it.
In posts, docs, and emails I have recently seen:
"Officer without grade" (for SMWOG)
"Officer NCO's"
All adult members are not officers, and not all officers are adult members, but all senior members are adults.
since we are killing off all the other Iowa improvements go right ahead.
That little tidbit came from Sgt Gorahm of the Iowa wing.
I don't know... I don't think its so bad (however, we surely need a replacement for "officer without grade".. Gag. That's heinous!).
I've used "adult officers," "adult NCOs" (however, we don't have any out here right now) and "officers" for awhile now. Everybody seems to "get" it.
When I say "senior members" to non-CAP folks, its almost taken to mean "Members who are senior citizens." I did not encounter that confusion when I lived in the Midwest, only when I moved to New England. Not sure why.
I don't think that calling what is now a 'senior member without grade' an 'officer candidate' would be that far off the mark.
YMMV, of course.
Quote from: NIN on January 16, 2008, 12:39:39 AM
I don't know... I don't think its so bad (however, we surely need a replacement for "officer without grade".. Gag. That's heinous!).
I've used "adult officers," "adult NCOs" (however, we don't have any out here right now) and "officers" for awhile now. Everybody seems to "get" it.
When I say "senior members" to non-CAP folks, its almost taken to mean "Members who are senior citizens." I did not encounter that confusion when I lived in the Midwest, only when I moved to New England. Not sure why.
I don't think that calling what is now a 'senior member without grade' an 'officer candidate' would be that far off the mark.
YMMV, of course.
I have hated the term "Senior Member" for many years before The Nameless One.
First of all, if we are the "Seniors" what are the cadets? Juniors? Now that we actually have "Junior Cadets" what are the regular cadets?
Also, since "Senior Member" is the first rank one gets when one joins as an adult, we are just about the only organization where a person who is the most junior member is called a "Senior" member. Until he has been in for 6 months, then he loses his seniority.
Also, I have trouble calling an 18 year old a "Senior" anything.
Well, all but a few dozen adults (the few NCOs) are actually CAP officers or "senior members", so it makes a lot of sense to me. Someone suggested changing "senior member" to "Officer Candidate", and that wouldn't be too bad.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 16, 2008, 01:07:51 AM
Someone suggested changing "senior member" to "Officer Candidate", and that wouldn't be too bad.
But that's not right either, because not all members are "Officer Candidates", either. There is a similar handful who profess not to care enough to bother with the grade and never progress.
I thought it was too cop-like in useage, but I suppose that figures.
How about Auxiliarist instead? :P
How about "Adult Volunteer" :P Everyone knows what that is...
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2008, 01:26:02 AM
But that's not right either, because not all members are "Officer Candidates", either. There is a similar handful who profess not to care enough to bother with the grade and never progress.
And we wish to reward only partial participation in the program?
Face it: whether someone prefers to "bother" with the rank or not, it exists in the Civil Air Patrol, a
paramilitary program. If we just make them a buck 2nd Lt, then they can stay that way. Its no different than staying as a slick-sleeve SM...
T'would eliminate what you call "an officer without grade" (since there wouldn't be any), or we just call a dude w/o grade a "member" (ugh, that's not nice, either... Don't like it..)
Quote from: NIN on January 16, 2008, 02:20:28 AM
And we wish to reward only partial participation in the program?
I didn't say I liked it, but just as with the NCO's, there's a handful of them out there...
As you said, I personally never see a specific connection with Senior Member and Senior Citizen around here.
Wow.....we did this last year in another thread, and here we are again. I will type what I typed before. The vast majority of Adults in CAP wear a recognizable Rank device (some would say Commissioned Officer Rank Insignia) so why can't we call ourselves "Officers". Those NCO's that choose to be CAP NCO's are likewise, OFFICERS....just of the Non-Commissioned Variety.
You, me and everyone else wearing an Officer defice is in fact a CAP OFFICER. No, we are not all CAP Corporate Officers, but we are Officers non the less.
Those Members awaiting initial promotion to an Officer Rank do need their title changed. I am not sure what that will be. I never liked SMWOG.
Why do you want to move away from referring to ourselves as Officers? What is the big deal. Who is it hurting. Why don't we focus on getting the term changed to Auxiliary Officer? We need to pump up the fact we are the AIR FORCE AUXILIARY! The new VSAF shirts should read the "Volunteer, Air Force Auxiliary", since we are perfroming an AFAM! That is where I think this idea stemmed from. I could be mistaken.
To turn mindset, I would even go with Mike's idea and change the title to Auxiliarist. That is more in line with what we will (or should) be doing.
We could call them Polliwogs ;)
While I don't like the term Senior Member, I don't think there is going to be anything that really clicks for all the categories of Adults.
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 16, 2008, 02:41:58 AM
While I don't like the term Senior Member, I don't think there is going to be anything that really clicks for all the categories of Adults.
And that's probably the ultimate answer there isn't a good one.
To Mikey's points, part of the problem is that the Officer/Senior member designator is not just a generic member term, but also an adult / minor status indicator within the organization.
And because the term officer means different things on both sides of that fence as well, including (internal) legal definition for CPT and similar issues, calling us "officers" is needlessly confusing to everyone involved.
On one level we're all officers...except for those that aren't...
My suggestion is to simply go back to senior members, as most continue to use it anyway, and be done with it. Since little was changed officially, its a two-line email and we move one.
As I recall it wasn't even made offcial by HWSRN, just a "suggestion" while NHQ worked on a better term.
I would estimate that the number of CAP members who stay active in the program but refuse to promote to 2nd Lt after six months is probably less than 1%. SM is just a temporary grade and "Officer Candidate" is a pretty accurate description of the people in it. And since the number of NCOs is also less than 1%, the more generic "Officers" description of the adults is pretty accurate.
;)
Wouldn't be simplier for anyone above the age of 21 and those below the age of 21 not a cadet just to be called Members? That way you have two classes of membership in CAP
Cadet or Member. Sure the cadet is also a member, but first and formost he/she is a Cadet.
Why come up with all kinds of new names when all you need to do is drop the word Senior?
Well, since no one seems to have a problem with "Cadet", maybe the adults need to be "Senior Cadets"?
Quote from: RiverAux on January 16, 2008, 03:51:45 AM
Well, since no one seems to have a problem with "Cadet", maybe the adults need to be "Senior Cadets"?
I've been called "Space Cadet" in the past... :D
As a current SMWOG (Feb 9th = 2nd Lt.), the name hasn't bothered me. When I'm called to report it's 'Senior Member Walker". Our chaplain calls me "Officer Candidate Walker".
I'll agree that the arguments against the title are valid. It just hasn't been a big deal to me.
Quote from: Walkman on January 16, 2008, 04:30:17 AM
''Senior Member Walker
:D
That...is...so...funny...
Sorry, I'm not making fun of your name. I just think that having a member be called "Senior Member Walker" would certainly make the argument to call everyone "Officers."
To be honest, I never really stopped using "Seniors" or "Senior Members." Maybe that's a bad thing, but no one has gotten ruffled about it.
Of course, if we want to do some REALLY "outside of the box" thinking, we could just eliminate the cadet officer from the program, and just transfer all cadet grades into a purely-enlisted rank structure like the ACA or Young Marines do...
People call law enforcement officers (police officers) "Officer" even when they don't hold an "officer" rank. For example, a police lieutenant and sergeant are both "officers". Is that confusing in our context? Maybe.
As an aside, I also hate the term "senior member" and hope to see it replaced by some better term one day.
I like the term Senior Member. Maybe because I am used to it. I never accepted the term Officer in CAP and I never use it.
How about Cadets will be "CADET", and everyone not a Cadet, but a wearing Officer Rank will be "OFFICER". Oh, and NCO's will be (get this) "NCO's". Then we factor in patron members.....they will be "Patron Member-insert name here-. Then we can call our FO's (hold on to your purses) "Officers" also.
Senior Member, needs to go out the window now. It is not 1973 anymore! We are seeing our Organization slowly shift into something new here. Lets keep up with the times and keep the momentum going.
I think we should also get rid of the title Flight Officer as well. But that is my wish, and not shared by very many in CAP.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2008, 05:48:20 PM
I think we should also get rid of the title Flight Officer as well.
Not to drift, but why do we have FO's? If a FO turns into the equivalent grade when they're 21, why not just have al l18 year-olds start like the rest of us.
^ Good question. If an 18 year old comes in, he or she should start as a "nothing" and work his or her way toward being a 2nd Lt. Instead of 6 months, perhaps make them be "nothing" for 1 year. Get them the required PRO DEV during that time and make them a 19 year old Officer.
Something similar to the program that was in place after 1945 and that died in 1956. An "Officer Training Corps" of sorts.
Sorry......this probably deserves it's own thread, so I stop now!
We have FO's because the AF doesn't want us to 18 year old Lt's or 19 year old Capt's.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2008, 06:19:23 PM
^ Good question. If an 18 year old comes in, he or she should start as a "nothing" and work his or her way toward being a 2nd Lt. Instead of 6 months, perhaps make them be "nothing" for 1 year. Get them the required PRO DEV during that time and make them a 19 year old Officer.
Something similar to the program that was in place after 1945 and that died in 1956. An "Officer Training Corps" of sorts.
Sorry......this probably deserves it's own thread, so I stop now!
I guess that since SMs/officers are the responsible adults present and their presence has much to do with insurance rates.... rates probably differ between 18 & 21 with CAP just like they do with medical/auto/renters/home owners etc....
FO gives a title to people between 18-21 and distinguishes level of authority/experience etc which MIGHT have something to do with the rates CAP gets.... [i could be wrong, just a guess]
Quote from: arajca on January 16, 2008, 08:40:12 PM
We have FO's because the AF doesn't want us to 18 year old Lt's or 19 year old Capt's.
Really? Is that stated somewhere? Because you can be a Real Military Officer at 19, possibly 18.
Quote from: Walkman on January 16, 2008, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2008, 05:48:20 PM
I think we should also get rid of the title Flight Officer as well.
Not to drift, but why do we have FO's? If a FO turns into the equivalent grade when they're 21, why not just have al l18 year-olds start like the rest of us.
I like being different.
Quote from: JThemann on January 16, 2008, 11:00:57 PM
I like being different.
Hope I didn't offend...
I asked because I just found out about FOs. I had been recruiting a 17 y/o around October. He finally showed up and I found out he just turned 18, so I had the whole Flight Officer thing explained to me so I could explain it to him.
Quote from: Walkman on January 16, 2008, 11:26:32 PM
Quote from: JThemann on January 16, 2008, 11:00:57 PM
I like being different.
Hope I didn't offend...
I asked because I just found out about FOs. I had been recruiting a 17 y/o around October. He finally showed up and I found out he just turned 18, so I had the whole Flight Officer thing explained to me so I could explain it to him.
You didn't :)
Quote from: RiverAux on January 16, 2008, 01:07:51 AM
Well, all but a few dozen adults (the few NCOs) are actually CAP officers or "senior members", so it makes a lot of sense to me. Someone suggested changing "senior member" to "Officer Candidate", and that wouldn't be too bad.
Actually... senior members without grade aren't officers. Just like OCS candidates and cadets aren't officers.
They will become officers when they get promoted to 2nd Lt, if they get promoted to 2nd Lt, the first officer grade. As such, they are members who have yet to prove themselves of the title "Officer" which carries the responsibility and privilege of leading.
As such, why not call them Non-Commissioned Officers, Officers, and Officer Candidates? As a whole, they should still be called senior members. The association of the word "Senior" in Senior Members only exists because so many of our members are of retirement age. You don't see such associations in the Senior NCO ranks or Seniors in High School or College or Senior Board Members in corporations.
I think we need to just call things as we call things... Senior Members and just reaffirm the differences between that and how old people are.
What is the average age of a senior member?
I'm inclined, at times, to think the label is apt...
In addition to the average age question, I wonder what percentage of CAP "senior Members" never advanced to 2LT rank? If that percentage is insignificant maybe calling all "seniors" "officers" would be OK.
So in looking at these solutions, what is the actual problem? Is it to eliminate confusion between ourselves and the outside public? Is it an "inside" terminology thing?
The average person on the street, when they ask about CAP and what you are (not what you do), what is the easiest way to describe what your status is in the organization?
I usually tell people I am an adult volunteer who helps train cadets. They understand that - easily. It also makes it sound like something they can do or can relate to. In my case (CP guy) people automatically make a connection between that and someone like a Boy Scout troop leader.
Internally, however, is another story - we understand what we are. If calling ourselves "Officers" works, so be it. I don't really care, it doesn't really matter [to me].
Quote from: dwb on January 17, 2008, 03:04:58 PM
What is the average age of a senior member?
I'm inclined, at times, to think the label is apt...
I just did a query on our region - the average is 33. Your mileage may vary.
GC
Quote from: dwb on January 17, 2008, 03:04:58 PM
What is the average age of a senior member?
I'm inclined, at times, to think the label is apt...
According to the PD seminar at National Boards in Atlanta, 54
Quote from: sparks on January 17, 2008, 03:48:00 PM
In addition to the average age question, I wonder what percentage of CAP "senior Members" never advanced to 2LT rank? If that percentage is insignificant maybe calling all "seniors" "officers" would be OK.
From the same seminar a break down of membership by grade
Enlisted 49
SM 7755
2d Lt 4615
1st Lt 5405
Capt 6066
Maj 4703
Lt Col 4215
Col 417
Gen 14
Other interesting info from that powerpoint presentation:
Milestone Non-Completions:
Level 1: 12.3%
Level 2: 71.0%
Level 3: 78.5%
Level 4: 88.8%
Level 5: 95.4%
Average Completion Time
Level 1: 1.2 Years
Level 2: 5.4 Years
Level 3: 7.5 Years
Level 4: 10.3 Years
Level 5: 12.2 Years
Average unit strength: 11 seniors (interesting note, the chart goes to 155 without zero-ing out)
Besides loosing the term senior member, we need to loose the name "Senior Squadron". It sound like a squadron for retired members. I've heard cracks from cadets about "Senior Squadrons" being nothing but a bunch of old geezers.
Cadet squadrons are fine, composite squadrons are fine, but we need something other than "Senior Squadron". I've come across AF folks who get a puzzled look as to what a senior squadron is and in recruiting folks some civilian prospects have said they don't want to be in a "Senior" squadron as they aren't retired. It takes some explaining.
Officer squadrons- nope we have NonComs. . . hmm. . . .Adult Squadrons, sounds a little risque.
Adult Squadron might be ok though.
So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron." Since that's what they do. So the breakdown would be:
Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron
Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 17, 2008, 07:13:19 PM
So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron." Since that's what they do. So the breakdown would be:
Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron
Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.
I like that!
BTW...when I joined our Composite Squadron I mentioned I might like to do PT with the Cadets. One of the leadership mentioned that was great as the Cadets thought all of the Senior Members were just that...Senior, as in OLD.
BTW...I am both the Emergency Services Officer and IT Officer for my squadron. So am I an "officer" or not? I am not called the ES Senior Member.
I prefer the term Officer over SM any day of the week.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 17, 2008, 07:13:19 PM
So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron." Since that's what they do. So the breakdown would be:
Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron
Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.
How about just "Squadron"?
Years ago I suggested that my composite squadron was really a "cadet squadron swathed in the trappings of a composite squadron, with all the structure of a composite squadron that we don't really need or want" and that I wanted to reclassify my unit as a cadet squadron to relieve some of the overhead.
My former wing commander (Jimmydeanno will know this guy) said to me "We can't afford to lose any more composite squadrons in this wing.."
I had to shake my head. "Lose any more composite squadrons?" If you have a cadet squadron that is masquerading as a composite squadron and doing neither well, its time for a change. SImple as that. Its not like its performing as a composite squadron. Also, its not like the unit couldn't be a composite squadron again, easily, by the simple submission of the CAPF27. "The stroke of a pen, sir."
But then again, that same wing commander didn't even qualify for the Red Service ribbon until 3 months after he became wing commander, so why would I expect him to have 2/10th of a clue about the differences between cadet and composite squadrons and the reasons for changing a unit from one to the other?
(this the same wing commander who tried to lecture me about what the regulations *really* meant about the award of the Unit Citation. He was dead wrong, trying to apply his Air Force background to the situation without truly reading the regulation. He continued to claim that even though the regulation said one thing, he'd called NHQ and they assured him that it meant something else. *sigh*)
I agree, Darin.
We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.
the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)
The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)
The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2008, 10:10:01 PM
I agree, Darin.
We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.
the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)
The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)
The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
What about 289th Cadet Training Squadron? 18th Composite Squadron? 122nd Operations Squadron?
That allows for tag lines to say things like 289th CTS or 18th CS or 122nd OS... the same way it works in the USAF. It simply makes sense.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 17, 2008, 07:52:15 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 17, 2008, 07:13:19 PM
So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron." Since that's what they do. So the breakdown would be:
Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron
Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.
I like that!
BTW...when I joined our Composite Squadron I mentioned I might like to do PT with the Cadets. One of the leadership mentioned that was great as the Cadets thought all of the Senior Members were just that...Senior, as in OLD.
BTW...I am both the Emergency Services Officer and IT Officer for my squadron. So am I an "officer" or not? I am not called the ES Senior Member.
I prefer the term Officer over SM any day of the week.
We are a paramilitary organization with a grade and rank structure that is patterned after the United States Air Force. We have officer and NCO grades that reflect that too. We also members who have not earned grade yet (they've yet to prove themselves to the organization).
Now I understand that oh so many members in CAP have never been in the military and have never even researched the military before joining, so I understand how they may be confused by the whole "officer" thing since the only officers they've probably dealt with have been in Law Enforcement (where the term "officer" applies to all ranks, from patrolman to chief)
Your job duty title has no relevance on whether you are actually an officer in CAP. It simply tells people what you do. They can call you IT "Guy" if they want, it still doesn't change anything. However... if someone calls you an Officer, then you are probably not an NCO.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 18, 2008, 02:30:08 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2008, 10:10:01 PM
I agree, Darin.
We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.
the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)
The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)
The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
What about 289th Cadet Training Squadron? 18th Composite Squadron? 122nd Operations Squadron?
That allows for tag lines to say things like 289th CTS or 18th CS or 122nd OS... the same way it works in the USAF. It simply makes sense.
That works too, but I don't want folks confused between us and the AF/ANG.
How about calling a senior member, instead of SMWOG, "Airman". When I joined the Air Force, they called me that, and I was an adult. Cadets have a Cadet Airman. Just drop the cadet when you become an adult.
PS When I got promoted, I went to Airman 3rd class, and thought it was a demotion! I should have told them I had a CAP COP, but I didn't. I was supposed to go to AECP anyway, and thought it didn't matter. That was a whole new ranking system.
PS2 I looked at my rank here, and now I'm back to "recruit"! Thinking back, I was a recruit before I was an airman!
Quote from: AC on January 18, 2008, 07:32:51 AM
How about calling a senior member, instead of SMOG, "Airman".
There's two questions here: generic term for adult members and a new designation for SMWOG.
For the first, Airman is the best choice IMO. We use all of the other grades in the Air Force, why not that. We could also use Airman Basic as the AF does.
I think that Airman could also be used as a generic term for all adult CAP members. Failing that, just call us "members" with cadets being referred to as "cadets."
Some folks might take offense to being called a "member"... :D
I wonder what other organizations call their members? The Red Cross probably call themselves employees or volunteers. They aren't military so maybe a better comparison would be a volunteer fire department. A fireman without rank would more than likely be referred to by specialty, "fireman", but I don't know. EMT's are categorized by qualification if I remember correctly. I don't like the term "senior member either". It confuses the public who thinks we're either geriatic or very experienced. Niether is true in all cases.
I think, FWIW, just use Airman for SMWOG. Officers and NCO'S are their rank. All senior members, as we call them now, are senior to the cadets, a unique status in CAP. Just leave it alone. No need to mess with that. Who else really cares what we call ourselves?
Quote from: AC on January 18, 2008, 01:32:22 PM
I think, FWIW, just use Airman for SMWOG. Officers and NCO'S are their rank. All senior members, as we call them now, are senior to the cadets, a unique status in CAP. Just leave it alone. No need to mess with that. Who else really cares what we call ourselves?
What we call ourselves should (1) be descriptive and (2) make sense and (3) promote a sense of pride through accomplishment. Senior member, while descriptive (if one is over 40), doesn't make sense to someone on the outside. It also doesn't give a sense of belonging - Airman does all of these things.
When I was a cadet back in the 60s, I wondered why there was ranks of Airman 3rd class, Airman 2nd Class, and Airman 1st Class (changed a couple of times since) but our lowest rank was Senior Member, not Airman Basic. Seemed to me to be pretty descriptive and was along the lines of the AF.
Officer candidate, BTW, is an Army term, not AF.
Airmen is not exclusive to adults, therefore not appropriate.
If you restrict a particular function or activity only to "airmen" members, you'll have a bunch of new cadets standing at the door.
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2008, 03:44:14 PM
Officer candidate, BTW, is an Army term, not AF.
So what does the Air Force call students in OTS?
"Hey, Bill?"
^ point taken but apples and oranges.
The lines and responsibilities in that situation are pretty clear, and you also don't have lifetime OTS students.
Quote from: NIN on January 18, 2008, 04:03:08 PMSo what does the Air Force call students in OTS?
"Hey, Bill?"
Actually, that's probably not far from the truth... ;D
Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 17, 2008, 07:13:19 PM
So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron." Since that's what they do. So the breakdown would be:
Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron
Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.
This makes a lot of sense. Afterall, you have Medical Squadrons, Logistics Squadrons, etc in the USAF. There should be no reason why a CAP squadron can not be so named. Even composites could be named what they are. If a composite does Ground Team primarily (& the cadet program) they could be called (and throw in the squadron number) the 471st SAR Squadron or a unit with a plane could be called the 169th Recon Squadron ~ I don't know. But something along those lines.
Airman is a rank and form of address to people in the AB (E-1) through SrA (E-4) ranks in the USAF. It is also a grade and a form of address to cadets in grades C/AB through C/SrA in CAP. That's why calling SMs without grade "Airman" wouldn't be right.
I personally think that the perfect term of address for SMs is Mr. or Ms. while calling all senior members, SENIOR MEMBERS is fine to me because the English word "senior" denotes seniority to others, not a particular age. In fact, the reason why we call people "senior citizens" is because they are granted an honorary status as citizens superior to others due to their life experience. The status does come with some, however few, privileges such as discounts on things, membership in the AARP and others. Again, the word senior denotes seniority, not age.
The CAP model does not call for "typing" a unit.
Although many units specialize, they aren't really supposed to.
Every unit in CAP should be a composite and they should be pushed to fire on all cylinders.
(Note: I realize that just saying it doesn't make it happen...)
A unit CC's ability to treat CAP like a cafeteria plan is a weakness of the program.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2008, 03:55:15 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 18, 2008, 02:30:08 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2008, 10:10:01 PM
I agree, Darin.
We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.
the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)
The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)
The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
What about 289th Cadet Training Squadron? 18th Composite Squadron? 122nd Operations Squadron?
That allows for tag lines to say things like 289th CTS or 18th CS or 122nd OS... the same way it works in the USAF. It simply makes sense.
That works too, but I don't want folks confused between us and the AF/ANG.
How would that happen? A number and some letters do not denote a branch of service nor even the fact that the unit isn't a boy scout troop or some club chapter. They're simply internal designators.
the 108th AOS of the NJ National Guard is just that. No one would confuse it with the 108th AOS of the Civil Air Patrol and if they do, shame on them for not paying any attention to what they're looking up, researching or reading.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2008, 06:06:27 PM
The CAP model does not call for "typing" a unit.
Although many units specialize, they aren't really supposed to.
Every unit in CAP should be a composite and they should be pushed to fire on all cylinders.
(Note: I realize that just saying it doesn't make it happen...)
A unit CC's ability to treat CAP like a cafeteria plan is a weakness of the program.
1. Where does it say that CAP units can't or aren't supposed to specialize?
Specializing your unit according to the strengths and weaknesses of your members makes your unit extremely efficient at carrying out the CAP missions.
2. Where does it say that every unit should be a Composite unit and why?
Many members of Civil Air Patrol join the organization to become more proficient aviators and to carry out the emergency service and aerospace education missions. Those members are often not interested in being co-located with cadets and in fact, those units tend to produce more active pilots and aircrews. The system having Senior squadrons works quite well for them.
Likewise, many cadet squadrons are located in area schools where they perform uniquely well as cadet squadrons. Convincing the school to let in senior members for meetings when those members have nothing to do with school age children would be difficult (although probably not impossible) while convincing senior members to come to a school to train would be quite difficult as well (also not impossible). Finding a new location for a squadron just so it can be a composite one is simply not feasible due to lack of available free or low cost real estate that meets our requirements.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 18, 2008, 06:17:03 PM
1. Where does it say that CAP units can't or aren't supposed to specialize?
It doesn't - my opinion.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that specializing winds up excluding
otherwise interested parties. (i.e. my unit only does ES, E, CP, etc.)
We do not have the manpower, nor are the scope of our operations such that we should be
turning away prospective members because a unit CC has decided he doesn't want to do "x".
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 18, 2008, 06:17:03 PM
2. Where does it say that every unit should be a Composite unit and why?
It doesn't - my opinion.
Again, units should be part of a larger picture, and while I support autonomy in >how< units
operate, they should not be able to simply say "we don't do seniors, cadets, ES, AE, whatever"
This is how we have would up with a mix of uber-units and under-performers, with no real
discussions of either.
CAP units are essentially a product of "because I felt like it", with way too few exceptions units are not
located based on need, mission, or demographics.
I think I kinda sorta disagree, Eclipse.
I think you got it backwards. The "Specialization" does not exclude members. It is a lack of members willing to perform a wide variety of tasks that causes units to concentrate.
If a unit commander does not have any active pilots, he will not have much of a flying program. If he does not have enough officers with an interest in running a cadet program, he would be wise to re-configure his unit as a senior squadron, and sent prospective cadets down the street.
I have seen lots of units with 2 to 4 cadets trying to call themselves a composite squadron, with officers more interested in the plane than in the teenagers.
The unit I am currently in, a composite squadron, is in a process of rebuilding, but our members have primarily CP/AE/Ground ES experience, so we're concentrating on that. We have a senior squadron nearby which is excellent at flight ops, has many pilot and aircrew members and do an outstanding job at medical too. So... when we do get potential pilots and aircrew people coming by, we refer them to Falcon. When they get people interested in cadet programs or ground work, they send them to us. It works well. We all stay focused on what we train and are able to utilize our strengths. At the same time, we know our weaknesses and are able to use neighboring units to make sure that as a Group or Wing we operate efficiently.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2008, 08:06:18 PM
If a unit commander does not have any active pilots, he will not have much of a flying program.
There's more to CAP ES aviation than just pilots.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2008, 08:06:18 PM
If he does not have enough officers with an interest in running a cadet program, he would be wise to re-configure his unit as a senior squadron, and sent prospective cadets down the street.
I have seen lots of units with 2 to 4 cadets trying to call themselves a composite squadron, with officers more interested in the plane than in the teenagers.
As a whole it should not be those interested in the "CP", "AE", or "ES" - it should be the "squadron" - whatever needs the unit has should be met by the members.
Its not "cadet admin" or "Senior admin" its "admin" - extrapolate the rest from there.
People specialize, the units are supposed to support the whole mission.
And were drifting...
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 18, 2008, 08:34:27 PM
The unit I am currently in, a composite squadron, is in a process of rebuilding, but our members have primarily CP/AE/Ground ES experience, so we're concentrating on that. We have a senior squadron nearby which is excellent at flight ops, has many pilot and aircrew members and do an outstanding job at medical too. So... when we do get potential pilots and aircrew people coming by, we refer them to Falcon. When they get people interested in cadet programs or ground work, they send them to us. It works well. We all stay focused on what we train and are able to utilize our strengths. At the same time, we know our weaknesses and are able to use neighboring units to make sure that as a Group or Wing we operate efficiently.
FWIW its sounds to me like you're doing a pretty good job on hitting all cylinders. Nothing's perfect and, but at least you're hitting the bases so your members have exposure to all three missions.
I'd make more of an issue with the senior unit than you guys.
Where did the topic go?
Quote from: BillB on January 18, 2008, 09:14:22 PM
Where did the topic go?
Where they all go....."the
dark area between uniforms and bashing Wings".
Back on topic.......I say mandate the use of Officer to represent all Adult Members of CAP, that are not NCO's, Patrons, etc. Use Cadet for Cadets, NCO for NCO's, and Patrons for well Patrons. Then for the time period before a new member actually starts walking around as an Officer, lets use the term "Officer Without Grade" or perhaps we can call them "MISTER or MISS".
For Flight Officers, they can be called "Flight Officer".
Am I leaving any groups out?
Why isn't this a poll yet>>????
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 09:30:23 PM
Quote from: BillB on January 18, 2008, 09:14:22 PM
Where did the topic go?
Where they all go....."the dark area between uniforms and bashing Wings".
Back on topic.......I say mandate the use of Officer to represent all Adult Members of CAP, that are not NCO's, Patrons, etc. Use Cadet for Cadets, NCO for NCO's, and Patrons for well Patrons. Then for the time period before a new member actually starts walking around as an Officer, lets use the term "Officer Without Grade" or perhaps we can call them "MISTER or MISS".
For Flight Officers, they can be called "Flight Officer".
Am I leaving any groups out?
Why isn't this a poll yet>>????
Aren't SMwoG, Flight Officers, and Patron members suppose to be called 'Mister' anyway?
Quote from: JThemann on January 18, 2008, 09:58:43 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 09:30:23 PM
Quote from: BillB on January 18, 2008, 09:14:22 PM
Where did the topic go?
Where they all go....."the dark area between uniforms and bashing Wings".
Back on topic.......I say mandate the use of Officer to represent all Adult Members of CAP, that are not NCO's, Patrons, etc. Use Cadet for Cadets, NCO for NCO's, and Patrons for well Patrons. Then for the time period before a new member actually starts walking around as an Officer, lets use the term "Officer Without Grade" or perhaps we can call them "MISTER or MISS".
For Flight Officers, they can be called "Flight Officer".
Am I leaving any groups out?
Why isn't this a poll yet>>????
Aren't SMwoG, Flight Officers, and Patron members suppose to be called 'Mister' anyway?
uh huh... but too often people mistake SM for a grade and call people... "Senior Member So And So"
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2008, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 18, 2008, 08:34:27 PM
The unit I am currently in, a composite squadron, is in a process of rebuilding, but our members have primarily CP/AE/Ground ES experience, so we're concentrating on that. We have a senior squadron nearby which is excellent at flight ops, has many pilot and aircrew members and do an outstanding job at medical too. So... when we do get potential pilots and aircrew people coming by, we refer them to Falcon. When they get people interested in cadet programs or ground work, they send them to us. It works well. We all stay focused on what we train and are able to utilize our strengths. At the same time, we know our weaknesses and are able to use neighboring units to make sure that as a Group or Wing we operate efficiently.
FWIW its sounds to me like you're doing a pretty good job on hitting all cylinders. Nothing's perfect and, but at least you're hitting the bases so your members have exposure to all three missions.
I'd make more of an issue with the senior unit than you guys.
The senior unit in question is hitting on all cylinders as well. They are the leading squadron for operations in the Group responsible for over 8 million residents. They provide the bulk of ES training as well.
Back on topic. I am still at a loss as to why so many people on this board want to try so hard to distinguish us from the military. They do not like rank or any of the military trappings. They would have us all in that stupid uniform they have come up with for VSAF. I just dont get it. Why are we looking for problems that do not exist.
Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on January 18, 2008, 11:59:49 PM
Back on topic. I am still at a loss as to why so many people on this board want to try so hard to distinguish us from the military. They do not like rank or any of the military trappings. They would have us all in that stupid uniform they have come up with for VSAF. I just dont get it. Why are we looking for problems that do not exist.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a "Senior Member" vs. "Officer Member" vs. "other" discussion falls into the "anti-military" category.
This has nothing to do with grade, it simply the "adults" vs. "Cadets" generic distinction.
There's nothing "anti-military" here, Major Hough. The discussion concerns a topic that actually doesn't exist in the military at all. Members without grade. We know that everyone from FO to LtGen are Officers. Sir, in your opinion, are SM without grade Officers? Are they simply Officer Trainees/Candidates?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2008, 06:06:27 PM
The CAP model does not call for "typing" a unit.
Although many units specialize, they aren't really supposed to.
Every unit in CAP should be a composite and they should be pushed to fire on all cylinders.
(Note: I realize that just saying it doesn't make it happen...)
A unit CC's ability to treat CAP like a cafeteria plan is a weakness of the program.
I respectfully, and strongly, disagree.
I think unit specialization, and separation from Cadets, is something that happens and should be allowed to happen. It all depends on the location of the squadron and the desires/needs of the members of the squadron, period.
Based on some here...since I have no real interest to work much with the Cadets (just not my thing) I should not join CAP since I am not willing to "do my part" to tackle all three missions of CAP.
As the unit ES Officer I have my hands full just trying to keep that running. Yes we incorporate the Cadets in our training, but too be honest, not many are interested. Not too mention that Cadets under 18 cannot fly on missions and many of our "customers" do not want to see anyone under 18 on an actual missing persons search, or aircraft crash, etc. it makes it hard to convince the Cadets to spend the time on ES. Instead that are into D&C, Encampments, Drill Team, Honor Guard, you get the picture.
QuoteAren't SMwoG, Flight Officers, and Patron members suppose to be called 'Mister' anyway?
Quoteuh huh... but too often people mistake SM for a grade and call people... "Senior Member So And So"
WIWAC there was a poster that had all of the CAP grades on it. Along with it there was the correct abbreviation for each and "Title of Address". Do we have anything that does this in any medium?
BTW, on that poster it said that senior member was addressed as "Senior Member".
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 07:53:16 AM
There's nothing "anti-military" here, Major Hough. The discussion concerns a topic that actually doesn't exist in the military at all. Members without grade. We know that everyone from FO to LtGen are Officers. Sir, in your opinion, are SM without grade Officers? Are they simply Officer Trainees/Candidates?
If we were only talking about Members without grade, that would not bother me. But I got the distinct impression from reading these posts that many do not like the term "officer" at all in referring to Adult Members. It seemed to me they wanted to go back to calling all adult members, "Senior Members".
I have always hated the term "Senior Members" in describing our adult membership. As was stated by other posters it sounds like and is misunderstood that we are "Senior" as in "Elderly". While many of us are indeed "Senior Citizens", including myself, I do not think that is a proper term to call CAP "Officers". We are a volunteer organization which in many respects is based upon a military model. The term "Officer"is professional, respectful, and is an accurate description for those that have met the qualifications to wear the rank.
Finally, the number of members without grade is so small, what we call them is not a great problem that needs to be resolved. "Mister" works just fine. Once again, if its not broke, do not fix it.
We call our new cadet members without grade Cadet Basic, why don't we do the same for our senior members without grade being call Senior Basic
Why don't we call our adult members....
wait for it....
Adult Members??
Quote from: CAP_truth on January 19, 2008, 07:09:13 PM
We call our new cadet members without grade Cadet Basic, why don't we do the same for our senior members without grade being call Senior Basic
Cadets DO have grade as soon as they become members. C/Airman Basic is the grade. Just like it's a grade in USAF. Airman Basic (AB) is E-1.
Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on January 19, 2008, 03:54:06 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 07:53:16 AM
There's nothing "anti-military" here, Major Hough. The discussion concerns a topic that actually doesn't exist in the military at all. Members without grade. We know that everyone from FO to LtGen are Officers. Sir, in your opinion, are SM without grade Officers? Are they simply Officer Trainees/Candidates?
If we were only talking about Members without grade, that would not bother me. But I got the distinct impression from reading these posts that many do not like the term "officer" at all in referring to Adult Members. It seemed to me they wanted to go back to calling all adult members, "Senior Members".
I have always hated the term "Senior Members" in describing our adult membership. As was stated by other posters it sounds like and is misunderstood that we are "Senior" as in "Elderly". While many of us are indeed "Senior Citizens", including myself, I do not think that is a proper term to call CAP "Officers". We are a volunteer organization which in many respects is based upon a military model. The term "Officer"is professional, respectful, and is an accurate description for those that have met the qualifications to wear the rank.
Finally, the number of members without grade is so small, what we call them is not a great problem that needs to be resolved. "Mister" works just fine. Once again, if its not broke, do not fix it.
I think the issue is of calling
all those who we know as senior members, "officers", no matter what their grade is. Calling someone who is 2nd Lt and above an officer is of course no contest, so the only question then is what do we call those who are of no grade? NCOs are called NCOs and Flight Officers are still Officers.
Simple fix. Just remove the 6 month waiting period before promotion to 2nd LT.
Can anyone really justify the waiting time? I rarely see those SMWOG going to SLS, or taking AFIADL 13. They just show up at the meetings and usually most start on their jobs there. I understand the wait for fingerprints to show up and whatnot, but seriously, why 6 months.
So now everyone can be an Officer off the bat if they wanted to be!
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:27:24 PM
Simple fix. Just remove the 6 month waiting period before promotion to 2nd LT.
Can anyone really justify the waiting time? I rarely see those SMWOG going to SLS, or taking AFIADL 13. They just show up at the meetings and usually most start on their jobs there. I understand the wait for fingerprints to show up and whatnot, but seriously, why 6 months.
So now everyone can be an Officer off the bat if they wanted to be!
Well... I wasn't promoted to 2nd Lt after 6 months. When I joined, I had a heavy NCO type attitude toward the cadet program. I was too hands-on. In retrospect, I am grateful my supervisor held up my promotion for 3 months and counseled me on what it is that's different between being an NCO and a Lieutenant.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:32:03 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:27:24 PM
Simple fix. Just remove the 6 month waiting period before promotion to 2nd LT.
Can anyone really justify the waiting time? I rarely see those SMWOG going to SLS, or taking AFIADL 13. They just show up at the meetings and usually most start on their jobs there. I understand the wait for fingerprints to show up and whatnot, but seriously, why 6 months.
So now everyone can be an Officer off the bat if they wanted to be!
Well... I wasn't promoted to 2nd Lt after 6 months. When I joined, I had a heavy NCO type attitude toward the cadet program. I was too hands-on. In retrospect, I am grateful my supervisor held up my promotion for 3 months and counseled me on what it is that's different between being an NCO and a Lieutenant.
I dont get that. How did holding your promotion help you to be a better 2nd Lt? You are who you are no matter what is on your shoulder. especially in a volunteer organization. I was a Captain and the Commander is a Major and I stil knew more about CAP than he did. Rank didnt matter to me.
To answer the question about names of squadrons......from the regs...20-3...
A proposed name for the unit. Unit names must include the following elements:
1) Identifying prefix - a short identifier, preferably associated with location (example: Shamrock, Dayton, Hot Springs, Midville, etc.). DO NOT use names such as "Black Sheep," "Flying Tigers," etc., or terms descriptive of major functions such as "Communications," "Jeep," or "Rescue," etc.
2) Type of unit (group, cadet squadron, senior squadron, composite squadron, or flight).
So that is the rule for naming.....it is at times ignored.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program....
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 19, 2008, 09:41:33 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:32:03 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:27:24 PM
Simple fix. Just remove the 6 month waiting period before promotion to 2nd LT.
Can anyone really justify the waiting time? I rarely see those SMWOG going to SLS, or taking AFIADL 13. They just show up at the meetings and usually most start on their jobs there. I understand the wait for fingerprints to show up and whatnot, but seriously, why 6 months.
So now everyone can be an Officer off the bat if they wanted to be!
Well... I wasn't promoted to 2nd Lt after 6 months. When I joined, I had a heavy NCO type attitude toward the cadet program. I was too hands-on. In retrospect, I am grateful my supervisor held up my promotion for 3 months and counseled me on what it is that's different between being an NCO and a Lieutenant.
I dont get that. How did holding your promotion help you to be a better 2nd Lt? You are who you are no matter what is on your shoulder. especially in a volunteer organization. I was a Captain and the Commander is a Major and I stil knew more about CAP than he did. Rank didnt matter to me.
It allowed me to understand that to be a good officer, a different type of approach is needed. An officer needs to be a little bit more polished and a little bit more hands off than I was. I had to learn how to let cadets fail as well as succeed. As an NCO, my attitude was "get it done no matter what". I had to learn how to "let them do it and help if they ask for it".
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 18, 2008, 05:56:10 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 17, 2008, 07:13:19 PM
So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron." Since that's what they do. So the breakdown would be:
Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron
Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.
This makes a lot of sense. Afterall, you have Medical Squadrons, Logistics Squadrons, etc in the USAF. There should be no reason why a CAP squadron can not be so named. Even composites could be named what they are. If a composite does Ground Team primarily (& the cadet program) they could be called (and throw in the squadron number) the 471st SAR Squadron or a unit with a plane could be called the 169th Recon Squadron ~ I don't know. But something along those lines.
CAPR 20-3 (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_082203091831.pdf) says so. See para 5.c.1).
I have a new name for you guys. Regulation Nazis
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 20, 2008, 04:30:15 AM
I have a new name for you guys. Regulation Nazis
Like you didn't already know this...
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 20, 2008, 04:30:15 AM
I have a new name for you guys. Regulation Nazis
We got rules. The idea is to play by the rules, or work on getting the rules changes. Mr. Pennington made a statement that was incorrect. I cited a reference to that effect.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 20, 2008, 04:30:15 AM
I have a new name for you guys. Regulation Nazis
[darn] Proud too!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: cnitas on January 19, 2008, 08:14:31 PM
Why don't we call our adult members....
wait for it....
Adult Members??
My two cents worth (that's about all I have left after last weeks' stock market) is that Adult Member about covers all the bases.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 20, 2008, 04:30:15 AM
I have a new name for you guys. Regulation Nazis
Why is it that a person that knows and follow the rules is termed a
Nazi, but those busted or called on for breaking them are "victimized"? When did it become heroic or commendable to be ignorant of or break rules?
I'd be interested in knowing. Or at least have the reasoning explained.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 20, 2008, 07:08:39 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 20, 2008, 04:30:15 AM
I have a new name for you guys. Regulation Nazis
Why is it that a person that knows and follow the rules is termed a Nazi, but those busted or called on for breaking them are "victimized"? When did it become heroic or commendable to be ignorant of or break rules?
I'd be interested in knowing. Or at least have the reasoning explained.
I wouldn't worry about it. There are those that do the right thing, and those that don't. If you do the right thing, and are called names, let it go! Those calling the names are probably not doing the right things to begin with. I do think the NAZI reference should be removed though!
Good to see Captalk paid their 2008 Godwin's Dues.
How does following established CAP regulations equate to following the tenets of NATIONAL SOCIALISM?
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 17, 2008, 07:52:15 PM
BTW...when I joined our Composite Squadron I mentioned I might like to do PT with the Cadets. One of the leadership mentioned that was great as the Cadets thought all of the Senior Members were just that...Senior, as in OLD.
When we first started the ACA's Leadership Development Institute (LDI) as the umbrella command for all of our leadership programs, we initially referred to it as the Officer Leadership Development Institute (OLDI). It didn't take but one weekend of training before the Cadets started referring to us as the "Oldies"...that title went away quick! ;)
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 19, 2008, 03:12:48 PM
... many of our "customers" do not want to see anyone under 18 on an actual missing persons search, or aircraft crash, etc...
I'd really like to see this in writing, not passed on by supposed word of mouth, but actually in writing from some of these so called "customers", because I do not believe this is true. I know that there are at least a few units in Georgia who have run this very question by their local EMA Directors and they have no problems working with Cadets when they know that they are properly trained and supervised.
There may be rare instances where a "customer" doesn't want cadets involved, but I believe that is the exception. From my experience the only people who don't want Cadets involved in ES are other CAP members who think that dealing with Cadets is below them.
Now, does this mean that you have to always allow Cadets on a Ground Team? No, not necessarily. But what if you have a Cadet who is qualified and in the Ground Team leader's opinion is mature enough to participate in a mission? What if you have a Cadet who is not only qualified but is on a Ground Team with their parent(s)? My main point is that there is no reason to completely exclude Cadets from ES, if nothing else there needs to be some fresh blood coming up the pipe to replace the old timers, and nothing beats real world on-the-job training.
Also, Cadets more interested in D&C / Honor Guard / etc. over ES? I suggest you examine your attitude and your training program, because while they may not all be interested, a large number of them are. I think the reason that you don't have much interest from your Cadets is because of your attitude towards them.
The only logical arguement I hear about cadets in ES is the liability problem. And in most cases there is no problem when the ES mission has an AF mission number. The comment we must protect our cadets doesn't hold water since the cadets are trained and supervised. In fact exposure to hurricane damage etc provides cadets with new experiences to help shape their maturing. To often senior members with little or no experience in the cadet program consider cadets as children to be protected from life at any cost. They can't see that modern 14-21 year olds are much more worldly and mature than they were at the same age. Cadets I've seen on missions were often better qualified than the senior members on the same ground team.
cadets under 18 are not covered under FECA on AFAMs so CAP the corporation is responsible for any injuries that happen to them. CAPR 900-5 (13).
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2008, 01:26:02 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 16, 2008, 01:07:51 AM
Someone suggested changing "senior member" to "Officer Candidate", and that wouldn't be too bad.
But that's not right either, because not all members are "Officer Candidates", either. There is a similar handful who profess not to care enough to bother with the grade and never progress.
That's actually part of the justifaction in going to something like officer candidate over SM. We want to imply to new members that they are expected to progress in the professional development program - ie better themselves to be of service to CAP. And, that it isn't simplly watching a quick orientation/CPPT module & then waiting six months, but that you are supposed to be doing OJT/mentoring/etc to learn how to be an actual capable & competent officer (not just member).
agree with all of this to the letter:
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2008, 02:28:45 AM
Wow.....we did this last year in another thread, and here we are again. I will type what I typed before. The vast majority of Adults in CAP wear a recognizable Rank device (some would say Commissioned Officer Rank Insignia) so why can't we call ourselves "Officers". Those NCO's that choose to be CAP NCO's are likewise, OFFICERS....just of the Non-Commissioned Variety.
You, me and everyone else wearing an Officer defice is in fact a CAP OFFICER. No, we are not all CAP Corporate Officers, but we are Officers non the less.
Those Members awaiting initial promotion to an Officer Rank do need their title changed. I am not sure what that will be. I never liked SMWOG.
Why do you want to move away from referring to ourselves as Officers? What is the big deal. Who is it hurting. Why don't we focus on getting the term changed to Auxiliary Officer? We need to pump up the fact we are the AIR FORCE AUXILIARY! The new VSAF shirts should read the "Volunteer, Air Force Auxiliary", since we are perfroming an AFAM! That is where I think this idea stemmed from. I could be mistaken.
To turn mindset, I would even go with Mike's idea and change the title to Auxiliarist. That is more in line with what we will (or should) be doing.
Quote from: ADCAPer on January 23, 2008, 03:13:28 AM
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 19, 2008, 03:12:48 PM
... many of our "customers" do not want to see anyone under 18 on an actual missing persons search, or aircraft crash, etc...
I'd really like to see this in writing, not passed on by supposed word of mouth, but actually in writing from some of these so called "customers", because I do not believe this is true. I know that there are at least a few units in Georgia who have run this very question by their local EMA Directors and they have no problems working with Cadets when they know that they are properly trained and supervised.
There may be rare instances where a "customer" doesn't want cadets involved, but I believe that is the exception. From my experience the only people who don't want Cadets involved in ES are other CAP members who think that dealing with Cadets is below them.
Now, does this mean that you have to always allow Cadets on a Ground Team? No, not necessarily. But what if you have a Cadet who is qualified and in the Ground Team leader's opinion is mature enough to participate in a mission? What if you have a Cadet who is not only qualified but is on a Ground Team with their parent(s)? My main point is that there is no reason to completely exclude Cadets from ES, if nothing else there needs to be some fresh blood coming up the pipe to replace the old timers, and nothing beats real world on-the-job training.
Also, Cadets more interested in D&C / Honor Guard / etc. over ES? I suggest you examine your attitude and your training program, because while they may not all be interested, a large number of them are. I think the reason that you don't have much interest from your Cadets is because of your attitude towards them.
Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women. I also have NO problem with them on ES missions and would LOVE to have more of them. It is just that Color Guard and Drill Team are a HUGE deal in our squadron.
I am working on doing "in-house" GES training for our cadets to get them at least to that point, and then incorporating them into our ES training as their schedule allows.
So please...do not assume you know my attitudes about cadets, because you do not.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 23, 2008, 02:36:33 PM
Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women.
Well, considering you original post, I'm not sure what other reaction you could have expected???
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 19, 2008, 03:12:48 PM
Based on some here...since I have no real interest to work much with the Cadets (just not my thing) I should not join CAP since I am not willing to "do my part" to tackle all three missions of CAP.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 23, 2008, 02:36:33 PM
Quote from: ADCAPer on January 23, 2008, 03:13:28 AM
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 19, 2008, 03:12:48 PM
... many of our "customers" do not want to see anyone under 18 on an actual missing persons search, or aircraft crash, etc...
I'd really like to see this in writing, not passed on by supposed word of mouth, but actually in writing from some of these so called "customers", because I do not believe this is true. I know that there are at least a few units in Georgia who have run this very question by their local EMA Directors and they have no problems working with Cadets when they know that they are properly trained and supervised.
There may be rare instances where a "customer" doesn't want cadets involved, but I believe that is the exception. From my experience the only people who don't want Cadets involved in ES are other CAP members who think that dealing with Cadets is below them.
Now, does this mean that you have to always allow Cadets on a Ground Team? No, not necessarily. But what if you have a Cadet who is qualified and in the Ground Team leader's opinion is mature enough to participate in a mission? What if you have a Cadet who is not only qualified but is on a Ground Team with their parent(s)? My main point is that there is no reason to completely exclude Cadets from ES, if nothing else there needs to be some fresh blood coming up the pipe to replace the old timers, and nothing beats real world on-the-job training.
Also, Cadets more interested in D&C / Honor Guard / etc. over ES? I suggest you examine your attitude and your training program, because while they may not all be interested, a large number of them are. I think the reason that you don't have much interest from your Cadets is because of your attitude towards them.
Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women. I also have NO problem with them on ES missions and would LOVE to have more of them. It is just that Color Guard and Drill Team are a HUGE deal in our squadron.
I am working on doing "in-house" GES training for our cadets to get them at least to that point, and then incorporating them into our ES training as their schedule allows.
So please...do not assume you know my attitudes about cadets, because you do not.
It seems to be that your goals and your squadrons goals are different.
Quote from: ADCAPer on January 24, 2008, 09:09:30 PM
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 23, 2008, 02:36:33 PM
Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women.
Well, considering you original post, I'm not sure what other reaction you could have expected???
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 19, 2008, 03:12:48 PM
Based on some here...since I have no real interest to work much with the Cadets (just not my thing) I should not join CAP since I am not willing to "do my part" to tackle all three missions of CAP.
My apologies, that statement was as a "direct" management type with the Cadets, not from an integration viewpoint with ES. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, hope that clarifies things.
Officer Candidate? How about that?
Quote from: Irishrenegade on February 23, 2010, 03:33:34 PM
Officer Candidate? How about that?
How would that fit in with those folks who go on to become NCOs? I know there aren't many of them, but they exist. Going from Officer Candidate to NCO would be a step down.
Quote from: SarDragon on February 23, 2010, 10:14:18 PM
Quote from: Irishrenegade on February 23, 2010, 03:33:34 PM
Officer Candidate? How about that?
How would that fit in with those folks who go on to become NCOs? I know there aren't many of them, but they exist. Going from Officer Candidate to NCO would be a step down.
Now that I think about it, NCOs probably wouldn't be much of an issue. An individual can be promoted to an NCO rank once Level 1 is completed.
As to uniform, I wouldn't bother with collar insignia. Only those persons electing to go the officer route could really stand to have something other than collar insignia. And with epaulet sleeves for them, we could probably do just fine with "U.S." insignia on their service coats.
Quote from: SarDragon on February 23, 2010, 10:14:18 PM
Quote from: Irishrenegade on February 23, 2010, 03:33:34 PM
Officer Candidate? How about that?
How would that fit in with those folks who go on to become NCOs? I know there aren't many of them, but they exist. Going from Officer Candidate to NCO would be a step down.
Those who choose to become CAP NCOs are essentially taking a step down no matter what considering that the normal course of events for 99.9% of CAP senior members is to go to become an officer.
They arent taking a step down per se, because CAP rank has no authority in itself, even in CAP. A CAP LTC has no more juice than a CAP Senior member E-5. CAP is based on position not rank. The step down if there were one, would be the lack of anywhere for the member to go as far as the Professional Development Program. And, any future advancement has nothing to do with performance in CAP, good or bad.
As far as C&C is concerned, they are taking a step down. Might not mean much, but it is a fact.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2008, 12:20:00 AM
Any chance we can do away with this remnant of He Who Shall Remain Nameless as well?
Nothing official in any of the regs has been changed, nor has eServices, the WMU, our ID cards or the grade structure. It is an improper description of a large portion of our members, and it isn't even used consistently by the very people who push it.
Senior Member has worked for decades, but if we need a different term "Officer" isn't it.
In posts, docs, and emails I have recently seen:
"Officer without grade" (for SMWOG)
"Officer NCO's"
All adult members are not officers, and not all officers are adult members, but all senior members are adults.
For Pete sake Just leave things alone. Resist the urge to force change on a culture that's looking to do some good.