Lets make all CAP senior members follow the same program

[JeffDG]

Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Except that you're treating non-pilot aircrew members (MO) on unequal footing with pilots. In some places, the MO is the "aircrew leader" while the MP drives the bus, much like how the guy behind the wheel of the van isn't always the GTL (in fact, that's preferred). You've essentially made it so that in order to promote a non-pilot MO has to go two quals higher than a pilot.

I don't claim this list was a product of deep contemplative thought.  It was more of a "for instance".

That said, MO->AOBD is a valid path as well, so it's only one qual for the MO to get to the same point as the MP.

[lordmonar]

Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

No - you asked what this thread was about.

Did not......I asked what problem we are trying to solve.  The problem is "inconsistent critera....based on....."
So the problem is that people with skills listed in the regs get a pass and others (you) don't.

What is the PROBLEM of giving people advanced promotions based on their skills?   Not...are those skills needed or do they use those skills.....what is the PROBLEM with giving people advanced promotions?

[RogueLeader]

Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

[JeffDG]

^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

Not bad....but how do the CP/AE/and non-ES types get rank?

Note, I predicated my "for instance" on that CP/AE could likely come up with a similar structure...my focus has been on ES, but maybe in AE, the Yeager gets you something, and perhaps some more types of awards (sorry, I don't know AE all that well).

[JeffDG]

Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

I'll be some time to become an MP (hours).  I did the route MS-MO-AOBD-PSC.  AOBD is one of the most fun jobs I've ever done!

Maybe put something intermediate at 1st Lt (like AP) and bump MO/MP to the same level...like I said, it was not a deeply thought out progression, just a top-of-my-head thought.

[Eclipse]

What is the PROBLEM of giving people advanced promotions based on their skills?   Not...are those skills needed or do they use those skills.....what is the PROBLEM with giving people advanced promotions?

The answer is in your question grasshopper.

People rarely appreciate anything which is "given".

Worse still, it impacts the morale of people who actually do something for you when they see how hard they had to work for something which is just "given" to others who seem to be part of some irrelevant, but empowered, club.

[Eclipse]

Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

Well, than that route is closed to you, look for something else.  I have no interest in flying an airplane, so it's the same argument for a different reason.

This is a 1/2 baked idea to reward members for actual performance.  We all know that in a performance-based system, people are never equal.

[RiverAux]

I wonder why people who wonder what a thread is about or why it was started just don't re-read the opening post that they responded to on the first day it was up?

[lordmonar]

What is the PROBLEM of giving people advanced promotions based on their skills?   Not...are those skills needed or do they use those skills.....what is the PROBLEM with giving people advanced promotions?

The answer is in your question grasshopper.

People rarely appreciate anything which is "given".

Worse still, it impacts the morale of people who actually do something for you when they see how hard they had to work for something which is just "given" to others who seem to be part of some irrelevant, but empowered, club.

Oh.....so it is about the social decline of America now.  Yes....we need to stop this now.  No advanced promotions....because someone may not appreciate it.   And again....those who had to WORK for it may get pissed.

Yep....called it a while ago,  Sour Grapes.

[RogueLeader]

Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

Well, than that route is closed to you, look for something else.  I have no interest in flying an airplane, so it's the same argument for a different reason.

This is a 1/2 baked idea to reward members for actual performance.  We all know that in a performance-based system, people are never equal.

No, it was just a question of skipping a grade. It was answered.  I just think that having 3 ways to promote is way too complicated. We have a hard time as it is.

[Eclipse]

Yep....called it a while ago,  Sour Grapes.

With your experience you have never seen the negative, counterproductive side of this issue?

It's one thing for people to abuse or "play" the system, you really believe that inconsistently rewarding volunteers as an organizational
policy is a good way to incentive performance?

The fact that it's not the #1 thing "broke", doesn't change the academic merits of the argument.

[lordmonar]

Until the rank thing is fix.....then it does not matter. 

I think that the few people like you who are bent because former cadets, former military officers, former Military SNCO, Pilots with advanced certs, doctors, EMTs, aircraft mechanics, CPAs, Educators and Lawyers.....get a meaning less promotion.....are off set by the recruiting value that advanced promotion brings.

I agree with RiverAux that if you are a Lt Col you should know a lot about CAP....and they should fill in the gap in a reasonable time.
I also agree that maybe we should look at the advanced promotion list and eliminate those skill catagories we don't need.

But you cannot say that CAP does not need CFIs.  You cannot say CAP does not need CPA's or AE educators.
The management of these members is up to the unit commanders.....if the Capt CFI does not do anything for your unit....then you demote him.  It is pretty simple.  But don't take away the tool because someone else does not know how to use it properly.

[Eclipse]

If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter period.   The argument that grade is meaningless in CAP, but is somehow an important
recruiting tool doesn't compute, in fact it's somewhat insulting to the potential member to offer them a perk on joining only for them
to find later that it doesn't mean anything.

We both know it does, in fact mean something, to everyone, even those who pretend it doesn't, and that's where the recruiting
value comes from, and in turn why everyone should have to earn it on a relatively even footing.

There is no "recruiting value" in signing up people who are given rewards but never perform. You're simply ignoring my comments to that effect.

Yes, we need experienced professionals to run our programs and grow our capabilities. We do not need people who join for the bling and
then never actually provide CAP any services related to their talent.

This is not about taking away a tool, this is about making the tool have real value.

[lordmonar]

This is not about taking away a tool, this is about making the tool have real value.

Then let's talk about that.  Because except for a couple of us....everyone is only talking about eliminating advanced promotions.
Only Short Field and I have suggested making those with advanced promotions to catch up.
You did have a good idea about making those who get advanced promotions for providing their skills to the organisation to somehow proove that.

Let's talk about that.

[RiverAux]

This is not about taking away a tool, this is about making the tool have real value.

Then let's talk about that.  Because except for a couple of us....everyone is only talking about eliminating advanced promotions.

Patrick, you've been around long enough that all of us in the last few pages of this thread have had numerous discussions about that issue and I'm sure we'll talk about them again.  There are many, many pieces of the puzzle to making the CAP professional development and grade system better, but the advanced promotion system just may be the easiest one to address and is the sole subject of this thread. 

[SARDOC]

Only Short Field and I have suggested making those with advanced promotions to catch up.

Instead of granting the promotion and having them "Catch Up",because frequently there is little incentive to do so, and it's harder to take something away after it's already been granted.  Would you think it was feasible to do what another poster stated earlier in the thread to just remove the TIG requirements for those eligible for advanced promotions?  For Example, a retired AF Lt. Col...Gets 2d Lt immediately finishing level 1, Capt when complete with Level 2 etc....All the way up to Lt. Col when they complete level 4?

[ZigZag911]

I'd frame the problem as ensuring that all CAP senior members share the same base knowledge about CAP, and build on that base as they progress through the program.

Perhaps the answer is to define "what does a 2 Lt. need to know? a captain? a major?" and proceed from there, determining what the best method is for getting those deserving advanced grade "caught up".

I still feel very strongly that one year's CAPs service ought to precede the granting of advanced rank, either as SMWOG or some sort of flight officer.

I also believe we ought to develop a mechanism for recognizing the service of military O-6s and general officers; perhaps their membership could be at National level, and their local involvement "ADY". Let them wear their earned grade, but make clear where they stand in the chain of command.

[lordmonar]

Only Short Field and I have suggested making those with advanced promotions to catch up.

Instead of granting the promotion and having them "Catch Up",because frequently there is little incentive to do so, and it's harder to take something away after it's already been granted.  Would you think it was feasible to do what another poster stated earlier in the thread to just remove the TIG requirements for those eligible for advanced promotions?  For Example, a retired AF Lt. Col...Gets 2d Lt immediately finishing level 1, Capt when complete with Level 2 etc....All the way up to Lt. Col when they complete level 4?

Sure that is a viable option.

[RiverAux]

Perhaps the answer is to define "what does a 2 Lt. need to know? a captain? a major?" and proceed from there,

We do that now through the current professional development program.   In order to move up you have to take various classes, demonstrate knowledge and/or successfully carry out programs at various levels of CAP.   It clearly lays out what a CAP Major should know and be able to do within the CAP program.

Lets just make everyone do it. 

[Spaceman3750]

While we're at it, let's give all Lt. Col. promotees a free consultation at Hair Club for Men - most of them could use it.