New NCO Promotion Regulations

[Eclipse]

As for Insanity to be wasting our time on.......of all the inane things to say on CAP TALK.....but I'll say it is my time to waste.....no one is asking you to do anything.

NHQ isn't on CT, this per project is, and it's a waste of every second that has been spent on it.

My time.

Your last post said there is a committee - that's not "your time", actually that's "our time", and should be spent
on matters that actually matter, not pet projects.

[ProdigalJim]

You are 30-50,000 member away from this being even a remote possibility, let alone a workable plan.

Or (Heresy Alert) consolidating squadrons so that we don't need 1,500 CCs if we really can only support 1,000...or 900...or whatever the number is. Part of why we have that syndrome is because we've committed to metastasis instead of growth. "Let's launch a new squadron!" Why, if Petticoat Junction Composite Squadron just down the road only has six senior members and everyone wearing 12 hats?

Consolidate squadrons so you have enough staff to do things the right way. Pick some staffing/manning number that's consistent with a mission objective (serve XX number of cadets/potential cadets per 1,000 minors in the AOR's population; crew 10 aircraft with five proficient and deployable crews each; support X number of middle-schools for external AE within a 10 mile or 15 mile, pick your distance, radius), and then decide how many members it takes to do those things. Do what you can reasonably do and promise your local/state/federal overseers...drop what you can't. Staff accordingly.

[JeffDG]

This looks to be an awful lot of effort to define a problem for a solution that has already been proposed.

Normally, it goes the other way around...find the problem first, then craft a solution.  Doesn't seem to be the case for this.  Seems they rushed a solution out because it was a priority for the previous CAP/CC without anyone actually enunciating what problem it was intended to solve.

[lordmonar]

As for Insanity to be wasting our time on.......of all the inane things to say on CAP TALK.....but I'll say it is my time to waste.....no one is asking you to do anything.

NHQ isn't on CT, this per project is, and it's a waste of every second that has been spent on it.

My time.

Your last post said there is a committee - that's not "your time", actually that's "our time", and should be spent
on matters that actually matter, not pet projects.

I was making a distinction between the NCO project.....which is my time as well....and my white paper taking on the enlisted thing, improving the officer corps and the eliminating/reducing the BS.   

And....."matters that actually matter" is determined a lot by point of view......creating an real NCO corps does matter, IMHO.  It will help us improve other things about CAP, its organization, training and effectiveness.  It will open the door to improve other aspects of CAP in the future.

That you don't see it....okay.....you are free to disagree.   You are free to write up your own white paper to address what you see as problems in CAP and submit them.   

You are free to punch wholes in my ideas all day....by all means do so...I like the input.   

But your whole "This is just a waste of time" argument is a non winner.   It's my time.   No one has suggested that you do anything at all.  No one is even suggesting that you even change what you are doing in CAP.    If the worst  you can say about my ideas or the CAP NCO program is that it's a waste of your time......I can live with that.

[ProdigalJim]

This looks to be an awful lot of effort to define a problem for a solution that has already been proposed.

Normally, it goes the other way around...find the problem first, then craft a solution.  Doesn't seem to be the case for this.  Seems they rushed a solution out because it was a priority for the previous CAP/CC without anyone actually enunciating what problem it was intended to solve.

At some level I don't disagree. I, too, believe it was a priority for the previous CC and thus went out quickly. I also believe it was brought out in the absence of a real problem towards which it was directed.

That said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

[Eclipse]

And....."matters that actually matter" is determined a lot by point of view......creating an real NCO corps does matter, IMHO. 

And that's the core of this - 100 some people, who happened to have a well-placed person who agreed, have set this in motion to
zero benefit and significant risk to the organization.

But your whole "This is just a waste of time" argument is a non winner. 

Unless you are the only person involved, it's not just "your time" - it's attention and resources taken
from the real problems CAP has.

[JeffDG]

This looks to be an awful lot of effort to define a problem for a solution that has already been proposed.

Normally, it goes the other way around...find the problem first, then craft a solution.  Doesn't seem to be the case for this.  Seems they rushed a solution out because it was a priority for the previous CAP/CC without anyone actually enunciating what problem it was intended to solve.

At some level I don't disagree. I, too, believe it was a priority for the previous CC and thus went out quickly. I also believe it was brought out in the absence of a real problem towards which it was directed.

That said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

None of which is remotely addressed by the NCO program as presented, or as envisioned by our lone-wolf here.

Personally, I'd say get rid of TIG altogether, and tie grade to the highest position held.  If you want TIG then make grade temporary for some length of time before it becomes permanent.  Then, when you see a "Major" walking around, you know they've held a leadership position in the organization, either now, or at some time in the past.

My proposal would start with the CAP/CC being a Major General.  Then each level down the org as the Commander you go, you get bumped down 1 grade, so Region is Brigadier, Wing is Colonel, Group is Lt Col and Squadron is Major.

Next, you take your "Command Staff" (Vice Commander, Deputy Commander, Chief of Staff) and they get 1 below the Commander, so CAP/CV Brigadier, Region, CV is a Col, Wing/CS is a Lt Col, Group Deputy Commander is a Major, Squadron CD is a Capt.

Next step is "Senior Staff"...basically if the Wing title is "Director of...".  They get 1 level below Command Staff.  So Squadron ESO (Wing is Director of Emergency Services) gets 1st Lt (Major - 2).  Wing DOS is a Major.

Then there's "Junior Staff", basically any other staff role.  One below Senior Staff...So Squadron ES Training Officer for example, 2nd Lt.  Wing is a Capt.

Assistants get 1 level below their "primary".  For multi-hatted, you take the highest grade, so if you're the Wing ESTO (Capt) and Group Deputy Commander (Maj), you get to be a Maj.

[Eclipse]

That said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

The biggest issue with CAP PD is that while it is presented and emphasized as being important, it's not
actually required for >anything< except progression, which is also not required for anything.

Slick-sleeve members are made wing-level staffers before their ID cards are dry, while at the same time
members who actually participate fully have their time and initiative wasted chasing down a conference
certificate, or being told "this or that doesn't count" because..."reasons"...the average member does about
two evolutions of that, realizes what a farce it is and disengages - it's only those with a bit more
tenacity, or who finally get to a position where they "know" that manage to press through.  It took me 18 months
before I got to an unlocked door, and I was close to giving up jiggling the handle.

The "fix" is an "all stop"  where members are required to "level-up" their PD commensurate with their
staff and echelon posting, or they are invited to step asiide, and that is just as ridiculous a suggestion
as the NCO program unless you increase member number by 2/3rds before you even start the "fix".

You need 2-3 years of new members with adjusted expectations before any initiatives like this can get traction.

[lordmonar]

And....."matters that actually matter" is determined a lot by point of view......creating an real NCO corps does matter, IMHO. 

And that's the core of this - 100 some people, who happened to have a well-placed person who agreed, have set this in motion to
zero benefit and significant risk to the organization.

But your whole "This is just a waste of time" argument is a non winner. 

Unless you are the only person involved, it's not just "your time" - it's attention and resources taken
from the real problems CAP has.

Again.....I see the benefit.......and wonder what significant risk you may be talking about.
Second....again you see real problems CAP has....I think this is a real problem.   I'm working on the one I think that I can actually make a difference on.    As for all the rest of the "real" problems you point out.....okay...maybe....maybe we (the NCO committee) are not working on them......Okay  guilty.  Are you working on them?   Are you doing ANYTHING for CAP other then sitting here on CAPTALK pointing out where all our faults are and pointing out where we are wasting our time?

It is my time to waste.  Until or unless I start making (that is requiring) the general membership to do anything am I then wasting YOUR or OUR time.   I mean I could say that those guys out there doing the day to day CAP stuff of running the CP program and doing AE presentations and training for ES are wasting their time as well...because they are not working of fixing the problems....they are just doing the work.   Just chugging awasy while CAP is in immediate danger of just falling apart. 

[Eclipse]

Again.....I see the benefit.......and wonder what significant risk you may be talking about.

The fact that anyone would suggest creating a caste system within a volunteer organization which already has
attrition, viability, and leadership issues and doesn't understand the risk, makes my point.

Are you doing ANYTHING for CAP other then sitting here on CAPTALK pointing out where all our faults are and pointing out where we are wasting our time?

Relevance to the issue?

Ad hominem is where people go when their actual point comes up short and they have no response.

[lordmonar]

That said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

The biggest issue with CAP PD is that while it is presented and emphasized as being important, it's not
actually required for >anything< except progression, which is also not required for anything.

Slick-sleeve members are made wing-level staffers before their ID cards are dry, while at the same time
members who actually participate fully have their time and initiative wasted chasing down a conference
certificate, or being told "this or that doesn't count" because..."reasons"...the average member does about
two evolutions of that, realizes what a farce it is and disengages - it's only those with a bit more
tenacity, or who finally get to a position where they "know" that manage to press through.  It took me 18 months
before I got to an unlocked door, and I was close to giving up jiggling the handle.

The "fix" is an "all stop"  where members are required to "level-up" their PD commensurate with their
staff and echelon posting, or they are invited to step asiide, and that is just as ridiculous a suggestion
as the NCO program unless you increase member number by 2/3rds before you even start the "fix".

You need 2-3 years of new members with adjusted expectations before any initiatives like this can get traction.

And see about 10 pages ago....where this is a long term idea.....no magic bullets in anyone's gun here.   No one suggested that the NCO program is fix all.   I'm not suggesting it is a fix all.  It can be a part of a partial fix of one of our many problems.   But in no way is it going to fix everything.

I'm just suggesting that you don't be one of those locked doors.....as they used to say at basic training Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[lordmonar]

Again.....I see the benefit.......and wonder what significant risk you may be talking about.

The fact that anyone would suggest creating a caste system within a volunteer organization which already has
attrition, viability, and leadership issues and doesn't understand the risk, makes my point.

That in and of itself shows that you don't understand anything about how the USAF system work.   

Are you doing ANYTHING for CAP other then sitting here on CAPTALK pointing out where all our faults are and pointing out where we are wasting our time?

Relevance to the issue?

Ad hominem is where people go when their actual point comes up short and they have no response.

The relevance is that you are attacking me for wasting my time....when I point out it is my time....you some how say no it is our time.....so I return the favor....how are you spending OUR time fixing the problems?   I will say that it is showing that I am taking this little argument a little too personally....so I've said what I wanted to say.....when I get the white paper a little more finished I'll post here for the usual round of "this is just a waste of time".....so until then.....Pat Out.

[Eclipse]

I'm just suggesting that you don't be one of those locked doors.....as they used to say at basic training Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Lead - that's funny...

[Eclipse]

That in and of itself shows that you don't understand anything about how the USAF system work.

So you're saying the NCO/Officer relationship is not a caste system specifically divided by duty into doers and managers?

Please, enlighten us.

[Eclipse]

The relevance is that you are attacking me for wasting my time....when I point out it is my time....you some how say no it is our time.....so I return the favor....how are you spending OUR time fixing the problems?

Again, missed the point.

Your time writing a white paper is your time to waste, however your time spent on a national committee focusing on trying to shoehorn
an NCO program into an already fully-baked and semi-functional organization >is< a waste of "our" time on a CAP level because
it takes attention and focus of national leadership away from actual CAP problems.

The idea that you're just "some guy" who is personally writing an unsolicited white paper that will get the same
"chain-of-command-submission" attention as anyone else in CAP is somewhat disingenuous, since, you know, you're sitting on,
and likely a leading voice within, the NCO Program committee.

[JeffDG]

The thing about the NCO program is, nobody has ever enunciated the "problem" is or quantified it in any meaningful way, let alone provided measurable ways that the NCO Program solves this mythical problem. They just say "There's obviously a problem" without ever actually saying what it is.  That's one of two common logical fallacies:  Begging the question or Proof by repeated assertion.

[ProdigalJim]

The thing about the NCO program is, nobody has ever enunciated the "problem" is or quantified it in any meaningful way, let alone provided measurable ways that the NCO Program solves this mythical problem. They just say "There's obviously a problem" without ever actually saying what it is.  That's one of two common logical fallacies:  Begging the question or Proof by repeated assertion.

From my limited perch, I see a problem (it may not be *the* problem) in that CAP shoehorns people into officer slots who really ought to be NCOs. An actual NCO program, with SMWOGs to lead, would be one step toward addressing this. If a person wants to be a GTL, or a radio operator, or an MSA, or a CP person, etc., etc., and do nothing more then why make them go through a program that results in their pinning on grade that leads others to expect things of them that are unwarranted? I think that's why you see a lot of people who stop right after Level 1. They are happy doing "their thing," whatever it is, and are uninterested in supervision or leadership in any way. And that's fine.

Properly executed, the NCO program would recognize the unstated reality we are already experiencing: the vast majority of those permanent 2nd Lt.s would be just as happy to be permanent SMs, SSGTs or whatever. They are more interested in advancing in their specialty than in grade. If we tied grade to responsibility, training and experience, then it would have more meaning.

And I remain concerned about the indoctrination/cultural issue I raised earlier. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we pin people with big time grade but don't prepare them to meet the expectations that kind of grade carries.

By the way, I jumped off the thread looking for your TIG proposal from a year and a half ago, only to find that you reposted it here. I agree with that approach, wholeheartedly. The only thing I would add is appropriate PD and specialty training to go along with those levels. I think NIN posted on it a year or two ago, that people at RSC shouldn't be learning how to "write a speech" or do close-order drill.

[Eclipse]

From my limited perch, I see a problem (it may not be *the* problem) in that CAP shoehorns people into officer slots who really ought to be NCOs. An actual NCO program, with SMWOGs to lead, would be one step toward addressing this. If a person wants to be a GTL, or a radio operator, or an MSA, or a CP person, etc., etc., and do nothing more then why make them go through a program that results in their pinning on grade that leads others to expect things of them that are unwarranted? I think that's why you see a lot of people who stop right after Level 1. They are happy doing "their thing," whatever it is, and are uninterested in supervision or leadership in any way. And that's fine.

Except that's only the way CAP works in someone's fantasy of a properly manned organization.

The reality is that the average member is a Mission Pilot (Captain), GTL (NCO), >and< a CP person (maybe NCSA director or staff) (1st Lt?). So you cut off your nose and limit what people can do without adding more people >FIRST<?

Further, how long does that GTL NCO stick around with few missions and little activity?  Today he's an encampment staffer or O-ride pilot on the down cycle.  In the above, he's just benched with nothing to do.

And how long do you thing people will stick around if they are forced to only do Admin or Logistics because they are Lts and ES is an enlistedman's game? Certainly there are a small number of people who join and never leave the back office, more power to them, but the majority of members see staff service as "payment" for access to interesting activities and unusual resources, etc.   

ORMS does not stir men's souls.

[ProdigalJim]

^^^^^^

All fair points. And I'll go back to what I said a few posts back...your nominal Mission Pilot/GTL/CP guy isn't wearing umpteen hats if his tiny six-person squadron gets merged with seven other tiny six-person squadrons in the immediate area. Now you've got 48 folks...enough to have one CC, one CDC, one CDS and so on.

I still see in my squadron a large number of people who are active and engaged, but utterly uninterested in moving beyond their present grade. The specialty excites them (except Logistics...  ) but the rest of it generates a big "meh." If they want to stay 2nd Lt.'s all their lives, why not give them a way to stay in a non-officer status.

I disagree that we're 30,000 members away from being able to pull this off -- we're 30K members away if we insist on continuing to have 1,600-plus "squadrons" when a large number of those units really ought to be flights. Consolidate, and now you can make this work with smaller numbers. It also makes JeffDG's officer-grade/billet system work better, too.

And we're pretty busy; we get called out on real-world SAR or missing-persons missions several times per year; we also do Fertile Keynote, counterdrug and other flying. Our GTs are part of those missing-persons searches, so they're busy too. Just this past year, we did the balloon search and the F-15 pilot search, plus if memory serves a disoriented person in the state forest (SARDOC, that was this past winter, right?). We'd love to be busier, but we're not dormant either.

[RiverAux]

Consolidation of "squadron" tasks won't actually get you very far in reducing work at the local level.  Sure, there are some squadron staff positions that are not at all necessary at that level, but don't eat up much time. 

For example, a squadron historian really doesn't have a lot of work to do and having someone in that slot doesn't really cost CAP much time.  Sure, if they actually do the job (a rarity), then they may spend 10-20 hours writing an annual history.  But, most of the year they're free to do as they please.  There are other jobs like that.

But, the jobs that actually take up a lot of CAP member time are going to have to be done at the local unit whether that unit is a flight or a squadron.  Someone at the local unit is going to be handling logistical work because there is stuff there that needs to be tracked, for example.