CAP Chain of Command

[AvroArrow]

So Google didn't come up with good results.. What is the current chain-of-command of CAP?

I get lost after the National Comander.

[Eeyore]

I am slightly lost above National Commander... with CAP CP under the Holm Center, do we use CAP-USAF or the Holm Center Commander in the COC?

[Eclipse]

That's because that's where it effectively ends.

Anything beyond that is only during an AFAM and would include 1st Air Force.

[lordmonar]

For Cadets:

You
Your Element
Your Flight Commander
Your C/CC
Your Deputy Commander for Cadets
Your Squadron Commander
Your Group Commander (if you have one)
Your Wing Commander
Your Region Commander
The National Commander
The Board of Governors

For Senior Members:

You
Your Staff Officer
Your Deputy Commandeer
Your Squadron Commander
Your Group Commander
Your Wing Commander
Your Region Commander
The National Commander
The Board of Governors


The CAP-USAF chain does not apply.

[flyguy06]

Does the national Commander have to report or have any dealings with the Air University Commander?

[lordmonar]

Does the national Commander have to report or have any dealings with the Air University Commander?

Nope.

There is of course a relationship between CAP and CAP-USAF but it is more on the order of a government-contractor relationship not a command relationship.

[flyguy06]

I see. I used to think the CC for AU and the CC for AETC were in our Chain as well. So Iguess the POTUS and the CSAF and SECAF arent anywhere near our chain then

[Eclipse]

I see. I used to think the CC for AU and the CC for AETC were in our Chain as well. So Iguess the POTUS and the CSAF and SECAF arent anywhere near our chain then

Correct, the only time that might be true would be during an AFAM.

Unlike the military, the oath we take when we join, and the one we reaffirm when we are promoted, swears to obey the Constitution and
Officers of the Corporation, not the United States.

[lordmonar]

I see. I used to think the CC for AU and the CC for AETC were in our Chain as well. So Iguess the POTUS and the CSAF and SECAF arent anywhere near our chain then

Correct, the only time that might be true would be during an AFAM.

Unlike the military, the oath we take when we join, and the one we reaffirm when we are promoted, swears to obey the Constitution and
Officers of the Corporation, not the United States.

Nope.....CAP retains command of CAP assets even during a AFAM.

[Gunner C]

For Senior Members:

You
Your Staff Officer
Your Deputy Commandeer
Your Squadron Commander

Actually, I'm gonna say no.  Staff officers don't command, but that is who you work for.  Command vs staff authority are two different things.

[sparks]

Shouldn't the chain of command list end at the National Commander? Isn't the BoG is part of the CAP management function but not a command function?

[FW]

^No.  The Board of Governors IS the governing body of CAP.  If that board makes a decision, the National Commander must obey it.  The only body that may "overrule" the BoG is congress.  And, the only way they can do that is by changing the law.  So, the proverbial "buck" does stop with the BoG.

[lordmonar]

For Senior Members:

You
Your Staff Officer
Your Deputy Commandeer
Your Squadron Commander

Actually, I'm gonna say no.  Staff officers don't command, but that is who you work for.  Command vs staff authority are two different things.

If you are the Assitant Operations Officer....your chain of command starts with the Operations Officer and then goes to the Deputy Commander for Seniors.

How is that any different then than someone being under a flight commander....who for the most part are only staff positions anyways.

[flyguy06]

This is true. In Staff Sections, your Dept. head is your supervisor therfore your chain. But in line units its Commander

[Eclipse]

You need to separate operational direction from "Command", "Supervision" is a good term to use.

We've got all sorts of circular paths for operational roles, but there is only one chain of command in CAP.

Member
↓
unit
↓
group
↓
wing
↓
region
↓
NHQ

Staffers may have operational authority over a given task or department, but no command authority - that stems from delegation of the commander.

Staffers get themselves in trouble with that all the time.

[lordmonar]

The concept of chain of command is that each and everyone has one and only one boss.

Joe Blow Workerbee needs only one boss.  His supervisor.  No need for a "supervisor chain" and "command chain".

The term "command authority" has no meaning.  The Personal Officer has authority over all his assistants. 

In an idea squadron everyone would have a job.  Even if you have a bunch of "at-large" members....they should have someone the answer to.  It could be directly to the Deputy Commander for Seniors or the Commander....or someone else identified by the commander.

[Eclipse]

The term "command authority" has no meaning.  The Personal Officer has authority over all his assistants. 

No and yes.

Over his "assistants", yes, over the rest of the membership, no.

A wing-level DCP, for example, has no authority to wander around the wing inserting his opinion about random squadrons just because
he's bored that night and decide to do a "spot check".

His job is coordinating plans, programs, activities, and compliance at the wing level, and if he becomes aware of an issue, there's a protocol to suggest a fix downstream, which the respective commanders then have the option to follow, or not.

The only person who can tell subordinates what to do are commanders, or staffers signing "for the commander".  There's a difference.

And unfortunately we'll never get to "one boss" in CAP, at least not administratively.  One boss per assignment, yes.

In an idea squadron everyone would have a job.

I disagree here as well.

In an ideal squadron there would be enough people so that the administrtative tasks could be covered and the majority of the members could be members - training and doing in their specialty and not worried about keeping the lights on.  Members in their first couple of years should be more like the cadet ranks - worried more about their own learning and training, and less about having to accept squadron staff jobs because there's only 3 seniors in the unit.

That's how it actually works in the model we are emulating.

[Ned]

Bob,

not to nitpick an otherwise excellent post, but

A wing-level DCP, for example, has no authority to wander around the wing inserting his opinion about random squadrons just because
he's bored that night and decide to do a "spot check".

His job is coordinating plans, programs, activities, and compliance at the wing level, and if he becomes aware of an issue, there's a protocol to suggest a fix downstream, which the respective commanders then have the option to follow, or not.

The wing DCP undoubtedly has the authority (and responsiblity) to wander around the wing and offer her/his opinion.  Hopefully that doesn't happen just because the DCP is bored, but as part of a robust unit visitation program that allows the DCP to be in touch with units in the field and spread best practices from unit to unit.

Sure, the DCP also is in charge of the wing-level CP administrivia, but the DCP will inevitiably fail to excel if they don't get out of their office and get out to the units and activities on a regular basis.

But we agree that the DCP is a (critical) staffer with no inherent command authority over supported commanders.

[lordmonar]

I never said a staff officer has authority over anyone except those under him in his chain.

Also everyone should have a job.  Even if that job is "pilot" there should be a chief pilot or all pilots are under the Operations Officer. 

Everyone should have a boss and only one boss.

[flyguy06]

You need to separate operational direction from "Command", "Supervision" is a good term to use.

We've got all sorts of circular paths for operational roles, but there is only one chain of command in CAP.

Member
↓
unit
↓
group
↓
wing
↓
region
↓
NHQ

Staffers may have operational authority over a given task or department, but no command authority - that stems from delegation of the commander.

Staffers get themselves in trouble with that all the time.

I think you guys are saying the samething, just using different terms. I think everyone realizes that  Staffer is NOT a commander but he "commands" his section and is therefore that persons chain of command.  I am the DCP I have a staff of three. I supervise then, but if they have an issue they shouldnt go to the COS. the should go through me. that is their chain of command. Not command in the since of a commander, but chain of command in the since of organizational sturctue.

I think you guys get all bent out of shape and read t0o deep into every specific word. Think about the meanings and the context of how the word or phrase is used.