Main Menu

NCO

Started by pantera3110, March 09, 2015, 03:26:08 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

Quote from: AirAux on April 13, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
I believe Phase III has to do with new civilian members joining and after 6 months or so becoming NCO's.  The whole training track requirements are still beyond comprehension.  This means with the college requirements, you may have mission pilots that are NCO's.  So we are scrapping the whole system for the ego of 85 NCO's and an ex-National Commander.  The Air Force may be trying to get us in alignment with them, but they seem to forget we are VOLUNTEERS and they may very well cause the program to go away or become so small it is no longer valid.  I guess the next thing will be either up or out?  Most people do this to take their mind off their daily job, not add more stress to it.
That may not be the case.....Phase III of the NCO program is to let no prior service members be NCOs.

What we do with the officers in not directly part of our charter....as I have said before....we may not even get to Phase III or we may.   That is way down the road.

And none of this has to do with EGO.  It has to do with making CAP better.  Whether this works or not, remains to be seen.  But it is not just because "we" wanted to to stroke our egos.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Flying Pig

So far nobody has explained how it's going to make CAP any better.  You are still going to have the same people doing the same jobs. The rank on their uniform won't change any of it.  Ultimatley the job will get done by whoever has the time in their day to run down to the Sq building and do it.

lordmonar

Quote from: Flying Pig on April 13, 2015, 07:34:58 PM
So far nobody has explained how it's going to make CAP any better.  You are still going to have the same people doing the same jobs. The rank on their uniform won't change any of it.  Ultimatley the job will get done by whoever has the time in their day to run down to the Sq building and do it.
On one level you are correct.   As the many thread about rank have pointed out.

But we do have rank....and rank means something to our parent organisation and our customers.   Something different then what it means to us and our organisation.

My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

If the cost of changing out weighs any benifits it may bring....then we can always stop....no harm done.

YMMV
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

almostspaatz

Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 07:41:20 PM
My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

*Organization  ;)
C/Maj Steve Garrett

LSThiker

#184
Quote from: almostspaatz on April 13, 2015, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 07:41:20 PM
My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

*Organization  ;)

Organization and Organisation are both spelled correctly.  One is US and the other is UK.  I use acknowledgements as opposed to acknowledgments.

Although the -ize is the original UK method of spelling and is the recommended form in the Oxford Dictionary.  The -ise form is due to French influence on England, and thus Britain and the UK.  However, it is still recognized in the UK as a correct spelling.

JeffDG

Quote from: LSThiker on April 13, 2015, 08:39:30 PM
Quote from: almostspaatz on April 13, 2015, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 07:41:20 PM
My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

*Organization  ;)

Organization and Organisation are both spelled correctly.  One is US and the other is UK.  I use acknowledgements as opposed to acknowledgments.

Although the -ize is the original UK method of spelling and is the recommended form in the Oxford Dictionary.  The -ise form is due to French influence on England, and thus Britain and the UK.  However, it is still recognized in the UK as a correct spelling.

I still pronounce the "F" in lieutenant.

LSThiker

Quote from: JeffDG on April 13, 2015, 08:50:14 PM
I still pronounce the "F" in lieutenant.

Oy.  Bloody hell people.  I got called out in class I was teaching for saying that.  :)

JeffDG

Quote from: LSThiker on April 13, 2015, 08:54:28 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on April 13, 2015, 08:50:14 PM
I still pronounce the "F" in lieutenant.

Oy.  Bloody hell people.  I got called out in class I was teaching for saying that.  :)

I had an Lt Col once ask me "OK, where's the 'F' in lieutenant?"  My response:  "Where's the 'R' in colonel, sir?"

lordmonar

#188
sorry no spell checker on this computer.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Storm Chaser


Quote from: Av8tion on April 13, 2015, 06:26:35 PM
Just some food for thought that with the new promotion regulations, the timetable for promotions in the officer grades is nearly identical to that of the Air Force. Allow me to demonstrate below

New -> 2d Lt = 6mo TIG/TIS for CAP, OTS is about 10 weeks
2d LT -> 1st Lt = 18mo TIG = 2 years TIS for CAP = 2 years TIG/TIS for USAF
1st Lt -> Capt = 30mo TIG = 4y 6mo TIS for CAP, 2 years TIG = 4 years TIS for USAF
Capt -> Maj = 4 years TIG = 8y 6mo TIS for CAP, approx 10y TIS for USAF
Maj -> Lt Col = 5 years TIG = 13y 6mo TIS for CAP, approx 13-15y TIS for USAF

As you can see, it's not "quick" or "easy" to advance in officer grade in CAP. Now the only thing they need to do is expand the CAP enlisted program to allow all new members to go down that road if they so desire.

I think you need to recheck the requirements for Air Force officer promotions again.

2d Lt - USAFA (4 years) or AFROTC ( 2-4 years) or OTS (12 weeks full-time) at OTS. All require a Bachelor's Degree and have a competitive selection process.

1st Lt - 2 years TIG/TIS. All officers attend some form of technical school. Some can be up to a year long.

Capt - 2 years TIG/4 years TIG. Expected to be proficient at their job. Many are supervisors or instructors in their fields.

Maj - 7 years TIG/11 years TIS (unless below the zone). SOS * (8 weeks full-time).

Lt Col - 7 years TIG/18 years TIS (unless below the zone). ACSC * (1 year).

* Both SOS and ACSC have a competitive selection process. Most officers complete the correspondence/online course before they can be selected for the course in residence. These all have test, essays, etc. and must be passed, not just participate in.

Both Maj and Lt Col require a Promotion Board selection process. In addition to performance reports for the previous years, the Promotion Board looks at duty positions, responsibilities and accomplishments, higher headquarters level assignments (group, wing, etc.), deployments, exercises, medals, other schools, joint assignments, etc. In the past, a Master's Degree has been required for Lt Col. It is very competitive and selection is not guaranteed, even if meeting all minimum requirements.

To say that PD progression or promotion in CAP is "nearly identical to that of the Air Force" is very inaccurate. They're not even close.

Av8tion

Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 13, 2015, 10:48:51 PM

To say that PD progression or promotion in CAP is "nearly identical to that of the Air Force" is very inaccurate. They're not even close.

I said the timetable is nearly identical, not the requirements... and when it comes to the minimum possible time you can get to each grade it is reasonably close, not exact. The requirements are different, tailored to the respective organizations. College degree requirements will most likely never work its way into CAP and will probably fall away from military officer requirements in the future as people are now beginning to realize that a college education isn't nearly as important (or affordable) as it was decades ago. Training and experience is far more important than a piece of paper.

Anyway, enough of my rant... the best thing we all can do is to make sure our senior members are properly mentored and trained to do the jobs they've volunteered to do. It doesn't take a piece of paper from a college or a shiny piece of hardware on your shoulder boards. All it takes is a senior member who is willing to learn and work, and a senior member willing and able to tech him/her how to do the job right. I think we may have lost sight of all of that with the whole promotion system argument. Once the basics are established, the rest will fall in line. As for the rest, we'll just have to trust National to not come up with something idiotic to ruin everything we've worked toward.

ZigZag911

BA as the only path to officer status in CAP disturbs me (and I have advanced degrees, so it's not personal!)

BA or some combination of experience & training (military, CAP, perhaps even business/professional), I could see doing.

Storm Chaser

I don't necessarily favor that a bachelor's degree be required for a CAP officer appointment, but there's no disputing that it's extremely easy to become a 2d Lt in CAP. I think tightening the requirements to become an officer could be a good thing, especially if other paths to membership are available to those who otherwise wouldn't meet the requirements to become a CAP officer.

sarmed1

As far as the military goes, the degree=commission will not be going away.  Over the past 20 years they have been tightening those requirements more and more and are not likely to reverse that.  Even SNCO's are being looked at to have an associates to promote beyond E-7 (USAF).

Mostly its a universal check box on learning ( presence is enough in most cases to graduate high school, a degree requires effort?)

I would think an associates would be enough to meet the letter of intent for 2lt to Capt in CAP.

MK
Capt.  Mark "K12" Kleibscheidel

Flying Pig

That's interesting.   I've held most positions in CAP, mission pilot, CFI,  Sq Commander, etc.   8 year, military  vet.   I'm a command staff level law enforcement officer, chief pilot of a unit with 7 aircraft and 6 full time pilots and mech's..... But I wouldn't qualify to be a CAP 2Lt. :). Exactly what type of "officer" is CAp trying to attract?

JeffDG

I think the degree for 2nd Lt for CAP is yet another example of a solution in desperate search of a problem.

JeffDG

Quote from: sarmed1 on April 14, 2015, 12:53:09 PM
I would think an associates would be enough to meet the letter of intent for 2lt to Capt in CAP.

Why?

What would some random degree provide to CAP in terms of some skillset that is relevant?

I know a number of senior executives in companies, and excellent field-grade and above officers in CAP, who have no degree of any kind. 

Sorry, but if you ask me, it's just another example of "credentialism" with no actual basis in tangible benefits.

FW

IMHO, there is no reason why a degree is necessary for any CAP grade, however proven training and experience in a certain field should be a requirement for any specific position.  Management skills can be learned anywhere.  Leadership skills are something that can be nurtured in any proper environment.  Mission specific skills can be learned and honed with appropriate apprenticeships and mentoring.  Why we are even discussing a need for a degree to obtain "officer" grade is incomprehensible.  CAP has enough problems with recruitment and retention.  Requiring degrees, to me, is a non-starter.

AirAux

Requiring NCO's is a non-starter to me....

Ned

The "minimum qualifications for various CAP officer grades" is, and should be, an ongoing discussion for us.

Any conversation about requiring an associate or higher degree for CAP officer status is always going to provoke sincere and strongly-held opinions.  Because, much like a typical CAP uniform discussion, it gets personal very quickly.

There are strong points to be made on each side.  Aligning ourselves more closely with our AF colleagues and raising our standards for officer status beyond a GED are certainly worthy arguments.

Similarly, there is little doubt that many, many strong and capable American leaders have had little or no college education.  Telling Richard Branson, Michael Dell, or Bill Gates that they do not qualify to be a CAP officer would be an interesting conversation.  Ditto for Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln.

Ultimately, -- just like with the h/w issues on AF-style uniforms --  I suspect folks will tend to line up on the issue based on their personal status.  Those with a degree with tend to agree that college should be required, and those without that particular piece of paper on the wall will tend to disagree.

And just like a uniform discussion, the responses will be heartfelt and passionate. 

(And just like the uniform discussion, no one will be able to convince anyone on the other side.)

Bottom line: we have an existing system.  Folks who want to change the status quo bear the burden of convincing the leadership of the wisdom and advantage of their position.