If you had the power to change the Civil Air Patrol, what would you change? For example would you change it structurally, change uniforms, change how we do business, shut it down, whatever. What would you change?
Or would you keep it the same and not change anything?
Thank you
It is likely a bad idea to include uniforms in that question.
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 01, 2015, 11:21:54 PM
If you had the power to change the Civil Air Patrol, what would you change? For example would you change it structurally, change uniforms, change how we do business, shut it down, whatever. What would you change?
Thank you
YES!
Who's got the popcorn?
Quote from: JC004 on May 01, 2015, 11:24:36 PM
It is likely a bad idea to include uniforms in that question.
Yes it is bad to include that but I want to know what people would do.
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 01, 2015, 11:30:36 PM
Who's got the popcorn?
GET YOUR Popcorn, soda, candy and chips get your t shirts your t-shirts here!
Drop the 3 missions bilge. CAP is a public service and education organization (two wings can fly too...)
Beef up the AE programs for Cadets and SM. The Yeager is a good start for SMs, but if it isn't being taught, it's just another thing to hang on the wall.
Go back to good old fashioned Civil Defense-type roles. The SAR business is dead to CAP. The locals don't trust the inconsistent training, and won't open the playground. The EM types recognize CAP as a good DR resource, but only in the most extreme incidents is the phone ringing. CD is a way to keep visible between DR missions and to keep contacts with EM types fresh.
Scrap all the nonsense about ranks. Adopt a USCGAux style system. Squadron commanders wear captains bars, group wears major, wing the eagles. After their time in office is done, the pin comes off, and they're Civil Airmen again....
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 01, 2015, 11:21:54 PM
If you had the power to change the Civil Air Patrol, what would you change? For example would you change it structurally, change uniforms, change how we do business, shut it down, whatever. What would you change?
Or would you keep it the same and not change anything?
Thank you
1. Get common access cards or equivalent to streamline base access and uniform ordering.
2. Get rid of the degree requirements for
all promotions and distance learning.
3. Get the SAR training normalized. This could be a thread in and of itself, and probably is 30 times already on these forums.
4. Reduce the amount of paperwork involved for activities.
5. Increase the amount of knowledge up front about activities.
6. Substitute the 5 year data destruction requirement for one that lets us keep relevant CAP cadet/SM info on file for historical purposes and hopeful eventual rejoining of CAP by former members.
7. For the love of Ghu, modernize our websites.
8. Add back Radiological Monitoring. (I like the badge, we can be useful to the EPA WRT taking readings near some superfund sites, and increasing knowledge about how radiation works is IMO important.)
9. Create a true domain/subdomain relationship of google apps to allow for proper information sharing between regions/wings without having to get a contact within that group to access documents/info.
10. Rebuild the OPSEC training.
11. Conduct UAV construction and flight training with local colleges and universities.
12. Identify and resolve bottlenecks to CAP involvement in local operations.
13. Expand cyberspace to be an actual 4th mission of CAP.
14. Figure out a way to get cadets into space. Partner with amazon?
15. Create a replica Stargate Alpha site for a SAR training location. Feature airsoft P90s and a Goa'uld invasion. I'm only half joking here.
These are my first thoughts. More later.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 12:14:17 AM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 01, 2015, 11:21:54 PM
If you had the power to change the Civil Air Patrol, what would you change? For example would you change it structurally, change uniforms, change how we do business, shut it down, whatever. What would you change?
Or would you keep it the same and not change anything?
Thank you
2. Get rid of the degree requirements for all promotions and distance learning.
Only thing I can think of like this is the restrictions on SOS, ACSC, and AWC. They're Air Force rules, not CAP. As for promotions, I know a wing commander who had little formal education beyond high school. What degree requirements?
Quote from: THRAWN on May 02, 2015, 12:25:42 AM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 12:14:17 AM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 01, 2015, 11:21:54 PM
If you had the power to change the Civil Air Patrol, what would you change? For example would you change it structurally, change uniforms, change how we do business, shut it down, whatever. What would you change?
Or would you keep it the same and not change anything?
Thank you
2. Get rid of the degree requirements for all promotions and distance learning.
Only thing I can think of like this is the restrictions on SOS, ACSC, and AWC. They're Air Force rules, not CAP. As for promotions, I know a wing commander who had little formal education beyond high school. What degree requirements?
Sometimes I type too fast.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 12:29:14 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 02, 2015, 12:25:42 AM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 12:14:17 AM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 01, 2015, 11:21:54 PM
If you had the power to change the Civil Air Patrol, what would you change? For example would you change it structurally, change uniforms, change how we do business, shut it down, whatever. What would you change?
Or would you keep it the same and not change anything?
Thank you
2. Get rid of the degree requirements for all promotions and distance learning.
Only thing I can think of like this is the restrictions on SOS, ACSC, and AWC. They're Air Force rules, not CAP. As for promotions, I know a wing commander who had little formal education beyond high school. What degree requirements?
Sometimes I type too fast.
Think before you speak or you'll find yourself patrolling the Romulan Neutral Zone...
I always think before I speak. Just not before I type.
Also, let me tell you about that last Neutral zone patrol. Scanners picked up a runabout flying at warp 5 for the Zone from Romulan space with 10 warbirds after it in hot pursuit. Something about illegal ale running...
Adopt a single set of uniforms (field, duty, "casual duty", and dress/class-A) that ALL Senior Members wear instead of the current hodgepodge of multi-forms.
Simply the grade structure. Senior Members not in command or selected staff positions are Flight or Warrant Officers 1-5, based on their current Professional Development level. Those in command or selected staff positions wear "regular" officer insignia based on their current job.
Try to get more airframes available for use.
Open up flight training programs for interested Senior Members.
Closer coordination with local/state SAR or ES agencies.
More opportunities for both cadets and SMs to train with our active duty cousins.
Eliminate a lot of the paperwork and pencil-pushing.
Okay....If I had the power to do anything.....with out having to deal with anyone else's objections or worry about things like the law, or physics:
1. Fix base access...where the CAP issued ID card was good enough.
2. Fix online access to AAFES Uniforms.
3. Reorg CAP where the current structure was embrased with a more realistic and logical model. (one region per FEMA region, one Wing per State, one group per 10 squadrons, one squadron per county......with enough flights, elements, detachments to accomplish the assigned missions).
4. Create OPLANS, Manning Documents, Table of Allowances, and Training Requirements for each unit...so unit commanders know exactly how they should man, train and equip their units to accomplished assigned missions.
5. One set of uniforms (or maybe two...one for cadets and one for seniors).
6. A logical unified promotion system that reflects our parent organization's values and our needs as a volunteer organization.
7. Flight Training for Seniors and cadets.
8. Integrate ES as a core part of the Cadet Program.
9. Regional Encampments that combine the ideas and models of our traditional encampments, NCSAs, and BSA summer camp.
10. Fix E-services to automate all or our record keeping requirements.
11. Centralized web hosting and document/record keeping and E-mail services.
Spend a significant amount of time developing a list of specific ES-missions that we want to focus our efforts on and write a strategy for ensuring that we are properly trained and equipped and have the operational processes necessary to carry out those missions.
For example, if we really don't have an interest in ground SAR, we should drop ground teams entirely. I think this is actually the only area of potential mission growth, but CAP has never shown to me that it really cares about this aspect of SAR. The other primary example is ground based disaster response operations -- is this something CAP wants to do or not? If so, we need a coherent concept of operations.
Then make relationship building with county and state agencies one of our top priorities. Perhaps even going so far as to require that Wings ensure that someone meets with the county sheriff and/or emergency manager in each county where we have a unit (and a decent percentage of counties where we don't) at least once a year to discuss our capabilities.
Eliminate the uniforms.
Get rid of quasi military rank. If it's that important resort to Star Trek color coded T shirts. (Remember gold shirts die first).
CAP is not Air Force Lite, quit trying to make it so. If it's that important join the AF Reserve or ANG.
CAP is not CG Aux, quit trying to compare the two.
Encourage closer ties between the Cadet Programs and the Scouting Programs, not JRROTC.
Senior training to be revamped more for DR and placed under opcon of the already established Emergency Services organization.
In short, the 1940's CAP is dead, it's time to bury it.
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on May 02, 2015, 12:18:03 PM
Eliminate the uniforms.
Get rid of quasi military rank. If it's that important resort to Star Trek color coded T shirts. (Remember gold shirts die first).
CAP is not Air Force Lite, quit trying to make it so. If it's that important join the AF Reserve or ANG.
CAP is not CG Aux, quit trying to compare the two.
Encourage closer ties between the Cadet Programs and the Scouting Programs, not JRROTC.
Senior training to be revamped more for DR and placed under opcon of the already established Emergency Services organization.
In short, the 1940's CAP is dead, it's time to bury it.
More specifically, I would say decide which they want to be. Stop the Aux on/Aux off crap.
If CAP is a military auxillary (even only "legally" when "on" orders) act like a military auxillary all the time.
-Military standards for uniform wear, promotion, NCO jobs, officer jobs, and airman jobs. Drop the colored patches, do whatever else makes it more like a volunteer military organization (more like a SDF but on a national scale)
If not, be a civilain organization that provides the missions they say they provide sans military-ism. Sort of a FEMA auxillary rather than an AF one. The down side is that I think this would kill the cadet program (at least in the numbers that it is: most cadets join for the JROTC-ness of the program, and if there wasnt a military affiliation/organizational structure to the senior side of CAP, I think it would be a confusing program) I am not sure if two seperate programs could exist within the same organization. a-A federally tasked SAR/DR/Comm program and b-an AF styled cadet trainnig program
I think that trying to be accomidating to everyone is what makes things complicated. Too afraid to loose members if they are more military; too afraid to loose the link to the AF if they become too civilian.
MK
I couldnt decide where to put this one, this thread or the "benefits" thread....here seemed more sense.
An inclusive uniform program- Everyone (cadet and senior) gets a basic working and "dress" uniform. With some sort of managable replacement program. Every volunteer fire dept or EMS agency I was ever at provided these things to their members, I dont know why CAP cant find a way to make that happen.
I would (in case someone is counting) also agree with a number of the above ideas, specifically:
common access card/base access/AAFES onine ordering
senior member flight training
Reginalized encampment/special type activities, more of a BSA type model
Closer working with the USAF in regards to supporting them as well as cadet "learning" activities (more akin to the Sea Cadet type of summer career programs)
MK
Reduce administrative processes and staffing requirements at squadron level...some of the more bureaucratic functions should be handled at higher headquarters. Our community level units should be focused on the program, training and missions, not paperwork.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 02, 2015, 06:23:24 PM
Reduce administrative processes and staffing requirements at squadron level...some of the more bureaucratic functions should be handled at higher headquarters. Our community level units should be focused on the program, training and missions, not paperwork.
Part of the problem on that is offloading paperwork to volunteers with no buy-in at the local level becomes difficult in my experience.
THough perhaps we could create a chairborne membership option for people that just want to do paperwork for everyone? :D
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
I know this shouldn't surprise me, but...
This happens?
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 03, 2015, 01:19:18 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
I know this shouldn't surprise me, but...
This happens?
Rarely, but yes.
I've been involved with CAP since 1986 and I've never heard anyone in CAP say they were in the Air Force. Unless they were in the Air Force. So fortunately I don't think you would be very busy.
I've heard cadets say it, but when you see a stringy short 13 or 14 year old saying that, it's kind of a no-brained.
I actually had heard 2nd hand about a guy at work making the claim....he had some line about how he was a flight crew member, who did counter drug work part of the time and did air force missions during time of war or disaster..... he never mentioned CAP specifically though; he didnt know I was a local squadron commander and I did eventually get the "story"....
I then dropped the bomb of "oh you mean you are in Civil Air Patrol?"; and had a little counseling session about being proud of what he did and shouldnt try to be vague and misleading about it or try to mis-represnt himself as a member of the military
It doesnt happen often, but it does happen
mk
In no particular order:
1. Complete overhaul of all regulations with the goal being the elimination/significant reduction in administrivia, particularly that related to flying activities. This includes complete overhaul of SUI process. Goal: minimum 25 - 30% reduction in non-value added crap tasks/paperwork.
2. Complete cultural overhaul with a shift away from the punitive environment that exists, particularly in re: flying activities (tied to #1)
3. Replace overly conservative legal counsel and bureaucracy at National level (ties to 1 and 2).
4. Upgrade technology to consistent professional level; this includes providing common cap.gov email address for all members (thus eliminating skyacesuperjock69@juno.com and other silliness). Provide updated website and social media templates (and mandate they be followed when creating an online presence) - i.e. Google Apps or similar
5. Get rid of the current PAO and the silly triangle nonsense; they are lost
6. Renewed focus on developing relationships with agencies and organizations at a National level with support down to the squadron level
7. Stop buying new aircraft for a couple years and purchase mission enhancing technology instead, such as aircraft mounted gimbal IR/imagiing (i.e. FLIR) devices, with a minimum of 2 per Wing. Other options include GPS messaging system, such as SPOT, to automate aircrew and ground team check-in locations...or utilize a tool, such as My Tracks with an automated overlay of Google Maps for real-time situational awareness of assets. Etc.
8. Develop cyber mission for cadets and seniors in conjunction with USAF
9. Develop UAV/drone program for cadets; replace model rocketry?
10. Increase focus on multi-Wing/Regional ES exercises, perhaps even National ES exercises; i.e. one CAP
I would create a better membership system that would allow members to do more than one year of dues. Maybe 2,3,4 years at a time. And it gets cheaper as you purchase more years.
^Was actually done a few years ago, but only about 100 members took advantage of the system. It would be nice if, however, we could have credit card automatic renewal. I understand it can be done with our management software, but...?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Double 2B them for USAFX or USAF AUX when used in lieu of CAP.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Quote from: DoubleSecret on May 03, 2015, 10:28:39 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Double 2B them for USAFX or USAF AUX when used in lieu of CAP.
These are both good ideas. I think it would be smart to establish some type of course to reeducate members that they are not in the military. And that they don't have the authorization to go around ordering military NCOs and officers as if they were in the military.
I think there should be some repercussions for doing this.
But in the end establishing a task force of some sort to eradicate this issue would be a waste of time and money.
(The ordering military officials around has happened multiple times that I have heard.)
There should be something for non members to:
a) tell people what CAP is
b) inform them we are not the military
It's really awkward when people confuse me for being in the military. I don't know why people would tell people that they're in the military.
Once this guy came up to me, with pants that were almost down to his feet. He pretended to salute me, and said "Hey yo sir," As you can probably tell from my name, I'm not a sir. I'm nowhere even close to a sir (A C/TSgt). All of that happened before he started digging through the trash... That was the first time something like that happened, but it wasn't the last.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 12:14:17 AM
8. Add back Radiological Monitoring. (I like the badge, we can be useful to the EPA WRT taking readings near some superfund sites, and increasing knowledge about how radiation works is IMO important.)
Once you've been through radiation worker training, your opinion may change on this. As relatively poorly equipped volunteers who already have issues maintaining SAR community standards of training, it would be extremely ill-advised from a risk standpoint to attempt to employ our members in hazmat/radiation worker specific incidents. Especially so considering that many of our members are the very young and the rather old (cadets and older senior members) who are biologically more at risk from injury due to ionizing radiation.
I get where you're coming from though, I crunched through the ground and ARM training when I was a cadet and then young senior member, and then started working around stuff professionally, and realized how far behind the times/behind the industry CAP tends to be. I even liked the badge...
Spam
Quote from: Airplane girl on May 04, 2015, 12:09:59 AM
There should be something for non members to:
a) tell people what CAP is
b) inform them we are not the military
It's really awkward when people confuse me for being in the military. I don't know why people would tell people that they're in the military.
Once this guy came up to me, with pants that were almost down to his feet. He pretended to salute me, and said "Hey yo sir," As you can probably tell from my name, I'm not a sir. I'm nowhere even close to a sir (A C/TSgt). All of that happened before he started digging through the trash... That was the first time something like that happened, but it wasn't the last.
I think a lot of members tend to say that they're in the military because the general public will accept somebody who's in a military uniform as if they are in the military.
I also believe a lot of members say they're in the military because it's easier to explain that they're in the military than to try to explain that there in the Civil Air Patrol as an easy way out vs. trying to rededicate the public.
Quote from: Spam on May 04, 2015, 12:20:22 AM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 12:14:17 AM
8. Add back Radiological Monitoring. (I like the badge, we can be useful to the EPA WRT taking readings near some superfund sites, and increasing knowledge about how radiation works is IMO important.)
Once you've been through radiation worker training, your opinion may change on this. As relatively poorly equipped volunteers who already have issues maintaining SAR community standards of training, it would be extremely ill-advised from a risk standpoint to attempt to employ our members in hazmat/radiation worker specific incidents. Especially so considering that many of our members are the very young and the rather old (cadets and older senior members) who are biologically more at risk from injury due to ionizing radiation.
I get where you're coming from though, I crunched through the ground and ARM training when I was a cadet and then young senior member, and then started working around stuff professionally, and realized how far behind the times/behind the industry CAP tends to be. I even liked the badge...
Spam
Well, remember that for the purpose of this thread, in my perfect world where I'm the Supreme Commander of the Civil Air Patrol, I already normalized and cleaned up our SAR standards and procedures.
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 03, 2015, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Quote from: DoubleSecret on May 03, 2015, 10:28:39 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Double 2B them for USAFX or USAF AUX when used in lieu of CAP.
These are both good ideas. I think it would be smart to establish some type of course to reeducate members that they are not in the military. And that they don't have the authorization to go around ordering military NCOs and officers as if they were in the military.
I think there should be some repercussions for doing this.
But in the end establishing a task force of some sort to eradicate this issue would be a waste of time and money.
(The ordering military officials around has happened multiple times that I have heard.)
What do you mean whe you say "...that I have heard?"
Are you saying that you have heard of specific instances wher it has happened? Or are you saying that you have heard other people saying that they heard of it?
I've been around CAP since 1967, at squadron, group and wing assignments, mostly at wing he. I've never heard of this happening where there was an actual name, date or reference attached to anything of the sort - it's all been "...that I heard" and has never tracked back to anything real.
Establish a " Paid Life Membership". The NEC actually approved this in May of 1991. Unfortunately it has never been implemented. Dr Dothrow keeps asking for fund raising and this would be perfect. Member pays $1000, At 5% interest their membership is paid every year. Upon their death-the original $1000 is still generating interest. If you have 1000 members who take advantage, plus another 100 per year, every year CAP would be collecting a minimum of $50,000/year.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 04, 2015, 04:13:52 AM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 03, 2015, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Quote from: DoubleSecret on May 03, 2015, 10:28:39 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 03, 2015, 12:36:12 AM
2b anyone who says they are in the Air Force/Military when asked about CAP.
Double 2B them for USAFX or USAF AUX when used in lieu of CAP.
These are both good ideas. I think it would be smart to establish some type of course to reeducate members that they are not in the military. And that they don't have the authorization to go around ordering military NCOs and officers as if they were in the military.
I think there should be some repercussions for doing this.
But in the end establishing a task force of some sort to eradicate this issue would be a waste of time and money.
(The ordering military officials around has happened multiple times that I have heard.)
What do you mean whe you say "...that I have heard?"
Are you saying that you have heard of specific instances wher it has happened? Or are you saying that you have heard other people saying that they heard of it?
I've been around CAP since 1967, at squadron, group and wing assignments, mostly at wing he. I've never heard of this happening where there was an actual name, date or reference attached to anything of the sort - it's all been "...that I heard" and has never tracked back to anything real.
I've heard other people tell me said story. As a second lieutenant when I heard the story so I assume that it must be true seeing how it came from higher ranking officers.
I was told that first lieutenant of Idaho wing was on an Air Force Base, an NCO walked by, didn't salute the first lieutenant ,forced that nco to salute him causing IDWG CAP not to be able to go to this particular Air Force Base. Whether this is true or not I don't know if it is this is very sad.
Quote from: MSG Mac on May 04, 2015, 06:29:24 AM
Establish a " Paid Life Membership". The NEC actually approved this in May of 1991. Unfortunately it has never been implemented. Dr Dothrow keeps asking for fund raising and this would be perfect. Member pays $1000, At 5% interest their membership is paid every year. Upon their death-the original $1000 is still generating interest. If you have 1000 members who take advantage, plus another 100 per year, every year CAP would be collecting a minimum of $50,000/year.
+1 This is actually a pretty good idea.
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 04, 2015, 02:58:54 PM
I was told that first lieutenant of Idaho wing was on an Air Force Base, an NCO walked by, didn't salute the first lieutenant ,forced that nco to salute him causing IDWG CAP not to be able to go to this particular Air Force Base. Whether this is true or not I don't know if it is this is very sad.
Many of these 'trolling for salutes' stories are apocryphal. Yes, some have happened but this may have been the 'straw that broke the camel's back' regarding CAP access to the base. The base commander is the ultimate authority on who sets foot on their installation. Some of the abuses that have put us in the doghouse with Ma Blue:
Abuse of exchange privileges - you are allowed to purchase military clothing, gasoline and sundries at the Express (except for booze and tobacco) and eat at the AAFES-themed restaurants (Burger King, Popeye's, Subway, etc.) You are not allowed purchases at the main exchange unless you have a military support authorization (MSA) letter while occupying government quarters on base.
Speeding and parking tickets on base.
Poor wear of the uniform.
Security violations.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 11:01:29 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 02, 2015, 06:23:24 PM
Reduce administrative processes and staffing requirements at squadron level...some of the more bureaucratic functions should be handled at higher headquarters. Our community level units should be focused on the program, training and missions, not paperwork.
Part of the problem on that is offloading paperwork to volunteers with no buy-in at the local level becomes difficult in my experience.
THough perhaps we could create a chairborne membership option for people that just want to do paperwork for everyone? :D
My point is to get as much paperwork as possible OFF local level, move to higher echelons which, presumably, have more experienced people.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 04, 2015, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 11:01:29 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 02, 2015, 06:23:24 PM
Reduce administrative processes and staffing requirements at squadron level...some of the more bureaucratic functions should be handled at higher headquarters. Our community level units should be focused on the program, training and missions, not paperwork.
Part of the problem on that is offloading paperwork to volunteers with no buy-in at the local level becomes difficult in my experience.
THough perhaps we could create a chairborne membership option for people that just want to do paperwork for everyone? :D
My point is to get as much paperwork as possible OFF local level, move to higher echelons which, presumably, have more experienced people.
Yes, and when those people later go inactive you have to get a new person in there who no longer even has the experience of pushing paper at the squadron level.
Also, how would you like to fail a SUI because someone not even local to you screwed up the paperwork?
There are a lot of reasons to do things the way they currently are.
Now if the paperwork was done by paid people, that might be a different story.
Speaking of speeding and parking tickets...
When I lived in Rockland County, NY and before my second iteration on CAP I used to go to West Point to see Retreat. One time I drove too far, wanted to do an u-turn. Did not see there was a yellow line... and one of those guys saw me. He yelled at me, "dont you see a yellow line there?" I told him that time was my first visit and did not see the line. It was true as it was faint. He could still have fined me as the turn I made put me towards his direction and he was in his patrol car. He let me go.
However I saw how relentless those guys are with infractions.
In the afternoon retreat call, drivers would park within 70 feet from the flagstaff and in front of where the Corps of Cadets would march. That area is not for parking, and is marked so. The MPs there, who were/are? the ones that posted the Flag during Revellie and removed It during Retreat, would show up 15 minutes before. And had a field day ticketing cars! Like sharks... Not one would escape them. Other times they were always stoping infractors.
After I joined CAP on my second iteration but before 9/11 I was there so often the guards at the gate would wave me through. I had a CAP license plate, and the CAP seal on my bumper. Other cars were inspected very meticulously, even when the alerts went up. After 9/11 I never tried entering into West Point.
If the paperwork was done at a higher level, that HQ would be the one responsible during inspection.
What I'm really talking about is re-structuring the squadron staff to better reflect what is actually needed there.
I would move finance, admin, personnel, professional development and flight operations entirely to wing or group level.
If a local unit had aircraft, a unit member would be assigned as an ADY assistant ops officer at the higher echelon to look after flying matters...much the way assistant IGs at groups are actually assigned to the wing.
Command, safety, cadet programs, testing, public affairs, supply would continue to be local functions...that is, those areas that actually, directly concern running the program.
This is just a first draft of the concept...obviously it needs further development...but the reality is that few CAP squadrons can actually effectively mirror a USAF squadron or group level staff. Let's address that, practically.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 04, 2015, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 02, 2015, 11:01:29 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 02, 2015, 06:23:24 PM
Reduce administrative processes and staffing requirements at squadron level...some of the more bureaucratic functions should be handled at higher headquarters. Our community level units should be focused on the program, training and missions, not paperwork.
Part of the problem on that is offloading paperwork to volunteers with no buy-in at the local level becomes difficult in my experience.
THough perhaps we could create a chairborne membership option for people that just want to do paperwork for everyone? :D
My point is to get as much paperwork as possible OFF local level, move to higher echelons which, presumably, have more experienced people.
I agree. We have too many administrative burdens at the unit level. In fact, many (most?) units are not even fully manned to run all these staff functions. No wonder we have members with 3-5 duty assignments. The sad part is that some think this is normal. Not only that, some of these members also work at the group or wing level.
Why do we have so many duplication of efforts at the unit, group, wing and region levels? Instead of higher headquarters alleviating the burden from lower headquarters, we just have additional layers of bureaucracy at each level. I think we need to empower units and lower level headquarters and remove those staff functions that must be performed at higher headquarters. Not every staff assignment needs to be perform at the unit level. Some of those could be consolidated at the group or wing levels.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 04, 2015, 06:37:34 PM
If the paperwork was done at a higher level, that HQ would be the one responsible during inspection.
What I'm really talking about is re-structuring the squadron staff to better reflect what is actually needed there.
I would move finance, admin, personnel, professional development and flight operations entirely to wing or group level.
If a local unit had aircraft, a unit member would be assigned as an ADY assistant ops officer at the higher echelon to look after flying matters...much the way assistant IGs at groups are actually assigned to the wing.
Command, safety, cadet programs, testing, public affairs, supply would continue to be local functions...that is, those areas that actually, directly concern running the program.
This is just a first draft of the concept...obviously it needs further development...but the reality is that few CAP squadrons can actually effectively mirror a USAF squadron or group level staff. Let's address that, practically.
So under your system, would the finance committee far away have authorization to deny local requests for funds disbursement?
When someone needs to be promoted to group level finance officer, and your selection pool is a series of SMs that have never done squadron level finance, do you simply hope that your applicant is capable of running the paperwork for 2-8 squadrons by just jumping in?
Now I'm not the biggest fan of red tape, and my POV is colored by the fact that I've never been with a squadron that had fewer people than available duty positions, so I acknowledge I don't know all the problems of running a small squadron. But I've seen our local "paperwork" officers (I'm not sure how you can put PD and flight in that category though, but perhaps that is also different for smaller squadrons) and they are integral to making our squadron better.
The diversity of jobs available also in fact helps get new members skin in the game IMO. When you look at the entire list of positions and compare that to what a person coming in might be capable of fulfulling, generally a volunteer can bring at least one of those skillsets to the table, and eventually, people currently in postings can rotate to other jobs.
I'll reiterate that if we somehow pay these people money I can see changing things to allow for kicking some of these tasks upstairs. But as an example, I'm a squadron IT officer. I coach a cyberpatriot team and work on updating our website to get it out of the 90's. If I was at the group level and I was the only IT guy? I'd probably consider a vacation from CAP. Overloading volunteers not local to squadrons with the paperwork of multiple squadrons is asking for mass desertion.
NOTE: I get this is the wish thread, and I'm trying to tie you down for details. I'm used to the system working as intended at the 2 squadrons I've been a part of, so if you can shed light on the small squadron + no plane experience, I'm all ears.
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20150504_143642.jpg)
Name removed to protect the guilty...
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 04, 2015, 07:39:08 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20150504_143642.jpg)
Name removed to protect the guilty...
Tisk tisk... that's a shame.
But I think you mean innocent. Because they'd be considered innocent until proven guilty. Am I right.
The preponderance of available evidence is a presumption of guilt. It would be almost impossible to argue that the poster is not exhibiting moronic behaviour.
Starting with "their"...
Regardless what you say Civil Air Patrol is still United States Air Force Auxiliary. It's on every members ID and on our Seal. Say Civil Air Patrol and most people do not know what your talking about. But, if you say your a member of the Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol they understand.
Quote from: CAP_truth on May 05, 2015, 06:10:10 PM
Regardless what you say Civil Air Patrol is still United States Air Force Auxiliary. It's on every members ID and on our Seal. Say Civil Air Patrol and most people do not know what your talking about. But, if you say your a member of the Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol they understand.
They think they understand.
But I find that if they don't know what CAP is, telling them you are in the Civil Air Patrol opens up a lot of opportunity to explain exactly what it is that we are and what we do.
Heck, I might actually get that recruiting ribbon one of these days because of it. :D
"Why can't you meet me on Monday evening?"
"I have a previous commitment, I'm in the Civil Air Patrol."
"And what is that?"
"It's a non-profit funded by the government to promote emergency services, aerospace education, and cadet programs for the youth and general public."
"Why does the government fund it? Did you say "Cadets?""
"Well, as we are the civilian auxiliary of the USAF, it behooves them to make sure we have the tools we need to accomplish our mission. Founded shortly before the Pearl Harbor attacks, since then we've been involved in various aspects of civil defense and emergency support by flying prop aircraft and deploying ground teams as needed."
"Do we really need that today? I thought we had FEMA for that? And what can you do that the AF can't?"
"Well, with the advancement of GPS, we have a lot less search and rescue for individuals, but we also now need to prepare for much larger events that occur with much less frequency. Think of things like major hurricanes like Katrina. And when it comes right down to it, the coolest thing we do right now that the AF can't is provide cheap training for Predator drone pilots."
"Wait, what?"
"Yeah, we mount a sensor ball on a prop aircraft and a drone pilot trainee sends commands to the pilot, and the pilot mimics the action. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but as you can guess, flying our aircraft and keeping real pilots in control in case the ground trainee makes a mistake is far cheaper than losing a multi-million dollar drone."
"Wow, I didn't even think of that."
"We get to do lots of cool stuff like that. My local squadron has never done that, specifically, but we did once put all of our cadets on a C-130 flight. They thought that was pretty awesome."
"So, can I come along and see one of your meetings?"
"Sure, let me just let our squadron commander know that you'll be coming along and I'll let you know what the best day is to show up."
(Set up day to be something beyond the norm. AE competition, Color Guard presentation in the squad room, planning day to assist a major upcoming event, etc.) (While this isn't required, it definitely tends to provoke interest in the attendee.)
Quote from: CAP_truth on May 05, 2015, 06:10:10 PM
Regardless what you say Civil Air Patrol is still United States Air Force Auxiliary. It's on every members ID and on our Seal. Say Civil Air Patrol and most people do not know what your talking about. But, if you say your a member of the Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol they understand.
Agreed. But we're Civil Air Patrol - the USAF Auxiliary. Those who prefer to use the latter seem to think it makes them seem cooler by confusing a person to think they have some direct relationship to the AF.
We do have a direct relationship with the USAF. We are their auxiliary.
Huh :)
Quote from: AFPD 10-27Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 9442, CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of CAP are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
Quote from: AFI 10-2701CAP is a federally supported, congressionally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force.
Quote from: AFI 10-2702As a nonprofit corporation, CAP has a unique relationship with the Air Force. As set forth in 10 U.S.C. 9442, CAP is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of CAP to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Air Force.
Quote from: CAP Constitution & BylawsCivil Air Patrol is a private, nonprofit corporation chartered under special Act of Congress, 36 USC §§ 40301 - 40307, which sets forth the purposes, rights, and duties of the Civil Air Patrol.
Quote from: CAP Constitution & BylawsThe name of the Corporation shall be "Civil Air Patrol" and its status is that of the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Corporation may also be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol" or by such other titles as may be approved in the Bylaws.
Quote from: CAPR 20-1Civil Air Patrol (CAP) was established 1 December 1941 and is a private, nonprofit organization of a benevolent character, and incorporated by the United States Congress on 1 July 1946 (36 USC 40301- 40307) and its status and governing body are defined by 10 USC Chapter 909.
Quote from: CAPR 20-1The Congress codified that status declaring CAP as the official Auxiliary of the newly created United States Air Force on 26 May 1948 by a law frequently referred to as the CAP Supply Bill (10 USC 9441). In 2000, Congress codified CAP's status as an auxiliary of the Air Force when it is performing a mission for a "department or agency in any branch of the Federal government".
Just give me a straight answer here. We are or we are not the Air Force auxiliary? Because I'm getting mixed signals here.
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Just give me a straight answer here. We are or we are not the Air Force auxiliary? Because I'm getting mixed signals here.
Yes:
Quote from: AFPD 10-27Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 9442, CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of CAP are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
Quote from: AFI 10-2701CAP is a federally supported, congressionally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force.
Quote from: AFI 10-2702As a nonprofit corporation, CAP has a unique relationship with the Air Force. As set forth in 10 U.S.C. 9442, CAP is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of CAP to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Air Force.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 06, 2015, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Just give me a straight answer here. We are or we are not the Air Force auxiliary? Because I'm getting mixed signals here.
Yes:
Quote from: AFPD 10-27Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 9442, CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of CAP are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
Quote from: AFI 10-2701CAP is a federally supported, congressionally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force.
Quote from: AFI 10-2702As a nonprofit corporation, CAP has a unique relationship with the Air Force. As set forth in 10 U.S.C. 9442, CAP is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of CAP to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Air Force.
Thank you. Another straight answer. So if somebody said that they were in the Air Force auxiliary this would be a truism?
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 01:33:46 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on May 06, 2015, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Just give me a straight answer here. We are or we are not the Air Force auxiliary? Because I'm getting mixed signals here.
Yes:
Quote from: AFPD 10-27Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 9442, CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of CAP are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
Quote from: AFI 10-2701CAP is a federally supported, congressionally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force.
Quote from: AFI 10-2702As a nonprofit corporation, CAP has a unique relationship with the Air Force. As set forth in 10 U.S.C. 9442, CAP is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of CAP to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Air Force.
Thank you. Another straight answer. So if somebody said that they were in the Air Force auxiliary this would be a truism?
According to the CAP Constitution, Article II, the name of the corporation is Civil Air Patrol. Its status is that of the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. As such, it's not incorrect to say we're in the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary (referring to our organization by its status), but it's more appropriate to say we're in the Civil Air Patrol, which is the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.
Sorry, but I can't give you a straighter answer that this without venturing into interpretation and opinions.
CAP is not a USAF Auxiliary all the time.
The law is pretty clear on that matter:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/9442 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/9442)
Quote(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
Note the part of "when..."
When you go to a unit meeting, you're not in Auxiliary status. When you are at a Wing/Region/National conference, not Aux.
When you are flying on a C12 proficiency flight, not Aux. Only on an A or B mission symbol (AFAMs). All work CAP does for the federal government is done on either an A (AF paid) or B (someone else pays) status and approved by CAP-USAF.
This is hair splitting here.
But the CP.....PRO Flights.....doing the admin work.....going to conferences......is all part of the back end infrasturute.....of doing the A and B missions.
WE ARE ALWAYS THE AXILLARY.....but sometimes we are not "instruments of government".
This is semantics I know....but important semantics.
Thank you. But you all definitely see why there would be mixed signals here, right. Some people say yes some people say no.
But how about I say this: We are, but we're not, but technically we are.
Why don't we all just agree to disagree.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 06, 2015, 02:30:30 PM
This is hair splitting here.
But the CP.....PRO Flights.....doing the admin work.....going to conferences......is all part of the back end infrasturute.....of doing the A and B missions.
WE ARE ALWAYS THE AXILLARY.....but sometimes we are not "instruments of government".
This is semantics I know....but important semantics.
You may think that, but the law is clear. The law says we are only aux "when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."
The part after the when is important. And you're right, it's legal, and the law is all about semantics.
If you think this is wrong, talk to you Congressman, because that's who can change it.
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 03:07:15 PM
Thank you. But you all definitely see why there would be mixed signals here, right. Some people say yes some people say no.
But how about I say this: We are, but we're not, but technically we are.
Why don't we all just agree to disagree.
Some people react emotionally, some people cite the clear language of the United States Code Annotated.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 06, 2015, 03:44:57 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 06, 2015, 02:30:30 PM
This is hair splitting here.
But the CP.....PRO Flights.....doing the admin work.....going to conferences......is all part of the back end infrasturute.....of doing the A and B missions.
WE ARE ALWAYS THE AXILLARY.....but sometimes we are not "instruments of government".
This is semantics I know....but important semantics.
You may think that, but the law is clear. The law says we are only aux "when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."
The part after the when is important. And you're right, it's legal, and the law is all about semantics.
If you think this is wrong, talk to you Congressman, because that's who can change it.
The law is very clear; CAP is always acting as "an" auxiliary of the Air Force. CAP members (or most subordinate units), however are not, except "when performing missions for any branch of the federal government...."
Now, that is hair splitting... >:D
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 03:07:15 PM
Thank you. But you all definitely see why there would be mixed signals here, right. Some people say yes some people say no.
But how about I say this: We are, but we're not, but technically we are.
Why don't we all just agree to disagree.
You really want to try and justify using that, don't you?
Why don't you just identify based on what it says on your uniform?
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Just give me a straight answer here. We are or we are not the Air Force auxiliary? Because I'm getting mixed signals here.
Here is a better question. Why do you want to refer to yourself as being in an organization by the status of the organization (volunteer civilian auxiliary) instead of its name?
Is it just name recognition? This is a self-perpetuating problem if no one ever uses the proper name of the organization.
Is it just that USAFA sounds cooler? Ok, I can admit that. But it still isn't our proper name.
Civil Air Patrol. Says so right on the top of my membership card. Flip it over, it has the CAP mission statement on it.
Flip it back over. Look right underneath our name.
That is our status right there. United States Air Force Auxiliary. Be proud of that. But be proud of our name too. It isn't something to hide in the shadows.
I'm genuinely unclear about what our official CAP position is on whether we are or are not. I think I understand the language in USC and would tend to interpret it along the lines that JeffDG does. However, we have been directed to include USAF Auxiliary in our signature blocks and it's a part of our official seal.
So back on topic, one thing I would change about CAP is the lack of clarity in some of our official messaging, branding, and directives.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 06, 2015, 04:18:22 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 03:07:15 PM
Thank you. But you all definitely see why there would be mixed signals here, right. Some people say yes some people say no.
But how about I say this: We are, but we're not, but technically we are.
Why don't we all just agree to disagree.
You really want to try and justify using that, don't you?
Why don't you just identify based on what it says on your uniform?
What about my ID card it says United States Air Force Auxiliary on it too.
Anyways, this is completely way, way, way off topic from the original post which was "if you had the power to change the CAP what would you change?" Etc... NOT if the Civil Air Patrol is the United States Air Force Auxiliary.
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 05:14:42 PM
Anyways, this is completely way, way, way off topic from the original post which was "if you had the power to change the CAP what would you change?" Etc... NOT if the Civil Air Patrol is the United States Air Force Auxiliary.
This stemmed from my comment about 2Bing posers.
Mr. Burton, I think this forum would be better served if you, and others, would spend less time positing "what ifs", and more time addressing real issues in CAP.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 06, 2015, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 05:14:42 PM
Anyways, this is completely way, way, way off topic from the original post which was "if you had the power to change the CAP what would you change?" Etc... NOT if the Civil Air Patrol is the United States Air Force Auxiliary.
This stemmed from my comment about 2Bing posers.
Yes I understand that thank you. You made your point. We commented on your point. I'm telling the rest of this forum to get on with it. Now let's get on with the original post. We're at page and a half plus about if we are the Air Force auxiliary or not. If wanted to post about are we in the Air Force auxiliary or not I would have done that. Capt Hatkevich this isn't directed towards you, it's directed to everybody. I'll start.
I think we should revamp the counter drug orientation and refresher course. the fact that it's not compatible with all browsers is ridiculous it also looks very outdated.
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 06, 2015, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 05:14:42 PM
Anyways, this is completely way, way, way off topic from the original post which was "if you had the power to change the CAP what would you change?" Etc... NOT if the Civil Air Patrol is the United States Air Force Auxiliary.
This stemmed from my comment about 2Bing posers.
Yes I understand that thank you. You made your point. We commented on your point. I'm telling the rest of this forum to get on with it. Now let's get on with the original post. We're at page and a half plus about if we are the Air Force auxiliary or not. If wanted to post about are we in the Air Force auxiliary or not I would have done that. Capt Hatkevich this isn't directed towards you, it's directed to everybody. I'll start.
I think we should revamp the counter drug orientation and refresher course. the fact that it's not compatible with all browsers is ridiculous it also looks very outdated.
Is there a goal here in mind? Is it post count, or quality ideas? Or what?
As a cadet, I would like to enforce a summer uniform with shorter sleeves, especially for squadrons in humid and hot areas.
I also have a question:
How do you create a post for the CAP Talk forum on TapaTalk?
Quote from: CadetRMackey on May 06, 2015, 05:48:54 PM
As a cadet, I would like to enforce a summer uniform with shorter sleeves, especially for squadrons in humid and hot areas.
I also have a question:
How do you create a post for the CAP Talk forum on TapaTalk?
Click on CAP Talk ^ at the top center of the screen. Select the appropriate forum. Click on the ... on the top right corner, then click on the New Topic icon.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 06, 2015, 05:40:02 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 06, 2015, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on May 06, 2015, 05:14:42 PM
Anyways, this is completely way, way, way off topic from the original post which was "if you had the power to change the CAP what would you change?" Etc... NOT if the Civil Air Patrol is the United States Air Force Auxiliary.
This stemmed from my comment about 2Bing posers.
Yes I understand that thank you. You made your point. We commented on your point. I'm telling the rest of this forum to get on with it. Now let's get on with the original post. We're at page and a half plus about if we are the Air Force auxiliary or not. If wanted to post about are we in the Air Force auxiliary or not I would have done that. Capt Hatkevich this isn't directed towards you, it's directed to everybody. I'll start.
I think we should revamp the counter drug orientation and refresher course. the fact that it's not compatible with all browsers is ridiculous it also looks very outdated.
Is there a goal here in mind? Is it post count, or quality ideas? Or what?
I'm just using the tools that are available to ask questions and to receive answers and comments nothing about post count or anything else. Just information.
Then why limit the direction?
Well without naval-gazing too much on this penultimate CAPTALK topic, I would flatten the organization! Technology and the number of contributing members does not necessate the expanded hierarchy. Eliminate two echelons. I am pretty sure you could secretly eliminate the Region level and the Group level and no one would notice?
I would also require one and only one duty assignment. It is a tad ridiculous to read some people's signature blocks when they include all their duty assignements like the Squadron Waffle Press Cleaning Officer, the Group Assistance Maple Syrup Tasting Officer and the Wing Director of Griddle Procurement. There is either a problem recruiting able body members to fill all the required jobs or there are too many superfluous jobs.
Oh, and bring back the Guayabera shirt.
QuoteFrom Mr. Hartigan.
Well without navalnavel-gazing... FTFY
Naval, pertainining to ships. Navel, that little hole in the middle of your abdomen. The expression itself is navel-gazing.
Quote from: Robert Hartigan on May 07, 2015, 03:40:59 AM
Well without naval-gazing too much on this penultimate CAPTALK topic, I would flatten the organization! Technology and the number of contributing members does not necessate the expanded hierarchy. Eliminate two echelons. I am pretty sure you could secretly eliminate the Region level and the Group level and no one would notice?
Non-concur. Both Regions and Groups exist to make span-of-control manageable. "Technology" often makes Span-of-control more difficult, not less.
If you did this, the National Commander would have 52 Wing Commanders reporting directly to him. That's simply not a manageable span-of-control for anyone, regardless of the technology. Some wings would have a worse situation, with more squadrons than that sans groups. A Wing Commander, per CAPR 20-1, already has 7 people as direct reports (CV, CS, SE, JA, IG, GR, plus the Wing Admin).
I don't think the problem is so much the current organizational structure, which is needed for an appropriate span of control, but the bureaucracy and convoluted approval process for some things. It doesn't help that every level wants to issue their own set of rules or policies beyond what's in the national regulations.
We also need to streamline many staff functions at the lower levels. We're just not manned to support so many staff functions, hence why most contributing members have between 3-5 duty assignments.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 07, 2015, 02:22:14 PM
We also need to streamline many staff functions at the lower levels. We're just not manned to support so many staff functions, hence why most contributing members have between 3-5 duty assignments.
I would like to hear your thoughts about which ones and how. However, that is not to say that I disagree with you. It annoys me when a squadron assigns a member as the unit historian and then when I contact that person, he/she either does not know he/she was or have no real desire to serve in that position.
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, sometimes a person is given a Duty Assignment, then no OTJ. People sometimes don't even know where to look on CAP Members etc etc etc. CAP E-Services is so user friendly, note hint of sarcasm. We also assume that everybody in a Squadron has equal access to internet, in many rural areas this is not the case.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on May 07, 2015, 04:18:27 PM
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, sometimes a person is given a Duty Assignment, then no OTJ. People sometimes don't even know where to look on CAP Members etc etc etc. CAP E-Services is so user friendly, note hint of sarcasm. We also assume that everybody in a Squadron has equal access to internet, in many rural areas this is not the case.
Ah, thank you for reminding me:
Wish list, continued:
16. Make eServices and all CAP websites more user friendly.
17. Create supplemental workflows for all jobs outlined in regulations.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on May 07, 2015, 04:18:27 PM
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, sometimes a person is given a Duty Assignment, then no OTJ.
No devil's advocate. It happens all of the time. However, not knowing you were assigned as well as not having the desire to serve in that position are not the result of no OJT.
Very true, I concur. Better communication and a solution for dealing with "ghost members" would be on my wish list. But that is unit level usually not a CAP issue.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 07, 2015, 12:30:39 PM
If you did this, the National Commander would have 52 Wing Commanders reporting directly to him. That's simply not a manageable span-of-control for anyone, regardless of the technology. Some wings would have a worse situation, with more squadrons than that sans groups. A Wing Commander, per CAPR 20-1, already has 7 people as direct reports (CV, CS, SE, JA, IG, GR, plus the Wing Admin).
You assume you need a wing in every state! There are squadrons in Florida that have more non safety current members than some wings have total members (and for those that are driven to focus only on the most trivial of items like a misplaced vowel this claim might be an exaggeration for illustrative purposes only). I am pretty sure Rhode Island would work just fine as a squadron. I contend you could eliminate state driven wings and go more along the lines of a regional wing structure. For example, Great Lakes Wing. One of the many benefits would be cost savings and it would short circuit a lot of political jockeying that plagues the organization.
Robert,
It is certainly reasonable to work towards a system where the "wing-equivalent" units are roughly the same size in terms of membership / units/ or operational responsibilities.
The roadblock, however, is the significant funding that some wings receive from state governments. I don't have the latest financial report in front of me, but as I recall it amounts to many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
For example, the State of California is much more likely to generously support California Wing rather than something named Northern Sierra Wing. Even if a Northern Sierra Wing might otherwise make sense to cover the mountainous but lightly populated areas of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Politically, state and local governments will not financially support efforts that might occur outside their jurisdictions.
So until and unless we can find hundreds of thousands of dollars in replacement funds, we will just have to make the "state=wing" model work. Which it has, of course, for the last 70 years or so.
Now, we are at the center of the issue. It is money not span of control. If it is money, then let California Wing stay California Wing. Maybe that is the justification for a wing structures? If your state provides money then you are a wing. If you only get funny license plates then, you are not a wing, you are a Group. Since the National governance structure has changed the whole voting argument is no longer applicable. The only thing left is money. Flatten the org chart. If you want to be a Full Bird Colonel in CAP then get your state to cough up money and you can be a wing commander.
^ Robert, that is a good point. After all, the BSA makes "promotions" based on how much cash you bring into the organization. Kind of solves two "Bird (cols.) with one stone... >:D
Oh goody, we can go full circle and start selling commissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_army)!
The Confederacy did that....didn't work out well. They also elected their officers. You can't lead and try to win a popularity contest.
Many Northern militias did elect too... And it worked for them.
What do ya mean?
This is about to go so far off topic, even for CAP Talk. But here we go. Selling promotions should never even be considered when integrity and respect are at stake.
Now back to the Civil War reference. The North would have won the War regardless. They had he newly arrived immigrant population to fill the ranks as soldiers ere killed. They also had the entire North American Manufacturing Center. Then they locked up the South's harbors. The only the thing the South has was agriculture and the best military minds of the time.
Did I hear.. Wing Director of Griddle Procurement.
Now that's a job I want to hear more about.
Now you are talkin'! It was not selling commissions or electing officers that did in the Confederacy but the other reasons you stated!
I beg to differ. My first stated reasons are the primary reasons the South lost. But there were also many other issues. You had ranks filled with "gentlemen" that refused to take orders from those they considered beneath them. They also refused, on the basis of being "gentlemen" to perform what they saw as menial tasks. As a result they died of cholera, measles, and other diseases. The elected officers would not require the "gentlemen" to dig latrines. They did not want to lose the next election.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 07, 2015, 02:22:14 PM
I don't think the problem is so much the current organizational structure, which is needed for an appropriate span of control, but the bureaucracy and convoluted approval process for some things. It doesn't help that every level wants to issue their own set of rules or policies beyond what's in the national regulations.
We also need to streamline many staff functions at the lower levels. We're just not manned to support so many staff functions, hence why most contributing members have between 3-5 duty assignments.
This is exactly what I've been saying, here and elsewhere, for years.
Local units should be concerned about the training and "tactical" aspects f CAP (i.e., senior specialty tracks, cadet achievements, forming a ground team, getting members trained as radio operators and such).
The higher echelons should be handling the majority of the administrative functions...including teaching and preparing interested unit members for staff responsibilities at group and wing.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on May 07, 2015, 07:08:33 PM
The Confederacy did that....didn't work out well. They also elected their officers. You can't lead and try to win a popularity contest.
Worked out okay for Joshua Chamberlain. And don't forget the British. They had a couple hundred years of success.
1. The lawyers would no longer run the ES and Cadet programs. Finally CAP would be able to actually do SOMETHING without someone in a suit and tie at NHQ wringing their hands about a lawsuit.
2. Revamp the CPPT program with some common sense. The CPPT was designed to protect 13 year old children from creepy adult pedophiles, not 20 year old cadets from 18 year old senior members.
3. Integrate ES into the cadet program progression. Cadets would get involved and active in ES as part of the program.
4. We would MOU with NASAR and incorporate their SARTECH ratings into our ground operations so our SAR capabilities get taken seriously.
5. Finally get to the bottom of why we can't get more pilots flying, period.
6. Bring the USAF LO's and LO NCO's back to Wing level, along with the corporate Wing Administrators.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on May 10, 2015, 07:49:54 PM
1. The lawyers would no longer run the ES and Cadet programs. Finally CAP would be able to actually do SOMETHING without someone in a suit and tie at NHQ wringing their hands about a lawsuit.
2. Revamp the CPPT program with some common sense. The CPPT was designed to protect 13 year old children from creepy adult pedophiles, not 20 year old cadets from 18 year old senior members.
3. Integrate ES into the cadet program progression. Cadets would get involved and active in ES as part of the program.
4. We would MOU with NASAR and incorporate their SARTECH ratings into our ground operations so our SAR capabilities get taken seriously.
5. Finally get to the bottom of why we can't get more pilots flying, period.
6. Bring the USAF LO's and LO NCO's back to Wing level, along with the corporate Wing Administrators.
Point 1....ES and EM as a whole is a legal minefield.
Point 3....I have always advocated all members being at least GES.
Point 4....didnt this happen?
Point 6....heck yea....
If I had just one wish...just ONE wish...it would, without a doubt, be to drastically reduce the amount of red tape and paperwork required to do EVERYTHING. I understand why things require documentation but it is extremely frustrating and is a complete waste of time. I spend twice as much time doing paperwork preparing, planning, and getting approvals than actually carrying out whatever mission/activity I'm working on. On just about every level, things can be simplified or even done-away with altogether.
Concur with Johnny Yuma, especially on requiring GES for everyone...should be part of Level 1 for seniors, Phase 1 or 2 for cadets.
Also, YES, let's bring back LO's & LNCOs!!!