Fall 2009 NEC Agenda posted

[Eclipse]

6-7 Nov 09, St. Louis, MO

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/NEC_2009_Nov_agenda_1DB0E32C5412C.pdf

2. Conduct of Members Using Social Media
3. Fire Watch Ribbon
4. CAP Glider Program Review
5. Glider Operations: Delete or modify CAPR 60-1 Chapter 2-3c
6. Inspector General of the Year Award
7. Membership Application - Proof of True Identity
8. Service Date
9. Amendment to CAPR 112-10
10. Annual Conference & National Board Meeting for 2011
11. Travel Policy

[MIKE]

3. Fire Watch Ribbon

Lot of cadets gonna be claiming this one with encampment and/or local actvity credit if they don't come up with a more descriptive name.

[BTCS1*]

Possible change the name to forest fire watch/airborne fire watch ribbon.

[jimmydeanno]

Better Idea.  Skip the new ribbon, adjust the criteria for the SAR ribbon. 

[Eclipse]

Better Idea.  Skip the new ribbon, adjust the criteria for the SAR ribbon.

+1

Interesting mission, important task, but in the end, just another "actual" sortie.  As stated, these already count towards a ribbon with a prop on it.

[arajca]

I like the Advisor/National Staff Comments on Item 8, Membership Service Date:

Senior Advisor Support – Non-Concur as written. We are unable to determine what problem this solution will correct.

[dwb]

^ That was my favorite line in the whole document.  I don't know who the Senior Advisor for Support is, but (s)he has a way with words!

[Strick]

For the love of God............we do not need more ribbons.   It is part of the mission, credit goes towards senior and master wings.   

[CAPSGT]

Creating another ribbon is vital to the organization.  It creates another ribbon for vanguard to sell to our members so that national can collect some more money. 

Of course, what would really be nice is to have criteria published for ribbons already being sold (homeland security).

[Eclipse]

I'd like someone to publish a photo of the approved CSU sweater from the last meeting so I can get one....

[Strick]

I'd like someone to publish a photo of the approved CSU sweater from the last meeting so I can get one....

come on...that would make sense     Iwould like to see the new sweater, it is starting to get cold up here.

[lordmonar]

For the love of God............we do not need more ribbons.   It is part of the mission, credit goes towards senior and master wings.

but not constant with other awards already authorised.....i.e. Why do SAR and CD missions get a ribbon but not Fire Watch?

I suggest we roll CD/SAR/HLS/firewatch ribbons into one "aerial acheivement" medal and then create something to cover ground teams and mission base personnel.

[bosshawk]

Pat: that would make too much sense.  And, besides, how would the ribbon mavens on CAPtalk continue to build their racks?

[heliodoc]

Ya know

Being a former helitack and former wildland firefighter...

AND a a qual'd forester  and commercial pilot and a CAP member....

Why does CAP need another ribbon?? 

Firewatch AKA aerial detection / detection pilot/ etc etc

Can't you guys JUST be happy with getting another mission??  How about a general understanding of forestry and fire weather coupled with wildland fire...

Another ribbon?? 

[James Shaw]

How about making it part of the Civil Defense Ribbon?

[lordmonar]

Putting it with CD would make some sense....but why the break out between CD/SAR/CN?

An aerial mission is an aerial mission......the USAF does not have a Close Air Support Medal, a Intel/Survailance/Reccon Medal and a Combat SAR Medal....they have the Air Medal and The Aerial Acheiment Medal.  One is more or less for combat operations and the other is for non-combat operations.  Training Flights don't count.

I would do the same...a CAP aerial Acheivement Medal for 10 sorties supporing AFAM non-training missions in any arena of operations CD/CN/DAR/DR.  We can make a CAP Ground Team Medal for 10 missions as a UDF/GTM/GTL and a CAP Support Team Medal for 10 missions as any mission base personnel.  So we keep the same number of ribbons but expand who we recognise and simplify how they wear them (no more props for 10 air sorties and just a cluster for ground sorties).  We don't have to worry about someone adding an new mission that is not covered by the awards (where would the SUAV program fall?)

I am all for recognising people who volunteer to train and then actually do their assigned jobs.....but I can't stand the in-fighting we have between the different "mission" groups.

[RiverAux]

Gee, talk about a snore fest.  If that is all they've got to talk about, they should cancel the meeting. 

[JC004]

ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor Support – Non-Concur as written. We are unable to determine what
problem this solution will correct.

BAHAHAHAHAHA.  Sounds like any number of NB/NEC proposals.   

[heliodoc]

^^^^^

Same with Application...Proof of True Identity

What these guys just making work up??  Looking busy?  Justifying to 1AF that  CAP needs more Generals

WOW

No wonder there is some contempt for these so called NB Meetings with all that "leadership."

"Unable to determine what problem this solution will correct." Senior Advisor Support or many other operations for that fact.

How many of these folks are getting paid for this and the other question...... if they are volunteering and STILL getting nothing done.....makes the US Government (any Agency) still look MORE effective with the use of time

[Cecil DP]

^^^^^

Same with Application...Proof of True Identity

What these guys just making work up??  Looking busy?  Justifying to 1AF that  CAP needs more Generals

WOW

No wonder there is some contempt for these so called NB Meetings with all that "leadership."

"Unable to determine what problem this solution will correct." Senior Advisor Support or many other operations for that fact.

How many of these folks are getting paid for this and the other question...... if they are volunteering and STILL getting nothing done.....makes the US Government (any Agency) still look MORE effective with the use of time

Requires 1 sentance change to 39-2 " Prospective Senior  members will furnish two (2) forms of Government issued ID at time of application."

[heliodoc]

^^^

A one sentence change?  Folks ought to be doing THAT silliness by email!!  If CAP is "UP" on its technology!!

Well that vote ought to take 3,34567890 seconds to complete..

Any longer still will make any Agency in the US a more effective decision maker

[heliodoc]

^^ Correction

3.3456789 seconds to complete

Although my prev post stands...it still will take 3,345678890 to get done

[Robert Hartigan]

I have comments on the social media agenda topic. I am sending them up the chain. I was told at NSC that comments from members are welcomed. We will see how the process unfolds.

[AirAux]

The social media agenda is going to a sticky wicket to say the least.  Freedom of speech and activities outside of CAP meetings, etc.  We are not bound to CAP 24 hours a day and the cadets certainly aren't.  Why not just admit big brother is here and get over it??

[RiverAux]

On the other hand, perhaps we should see this agenda as a positive since it appears unlikely that they'll be doing anything that has the potential to hurt the organization.  Sort of a "no news is good news" perspective. 

[lordmonar]

The social media one is just outragious!

[bosshawk]

After reading the whole agenda on eServices, my question is this: why spend the time and money to go to St Louis to act on this agenda?   In most cases, email or teleconference would do the trick.

[JC004]

I like how they cite unofficial CAP social media as ours in the agenda item.  CAP needs to get a grasp on social media itself by like...yesterday.  No official YouTube channel and all?  Come on, folks. 

Check out the list of the largest non-profits in the country...you'll find them on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and the like.  Of course, it's not like one of our target markets is 12-18 or anything.   

If they want to talk social media, why don't they:
1. get 110-1 revised
2. make a STYLE GUIDE so it all looks the same
3. start official CAP sites on the major sites.  We need youtube.com/CivilAirPatrol, twitter.com/CivilAirPatrol, and facebook.com/CivilAirPatrol like...now.

I could do this myself in no time if properly empowered.  What's their problem?

[jimmydeanno]

I like how they cite unofficial CAP social media as ours in the agenda item.  CAP needs to get a grasp on social media itself by like...yesterday.  No official YouTube channel and all?  Come on, folks. 

Check out the list of the largest non-profits in the country...you'll find them on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and the like.  Of course, it's not like one of our target markets is 12-18 or anything.   

If they want to talk social media, why don't they:
1. get 110-1 revised
2. make a STYLE GUIDE so it all looks the same
3. start official CAP sites on the major sites.  We need youtube.com/CivilAirPatrol, twitter.com/CivilAirPatrol, and facebook.com/CivilAirPatrol like...now.

I could do this myself in no time if properly empowered.  What's their problem?

This was actually the topic of our practicum at NSC.  Throughout the week the theme was the same from the members...

CAP needs to get on board with the social media outlets, regardless of whether or not they like them.  It allows them to control their own message, rather than putting it in the hands of "unofficial" sources.

[Chappie]

The CAP Chaplain Corps has a FB group.  Here is the link:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=16639568303

Note the disclaimer.

[Eclipse]

Without a legitimate, top-down strategy, CAP needs to steer completely clear of this arena, and stand-down anyone who has taken it upon themselves to pretend they are a legitimate voice.  Right now most wings can't even figure out the simple process of moderating an email list to keep multi-forwarded political messages, hate speech, and "just had to try" urban legends off them from fellow members, and you expect someone to be able to moderate and monitor public arenas filled with non-members?

Social media = a spectacular waste of time & bandwidth while doing nothing but making messages less coherent, and feeding the narcissism which is inherent in the human species.

Being involved in it provides no more (or less) "control" over the media, message, or members.  There's nothing "new" here, just repackaged Web 1.0 content spread out over less coherent media.  Great idea!
Instead of just having a personal website to espouse my conspiracy theories regarding 2012, I'll light up 6 different accounts, all with different user bases, and then try to get my message out that way.

Every hour or so I'll post an update no one is reading about being someplace nowhere near where 9,999 of my 10,000 "friends" are.

Meanwhile, I'm never actually "with" real human beings, because my nose is glued to my Phone reading messages about where I'm not, or will be in an hour. (unless you have an iPhone, in which case you're dancing around trying to get a signal long enough to post your update about your battery being dead).

News flash - you don't have 10,000 "friends".

Outstanding use of time.

Further, for those of you crying "free speech", forget it.  This is one of the "advantages" of our corporate dichotomy.  Being a private organization with at-will membership termination (subject only to internal regulation) means CAP can put any rules in place, and you are free to abide or leave.

Since unlike the military CAP holds no legal jurisdiction over its members outside the organization, there's no court challenge to make.  CAP can't curtail your right to make noise publicly, only to do it with an CAP ID card in your wallet.

If I create the "Eclipse Happy Fun Time SAR Rangers and Tea Club", and decide my members aren't allowed to have Facebook accounts.  Guess what?  You have a decision to make.

[JC004]

lol - Eclipse, Eclipse

[flyerthom]

I like how they cite unofficial CAP social media as ours in the agenda item.  CAP needs to get a grasp on social media itself by like...yesterday.  No official YouTube channel and all?  Come on, folks. 

Check out the list of the largest non-profits in the country...you'll find them on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and the like.  Of course, it's not like one of our target markets is 12-18 or anything.   

If they want to talk social media, why don't they:
1. get 110-1 revised
2. make a STYLE GUIDE so it all looks the same
3. start official CAP sites on the major sites.  We need youtube.com/CivilAirPatrol, twitter.com/CivilAirPatrol, and facebook.com/CivilAirPatrol like...now.

I could do this myself in no time if properly empowered.  What's their problem?

This is what I was hoping to see. I made a similar comment at the 2008 National PAO Academy. It remains one of the reasons why I'm reluctant to charge into this in NV.

[JC004]

It isn't that hard.  Many, many members agree.  Many, many members see the need for a style guide and the immediate stop to the continued proliferation of new logos, tag lines, and domain names (read: diluting of our brand).  We are too big an organization to have this sort of identity crisis.  Let the NEC talk about that and drop the social media restrictions issue. 

I am not the absolute expert in branding and marketing for large organizations, but I can say that the way we are doing it is not it.  This is really simple - that's the point.  Simple, consistent branding and marketing.  How many seals, symbols, logos, etc. do we have now?  I have NO idea.  It has to stop.  How many logos does McDonald's have?  Coca-Cola?  or for non-profits...United Way, Red Cross, Girl Scouts? 

Seriously...I agree with canceling the meeting if that's all they have to talk about.  Talk about marketing, branding, recruiting, retention, and developing our missions (because I've got news for you...if the missions aren't there, all the cute tag lines in the world won't help you). 

As a paying member, I demand the immediate stop to the waste of my financial resources on:
1. the continued development of additional logos, symbols, slogans, and the like
2. the continued senseless changes to uniforms.  these are costly.  did ya notice?  Since I have joined, there has been the round flight suit patch, the shield with "US Air Force Auxiliary," the shield with "US," and the shield without "US."  This is not to mention the "U.S." branch tapes, new uniforms, flag patch, and other crap.  KNOCK IT OFF.

I know that National staff, NEC members, and NB members watch this board.  Some even participate.  Will one of you propose a moratorium on this insanity?  Stop the identity crisis.  Stop all uniform changes that are not safety-related until a comprehensive review of CAP uniforms is conducted and made into a NB proposal (are there authorized gloves with the flight suit? nope.  Are there proposals at these meetings on other things we can add to our flight suits?  You betcha.)  Will one of you stand up for reducing the burden on your members by making it more simple and less costly?

[a2capt]

I know that National staff, NEC members, and NB members watch this board.  Some even participate.  Will one of you propose a moratorium on this insanity?

Not necessarily social media related, but .. web presences in general, surely there has to be a CMS that can handle documents without pissing all over the file names. When I download CAPR-060-001, I get 29lgsldkfgl23023glka23135.pdf

Thats just RIDICULOUS.

..and the gross over use of so many graphic elements on the site that they challenge all but the laboratory specimen browsers to load without stuttering, pausing and puking.

..and if I have to change another freaking sticker on a vehicle because of the ongoing identity crisis.. ugh!

[JC004]

I'd love to see that.  I have wanted that ever since the old site.

The new site's silly use of Adobe Flash and all is obnoxious.  Plus, they didn't work on content structure - a lot of the site is just imported over from the old site.  Looking under NHQ for some of the links in the navigation?  Seriously?  Who is going to think of that?

In one sense, I am sort of having fun with the identity crisis because I get to add new logos to my chart of in-use CAP symbols.     Please, NHQ...every time you make a new logo, a kitten dies.  Think of the kittens.  Oh, and kittens really like Pantone colors if you could pick some.  Remember...it's for the kittens.

[FARRIER]

Further, for those of you crying "free speech", forget it.  This is one of the "advantages" of our corporate dichotomy.  Being a private organization with at-will membership termination (subject only to internal regulation) means CAP can put any rules in place, and you are free to abide or leave.

Since unlike the military CAP holds no legal jurisdiction over its members outside the organization, there's no court challenge to make.  CAP can't curtail your right to make noise publicly, only to do it with an CAP ID card in your wallet.

If I create the "Eclipse Happy Fun Time SAR Rangers and Tea Club", and decide my members aren't allowed to have Facebook accounts.  Guess what?  You have a decision to make.

Its not that you can't prevent members from having the facebook account. Its identifying themselves as members of a corporation, then posting thier private views for all to read.  Corporations have already tackled this without much hassle.

I see the slippery slope in forums such as this. Discussing CAP and Non-CAP business alike, will a remark about a future national commander, like those made in the past, get a member 2B'ed?

And, the first one to be removed from the organization due to a speech issue, they take this to court, do we as an organization want to spend the time and money to flight it? A company I used to work for, at one point, only had enough money in the bank, that it would have taken one sexual harrasment law suit to shut it down.

Food for thought.

[NCRblues]

This is not where cap needs to be headed right now. Is the NEC saying there are no problems in the organization other than this? I live right outside St. Louis proper and I just can't bring myself to go. I would say I am shocked that this is all they could come up with, but really nothing in cap shocks me anymore.

[FW]

Coolgan is right.  CAPR 110-1 should be revised; not 35-3.  Guidelines should be set; not have threats of termination heaped upon the membership for what may considered abitrary reasons.  There needs to be clearly defined standards, IMHO.

Usually, in NEC meetings, the "meat" of the agenda is in the committee reports.  My "sources" tell me there are 2 committees which will bring up very important issues to the NEC which could effect what we do as an organization, IMO, for a very long time.

If there are any current NEC members reading or participating on CT, I hope they give a lot of thought on what will be presented;  before voting on every issue. 

[RiverAux]

Regarding the "What is the NEC thinking" type statements regarding social media, remember that just because someone proposed that the item be put on the agenda, doesn't mean that the NEC as a whole supports it.  I remember the cheers that erupted in the room after the NB voted down the proposal to allow shorts in CAP planes. 

[Al Sayre]

Regarding the "What is the NEC thinking" type statements regarding social media, remember that just because someone proposed that the item be put on the agenda, doesn't mean that the NEC as a whole supports it.  I remember the cheers that erupted in the room after the NB voted down the proposal to allow shorts in CAP planes.

And I remember the cheers that erupted when we got the letter form the National Commander that said we could!  It was about 110 degrees and 80% humidity in Mississippi that fateful day...

[Lancer]

Just in case some of you missed the e-mail from NHQ...

Dear CAP Member,

I would like to encourage you to watch the 2009 November NEC meeting streamed out live over the internet from St. Louis, Missouri.  The live web stream will be on Friday, November 6, from 1:30 p.m. - 5:00 PM CDT.  Please visit the CAP Channel website in order to watch the stream.

http://www.capchannel.com - Just in case you didn't know how to get there. ;-)

[RiverAux]

According to briefing -- SAR down 24%, Air Defense up 24%, HLS +24%
total CAP cadets flown on o-rides up 21%

[RiverAux]

Changed item 3 from "Fire Watch Ribbon" to "Air Patrol Ribbon" - 10 sorties min.  Seems to be for any sort of mission (excluding SAR and CD).   

-- referred to historian and uniform team for review and re-presentation at winter NB.

Sidebar -- the leadership have been trying to keep uniform stuff to winter NB, but want to be "agile" to allow stuff to come up from the field.   

[Lancer]

How do we get more cadets into the glider program?


Ummm.....BUY MORE GLIDERS! 55 gliders nationwide is not enough!

We have one glider in Michigan and the politics around it, and where it is in the state is ridiculous. We could easily use at least two more gliders. I'd be happy with one more.

[RiverAux]

Glider Program Review agenda item:
-- glider program isn't taking away pilots from doing powered o-rides. 
-- Have 52 gliders.
144 glider pilots (89 CFIGs)
--588 members who have a glider rating
-6618 sorties in 2009 (more or less stable between 5-8k)
11% of cadet o-rides were in gliders
13 locations have done 75% of glider sorties
IL does the most glider sorties
-consider consolidating glider resources at the most active sites rather than having spread around.  Possibly downside glider fleet to 33-36 and use savings for better maintenance on remaining.  Store the extras.  Possibly use them in the future.  Regional centers would need to be very supportive of the glider centers.
-Revise cadet sylabus that implies all cadets will get 5 glider o-rides

[RiverAux]

How do we get more cadets into the glider program?


Ummm.....BUY MORE GLIDERS! 55 gliders nationwide is not enough!

We have one glider in Michigan and the politics around it, and where it is in the state is ridiculous. We could easily use at least two more gliders. I'd be happy with one more.

Apparently the problem is that most of the gliders we have now are being very underutilized. 

[Lancer]

Apparently the problem is that most of the gliders we have now are being very underutilized.

So either move them to the wings who can use them, or enforce the use of them, under-utilization is inexcusable in my mind.

These 'glider centers' will not work...not on a regular basis. My cadets have had the opportunity to travel 2 hours to go fly in the glider; or at least 'hopefully' fly in the glider, and they don't want to be bothered. This is the wrong direction, IMHO.

[SarDragon]

There was also mention of the number of glider pilots available. The goal is 5/glider. Given the numbers, the proposed fleet of 33 - 36 fits the current number of pilots.

[NEBoom]

Lost the stream, then couldn't get back in.  Keep the updates coming for the less fortunate!! 

[Cecil DP]

How do we get more cadets into the glider program?


Ummm.....BUY MORE GLIDERS! 55 gliders nationwide is not enough!

We have one glider in Michigan and the politics around it, and where it is in the state is ridiculous. We could easily use at least two more gliders. I'd be happy with one more.

Apparently the problem is that most of the gliders we have now are being very underutilized.

Our problem is having the glider and not being able to get the pilots and tow plane at the same time.

[RiverAux]

Done for the day.  Same interruption for me- hit refresh and it came back.

I wasn't paying close attention, but had the glider discussion playing the background (they just finished it).  But, I was happy to see the way they really dug into the nuts and bolts of this topic, which judging by my previous viewing sessions of national meetings is not the norm.  If they spent a week at each meeting going into this level of detail about all aspects of the program, I think it might do some good. 

[jimmydeanno]

We have 1 glider that is shared between multiple wings.  So, we have glider ops every weekend between April and October.

My unit was scheduled for a full day on three Saturdays.  We are supposed to bring no more than 8 cadets with us, so they all get to go.

Here's the kicker.

Every single one of our opportunities were rained out this year.
It is a 3 hour drive to the glider location.

My cadets love flying in the glider, but it's just too far and so spread out in amount of opportunities.

[Lancer]

They went into recess for the rest of the day after the Glider Operations agenda item.

So...money seems to be the crux of the issue with our glider operations. Can someone explain why? Is there a reason why we are not financing this the way it should be? Is this due to the AF's lack of emphasis on this being an important program for CAP? If the AF doesn't want to fund it, why aren't we looking to solicit funds from other sources to enhance the program?

[heliodoc]

^^^
Like that idea

Call the Soaring Society of America (SSA) and see how CAP could partner with them

Can't blame the AF for not wantin to fund..ya think they got other priorities for themselves or CAP

Whadddya suppose Surrogate Predator costs to set up and function?  Don't tell me how cheap CAP is for that mission...someone still has to be Mission Directorate for that mission and somebody has to get funding to operate that side of the house

Partner with SSA and CAP ...see what happens...no use in AF funding something that shows duplication when CAP can partner with an organization that centers and quite possibly has ,more insight to gliding and maybe less online testing to be a wing runner.  I am sure SSA has a GREAT training program for gliders that rivals CAP

[davidsinn]

They went into recess for the rest of the day after the Glider Operations agenda item.

So...money seems to be the crux of the issue with our glider operations. Can someone explain why? Is there a reason why we are not financing this the way it should be? Is this due to the AF's lack of emphasis on this being an important program for CAP? If the AF doesn't want to fund it, why aren't we looking to solicit funds from other sources to enhance the program?

Why can't we take the glider to the cadets like we do with powered O-Rides? Yea I realize a glider in Chicago is a supremely bad idea but you could get it closer to the people. I know INWG aero towed up to Oskosh last year. Why not aerotow across the state and do a group O-Ride day instead of a bunch of different units converging on the glider?

[Lancer]

^^^
Like that idea

Call the Soaring Society of America (SSA) and see how CAP could partner with them

Can't blame the AF for not wantin to fund..ya think they got other priorities for themselves or CAP

Whadddya suppose Surrogate Predator costs to set up and function?  Don't tell me how cheap CAP is for that mission...someone still has to be Mission Directorate for that mission and somebody has to get funding to operate that side of the house

Partner with SSA and CAP ...see what happens...no use in AF funding something that shows duplication when CAP can partner with an organization that centers and quite possibly has ,more insight to gliding and maybe less online testing to be a wing runner.  I am sure SSA has a GREAT training program for gliders that rivals CAP

I was going to mention that, but I wanted to see if someone else would bring it up. Thanks for not letting me down.

Here's my issue. Aren't we suppose to be fostering a love and interest in aviation amongst our cadets? We're not going to be able to do that if we reduce and consolidate our glider ops.

With our wing only having one glider, and as far as I know only one functioning tow plane, getting our cadets up in it is no easy feat. We don't have very many glider pilots either. I've only know one person in the wing to fly our glider, Capt Mark Grant (great guy, BTW). The most our glider is used during each year is at our annual encampment, where (weather permitting) each basic cadet get's a flight in the glider, as well as a powered flight. Any other time, glider flights are pretty much last minute because of weather. The two times in this past year when we tried to plan well in advance of a glider fly day, we had to scrub because of weather.

My 12 year old daughter got her first glider flight at encampment this year. she LOVED it...and enjoyed it much more than the powered rides she's had preceding her glider flight. I'm sure that's the case for many a cadet. Heck, my son, has gotten his Mitchell Award before he's had a chance to get a glider flight. Something is just not right about that.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's not happy with the direction they are looking to take this program.

As an aside, here's some recent video of the Michigan Wing glider in action.  http://vimeo.com/7141749

[FW]

^^^
Like that idea

Call the Soaring Society of America (SSA) and see how CAP could partner with them

Can't blame the AF for not wantin to fund..ya think they got other priorities for themselves or CAP

Whadddya suppose Surrogate Predator costs to set up and function?  Don't tell me how cheap CAP is for that mission...someone still has to be Mission Directorate for that mission and somebody has to get funding to operate that side of the house

Partner with SSA and CAP ...see what happens...no use in AF funding something that shows duplication when CAP can partner with an organization that centers and quite possibly has ,more insight to gliding and maybe less online testing to be a wing runner.  I am sure SSA has a GREAT training program for gliders that rivals CAP

We do partner with SSA.  They have been instrumental in getting us organized.  Both Col. Guimond and Lt. Col Crielly are members.  They have provided for SSA training at quite a few sites around the country and, many SSA instructors and pilots have provided their time and equipment; both tow planes, winches and gliders for CAP.  The problem is with the great reduction in the FY 2010 grant to CAP (almost $5 million).  I have a feeling this will not be the best of years for cash on hand.

[heliodoc]

^^
I stand corrected

But coming from an unemployment situation.......CAP will just have to be like "us unemployed" and face up to the realization it going to be tough all over and priorities will have to be set.  CAP will just have to tighten its belt and start eatin hamburger and no more Porterhouse steaks ( approx $5 million) and adjust

CAP has spent enough elsewhere like a drunkard on some other operations...so it sounds like SSA will sound like a gold mine....

Sorry about that.........

[RiverAux]

One of the reasons they're considering it is that they've got a bunch of old gilders that have a ton of hours on them.  Take them out of commission and move the good gliders to the spots where they are being used all the time makes sense to me. 

If 13 squadrons were doing 75% of the powered flying in CAP, don't you think it would make sense to look at whether we need planes all the over the place? 

[JC004]

That was all they had to say for themselves?

[NCRblues]

I hate to admit this but, I almost feel asleep several times watching this discussion...sorry just wanted to know if i was the only one.

[BillB]

I wonder if the NEC considered several of the possible reasons only 13 glider sites did so many of the o-rides. For example, Florida has two gliders. Both are based in areas with strong SSA operations. Neither is near the major cadet population areas of the state. (a four hour drive from the most populated areas, meaning an expense for fuel)  Wing Commanders appear to put gliders in locations where it's politically expident.
CAP glider pilots can't maintain proficiency
Weather plays an important part. Winter in northern states cuts into flight operations for many months of the year.
Tow aircraft are not available, few CAP aircraft have tow capabilities.
Southern states have rain problems coming from the Gulf of Mexico.
Under the centralized maintenance program, gliders are not a priority item for the service locations. I've seen an annual take six weeks for a glider.

[NIN]

One of the reasons they're considering it is that they've got a bunch of old gilders that have a ton of hours on them.  Take them out of commission and move the good gliders to the spots where they are being used all the time makes sense to me. 

If 13 squadrons were doing 75% of the powered flying in CAP, don't you think it would make sense to look at whether we need planes all the over the place?

Its been my experience that the "glider takes the hindmost" when it comes to scheduling, funding, ops, etc.  Gliders that I've seen are not assigned to units like a powered plane, but rather they seem to be managed at the wing level.    Powered pilots don't always know what to make of a glider (ever see a Glider Pilot as a Wing DO?) so it doesn't always get based, used, scheduled, etc, in a way that makes effective use of that particular asset.   Don't get me going about the @#$% arguments I had to listen to at wing meetings about equipping planes with tow hooks.  You'd have thought we were suggesting carrier landings...

It would seem to me that 13 places in the country have figured out the paradigm.    Perhaps they need to be held up as examples.

As Jimmydeano pointed out, its a hoof to get to our glider.  It used to be at another airport, but rumor had it we wore out our welcome (the house of one of the Strum Ruger big wigs was supposedly just off the end of the runway at that airport and  the family didn't like all the increased traffic). So then it we partnered with the next state over (which did not have a glider) to base the glider at an airport on the state line.  That idea had some merit, because the airport was where a CAP squadron met, they had a physical building (that I believe was decked out to sleep in), and it just seemed a little more suited.

Unfortunately, by moving the glider, some units in my state have to drive, as Jimmydeano said, about 3 hrs to get to it.  That actually *reduces* the ability of people to access the asset.  If we consolidated on, say, 20 sites around the country, tell me how far most of our CAP population would have to drive to get to that?

Probably a lot further than 3 hrs.

[RiverAux]

Probably so, but the reality is that even with the current number and distribution of gliders most cadets do not have easy access to them.  So, the question becomes how do we get the most cadets we can into the usable gliders that we have?