What happened to:H.R.1333 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002

Started by wingnut, April 23, 2008, 01:29:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Earhart1971

Frenchie, we are down 5000 or more cadets, Nation Wide, from 25 ,000 to 20,000, that is 20%. And the Historical numbers point to 20% per year loss of total CAP membership. We turnover membership 100% in five years. We gain and lose. Now I think we are losing and not gaining back. It's demographics, its the economy, and its all working against us.

But we can roll back from this, but its going to take some work, at the grassroots and at National HQ.

Your Squadron sounds like a great Squadron and an exception, what you prefer is what you are used to, and it will work only on a small scale.

Yes, we have volunteer Pilots that can fly about 100,000 hours per year, but what if the missions demand 200,000 hours a year or more. The math will not work. We need to attract people that will fly, no matter what, with some little incentives.

The Civil Air Patrol will be elevated to higher goals through better funding, if the powers that be can sell the program to the Feds, and I think they can.

Its makes sense, and it helps everyone, it helps CAP, it helps us recruit, the spin off will help the Cadets, and it helps our Nation in so many ways.

Larger numbers of membership in CAP, say 50,000 Seniors and 100,000 Cadets, different Civil Air Patrol, more visibility, more funding, more and better Mission performance.

All good, the check book is coming out, again for CAP, we need our membership ready to take on these missions without missing a step. We need the National Leadership to recognize the needs and pursue this vision.


lordmonar

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 02:03:37 PM
Dnall I think you are coming to realize my point.

200 Million in Equipment does not make an operating budget.

In other words adding Equipment stresses the Organization. At a recent Airshow, the Sun and Fun in Lakeland, a Brand New CAP Cessna 182 and the GA Air Van sat out alone with out Pilots to show them on the busiest day of the show (Saturday).

I am guessing that not enough Pilots were available to do that.

Or poor scheduling on the part of CAP at the air show.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 02:03:37 PMWe have no money or very little money, to operate or maintain that equipment.

BS....sorry but I got to call it like it is.  There is plenty of money to fly and maintain our air fleet.  In fact most wings (according to Gen C at NVWG's Conference) do not fly enough!  Our planes sit idle because no one wants to fly them.  One of the reasons why they banned member owned aircraft on missions and SAREXs is because the corporate aircraft were not being used enough.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 02:03:37 PMThe 35 ro 40 Million per year in budget we get operates National HQ with about 90 Admin People.

Yep....NHQ staffers, wing adminstrators and state directors.  The rest is used for everthing else.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 02:03:37 PMWe are losing membership.

And dramatic steps need to taken, and the situation completely understood, to change that.  We are not going to "market CAP" or recruit more membership, and get out of this.

In the Cadet Program we will drop below 20,000 Cadets next year. There are Wings with less than 150 Cadets.  I am using Cadets as a yardstick.

Membership is decreasing not increasing.

How will paying pilots fix this?

Loosing cadets is because of local programs are not targeting their intrests.   Sure things like the CPP and the fact that we can't take cadets repelling may be a factor....but it not money.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 23, 2008, 03:54:40 AMYes, we have volunteer Pilots that can fly about 100,000 hours per year, but what if the missions demand 200,000 hours a year or more. The math will not work. We need to attract people that will fly, no matter what, with some little incentives.

Simple you recruit more pilots.

One of the main reasons why we loose people is because there is not enough for them to do.  If we had more missions, then we would be able to get more people in the air doing what they want to do.  Not the other way around.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 23, 2008, 03:54:40 AM
Larger numbers of membership in CAP, say 50,000 Seniors and 100,000 Cadets, different Civil Air Patrol, more visibility, more funding, more and better Mission performance.

No...I think you have it backwards.  More seniors will mean less profecint pilots, groud crews and mission base personell....as there are only so many training hours available and so many aircraft.  You recruit to the needs of the mission.   Not the other way around.

Also more cadets are for the most part a drain on our operational side of the house.   (This is not cadet bashing....I am a CP guy myself).  Cadets add little to our operational readiness.  They are even less likey to help out on prolonged mission due to school commitments and the fact that they don't usually have a bunch of money in the bank to pay their own way over a long mission (even if later they are going to be reimbursed).
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Ned

Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2008, 06:31:26 AMAlso more cadets are for the most part a drain on our operational side of the house.   (This is not cadet bashing....I am a CP guy myself).  Cadets add little to our operational readiness.  They are even less likey to help out on prolonged mission due to school commitments and the fact that they don't usually have a bunch of money in the bank to pay their own way over a long mission (even if later they are going to be reimbursed).

Patrick,

Saying that cadets are a "drain" is indeed cadet bashing, if for no other reason than it simply isn't true.

By and large cadets are "operations neutral" in that they neither add to nor subtract from operation efforts.  Different mission, different resources, and different leaders.


But I think a strong argument can be made that cadets are an overall positive for the operational side of the house.



  • Cadet o-flight funding supports the airframes directly and enhances pilot skills.

  • While nowhere near the majority of the effort, qualified cadets (including a few MPs) do participate directly in missions.  That can only help.

  • "Operational folks" do not normally devote significant time or efforts to supporting the cadet program that would otherwise have been devoted to operations.  IOW, we are grateful for the help and support we get from operators, but the generous time and efforts they give us do not significantly affect the amount of time and effort they give to ES.

So, at worst they "only" add a little to the operational side of the house.

Only adding a little is not the same thing as being a "drain."


Thank you for the work you do with our cadets.  It is truly appreciated.

Ned Lee
National CP Advisor

RiverAux

100% turnover in 5 years?  Yes, in the cadet program that is probably true since pretty much by design most will have "graduated" the program by then.  In the senior program, which is where we have drifted, I don't think it is anything like that. 

By the way, the military has extremely high turnover rates and they manage to do pretty well with it.  Turnover by itself doesn't meant that you can't perform your missions. 

Gunner C

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 21, 2008, 05:11:16 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on May 21, 2008, 04:25:28 AM
Quote from: FW on May 20, 2008, 06:10:59 PM
I haven't read a copy of the latest bill either.  However, CAP "funding" is not the issue per say.  The issue is DHS using us as a force multiplier and cost efficient asset. 

Funding for assigned missions from other agencies come from the requesting agency.  Fees charged are for  expenses and "appropriate" per diem if authorized. Current policies are already in place.

Getting more young and experienced mission pilots is a difficult task.  It may become easier when the Flight Release Program becomes more streamlined and Post Flight reporting is made simple with a smooth reimbursement processes in place.  (all being worked on at this time)

Wings just need to have corporate avgas cards in the planes to be used on reimbursed missions. Take the burden and responsibility off of the individual pilot, and let the corporation handle themselves getting reimbursed like the rest of the world does it. Both wings I've flown with (PA and TN) have cards in the planes for these uses, I can't imagine why every wing wouldn't.

And the Flight release program is relatively simple. I've been an FRO for over a year now, it's nothing complicated unless you're doing stuff through WMU. Our mission tasking process (going through the NOC and all, "A/B" missions vs "C" missions, etc) needs some streamlining though.

Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.

I think the problem is, we are eager for the missions, and we still have not learned to negotiate the funding.

Everybody assumes there is a an endless pool of pilots.

Numbers of people with pilots licenses are falling. Look at the FAA stats.




I can't think of anywhere in the US Gov where anyone gets $300/day.  Why just pilots?  What happens to the observer?  More pilot-centric junk?  It's stuff like this that make observers and scanners feel like passengers and not crew members.

GC

Flying Pig

Are you talking about $300 per diem AND expenses? Holy cow!  Staying in a 5 star hotel and eating at high end restaurants are we?   Your not looking for per diem, your looking for a part time job! ;D  Like Gunner said about the Observers, I think us pilots would end up flying by ourselves or we would end up splitting it 3 ways with the rest of the crew.  Im not a very experienced Mission Pilot, but the experience I do have shows me that without every other piece of the puzzle, we'd end up talking to ourselves up there.

A Mission Pilot is a taxi driver.  The Observer and the Scanner are the stars of the show.  The payload.  Sure, you could fly without them but then you would be about as useless as a bomber with no bombs.

FW

^I think Earhart means $300 per diem for all aircrew.   :clap:

The problem is getting it. :(

Even if the impossible happended and we got this amount, my wife would take it anyway.  >:(   I'm just happy to have the chance to fly some missions every couple of months and not pay for the privilege. :D


Earhart1971

Quote from: FW on May 24, 2008, 07:48:05 PM
^I think Earhart means $300 per diem for all aircrew.   :clap:

The problem is getting it. :(

Even if the impossible happended and we got this amount, my wife would take it anyway.  >:(   I'm just happy to have the chance to fly some missions every couple of months and not pay for the privilege. :D



FW you mean you don't have a secret SLUSH FUND like me? Wifeykins would never know, LOL about the extra money, she's not in CAP! If she joins please don't tell her.

If you want Aircrew we need the 35 to 45 year olds, I cannot see them joining CAP in mid career for the current situation. Its too much of a financial DRAIN!


Somebody posted the JROTC Budget Link, read it.

It's for all the JROTCs, read the numbers, the Millions

That's all money and paid instructors down to unit level that just do a Cadet Program, that's it.

Let's start with the Cadet Program, why shouldn't the CAP Cadet Program be funded at 40 Million per year? The Congress is increasing the JROTC Budget as a priority, 700 million or so per year.

Our operations are say over 100,000 hours of flight time per year, and probably HLS mission could take us up to almost 200,000 hours.

Our existing Budget is 40 Million give or take Total.

We have many missions our Budget is .....40 Million Total

Spacing - MIKE

Earhart1971

Quote from: FW on May 24, 2008, 07:48:05 PM
^I think Earhart means $300 per diem for all aircrew.   :clap:

The problem is getting it. :(

Even if the impossible happended and we got this amount, my wife would take it anyway.  >:(   I'm just happy to have the chance to fly some missions every couple of months and not pay for the privilege. :D



I found the link, I think I stole it off River Aux post somewhere in the lobby.

River Aux found this link, I think!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10003233.2006.html


They appear to be on a very aggressive footing for funding anything but the CAP

mikeylikey

^ Makes you wonder why we are flying JROTC Cadets around huh?!?!

What's up monkeys?

FW

Funding for cadet programs is not be part of H.R. 1333.  However, I've always thought it amazing there should be a AFJROTC and a CAP cadet program where one organization gets big bucks for instructors and uniforms/books and, the other program gets a few "unpaid mandays" from reservists for encampment and the allowance of spending a couple of $HT for cadet uniforms.

You would think in these hard economic times, the AF would pick at the budget which was deepest.  I guess not.  Thank goodness our friends in congress keep our funding to current levels.

It would be nice if the BOG helps out and let us go to congress to change things.  We have a plan, We have the man, We have the motivation.  All we need is the permission.  

Of course, there is no reason why we can go outside the AF for funding for the cadet program.  We could expand the School Program and go to DoEd for funding. I've been told we do have friends in congress who also sit on the education committee.  We could eventually get additional funding expressly for the cadet program and AE program which could eventually give us $millions more.

FW

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 25, 2008, 05:10:12 AM
Our operations are say over 100,000 hours of flight time per year, and probably HLS mission could take us up to almost 200,000 hours.

Our existing Budget is 40 Million give or take Total.

We have many missions our Budget is .....40 Million Total


Adding another 100,000 flying hours would add about $15 million to the budget for O&M.  It would add millions more for fleet turnover.  Funding would be assured by payment from requester agency.

Earhart1971

Quote from: mikeylikey on May 25, 2008, 10:43:34 AM
^ Makes you wonder why we are flying JROTC Cadets around huh?!?!



We are recruiting AFJROTC Cadets, because they want to do more flying, and there are some other things going on.

AFJROTC and CAP can work together, in spite of the funding differences.

We might be able to get better funding, by just asking why there is a difference, people from National read these threads.

We are dealing with relationships that have not been explored, and misunderstandings.

There are some AFJROTC Instructors on our side.

There will be some changes, the tide is coming in for CAP.

Earhart1971

Quote from: FW on May 25, 2008, 11:23:45 AM
Funding for cadet programs is not be part of H.R. 1333.  However, I've always thought it amazing there should be a AFJROTC and a CAP cadet program where one organization gets big bucks for instructors and uniforms/books and, the other program gets a few "unpaid mandays" from reservists for encampment and the allowance of spending a couple of $HT for cadet uniforms.

You would think in these hard economic times, the AF would pick at the budget which was deepest.  I guess not.  Thank goodness our friends in congress keep our funding to current levels.

It would be nice if the BOG helps out and let us go to congress to change things.  We have a plan, We have the man, We have the motivation.  All we need is the permission.  

Of course, there is no reason why we can go outside the AF for funding for the cadet program.  We could expand the School Program and go to DoEd for funding. I've been told we do have friends in congress who also sit on the education committee.  We could eventually get additional funding expressly for the cadet program and AE program which could eventually give us $millions more.

FW: We are making Progress on the Middle School Front! Details after next week.

DNall

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 22, 2008, 02:03:37 PM
Dnall I think you are coming to realize my point.
I appreciate that we have serious membership issues, particularly with regard to retention & that aggressive action must be taken on that front.

I appreciate that CAP is prohibitively expensive for a large percentage of the population, and getting worse along several variables. I would love to see some effort to offset those factors in a reasonable way.

Per diem that amounts to pay in order to compensate for time away from work is not reasonable & not going to happen. Functioning out from under the FAA in the way the military does is not even a slight theoretical option.

Employment protection laws & paid leave from govt employer laws are a good start. Federal inclusion in guard/reserve employment protection, and paid leave from federal employers is the next step. Modest limited per diem &/or reimbursement to cover actual expenses within GSA limits is reasonable, and should be a part of negotiations with other agencies, but it isn't a make/break factor & don't count on it.

Better funding across the board would be awesome, but that's not reality. My guard unit could use a lot more funding, but they aren't getting it, and we're a real military unit which has & does deploy flying active combat missions with distinction. I still can't get a full issue of basic required gear/uniforms to all my people though.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 23, 2008, 05:37:13 PM
100% turnover in 5 years?  Yes, in the cadet program that is probably true since pretty much by design most will have "graduated" the program by then.  In the senior program, which is where we have drifted, I don't think it is anything like that. 

By the way, the military has extremely high turnover rates and they manage to do pretty well with it.  Turnover by itself doesn't meant that you can't perform your missions. 
He's right about the turnover rate. Obviously some people stay around for long careers, but 2-3 other people have joined & quit during that time. The average or mean membership is probably 2-3 years. In active participation terms it'd be worse then that.

The military has people locked in for 4-6 years, and into tightly focused jobs.That's a big deal. In CAP you burn out & go on your way. In the military you get more frustrated cause bad things happen & there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, and you don't have the choice to walk away. In most cases you get past that bad patch & it works out for the best in the end, so you stay on when you would have otherwise walked away if you could.

It gives them some stability & predictability that they can account for in recruiting for each year group. They also spend billions on recruiting and entry level training. We invest in members and then often lose that investment when they choose to leave whenever they feel like it. IMO, that's a big reason why we don't bring on a lot of advanced tech. If we have to invest in training members that may just walk away from the org or not show up for the mission, then that's a whole ton of money wasted.

We all know retention is a massive factor and our active participation levels are a major problem that's not even being measured. All that does require action, but per diem for missions is not going to solve it. A whole ton of streamlining & common sense might make a real dent, and more mission would too, but we have to be reasonable not rash.

Frenchie

Quote from: DNall on May 26, 2008, 06:32:49 AM
He's right about the turnover rate. Obviously some people stay around for long careers, but 2-3 other people have joined & quit during that time. The average or mean membership is probably 2-3 years. In active participation terms it'd be worse then that.

I have no idea what the actual figures are for senior members, but a high turnover rate wouldn't surprise me at all.  Many join because their kids are cadets and quit because their kids are no longer cadets.

It would be more interesting to see if CAP is losing or gaining numbers on the operations side.  The Texas wing has about 200 pilots who are on the wing pilots list (for about 33 aircraft) and one would have to assume all of them are at least active enough to keep their form 5s up to date.

I'd say that's a pretty healthy number on the operations side for the state of Texas and CAP does virtually nothing to recruit senior members.  Imagine what our numbers would be with even a minimal recruitment effort.

Gunner C

As a commander, I originally looked at the problem as a recruiting challenge.  I soon found out that it was akin to trying to fix a hole in the swimming pool by refilling it faster - it just doesn't work.

The key is retension. 

The key to retension is providing what the members originally joined for:  challenging, worthwhile activities. 

The key to challenging, worthwhile activities are:

1.  A cohesive, reasonable, thought-out plan.

2.  Good leadership.

3.  Removing unnecessary road blocks, administrivia, and stupid requirements.

4.  High standards: so when a member finishes something, they feel like they've really accomplished a personal goal instead of spent time checking a long list of boxes.

Just an opinion.

GC

DNall

Quote from: Frenchie on May 26, 2008, 11:05:13 AM
It would be more interesting to see if CAP is losing or gaining numbers on the operations side.  The Texas wing has about 200 pilots who are on the wing pilots list (for about 33 aircraft) and one would have to assume all of them are at least active enough to keep their form 5s up to date.

I think it's really low actually. The formula is you need 3 volunteers on a single mission to cover the same commitment you can expect from one paid worker - people can't take off work/life forever. Add crew rest to that. Add a geographic focus so you can't easily take people from really far away, or at least their response time is going to be several days. You start getting down to a number that doesn't allow for real quick scramble all the time or doesn't allow for sustained operations.

I've actually had a 4 pilots join CAP & then quit because they were denied fm5 rides (sight unseen) by the lead check pilot in the area. The justification being, 'CAP has too many pilots.' That's absolute crap.

Quote from: Gunner C on May 26, 2008, 11:28:33 AM
As a commander, I originally looked at the problem as a recruiting challenge.  I soon found out that it was akin to trying to fix a hole in the swimming pool by refilling it faster - it just doesn't work.

The key is retension. 

The key to retension is providing what the members originally joined for:  challenging, worthwhile activities. 

The key to challenging, worthwhile activities are:

1.  A cohesive, reasonable, thought-out plan.

2.  Good leadership.

3.  Removing unnecessary road blocks, administrivia, and stupid requirements.

4.  High standards: so when a member finishes something, they feel like they've really accomplished a personal goal instead of spent time checking a long list of boxes.

That's exactly right.  :clap:

Earhart1971

I am not eliminating the possibility of pay for CAP Pilots, but for now, we are just not funded correctly for performance of the mission and retention of pilots for the mission.

And the retention numbers reflect the problem.