I got to thinking about CAP's dual personality – that of being both the Air Force Auxiliary and a private non-profit humanitarian organization, and all of the struggles for us that having two personalities and fully embracing these personalities appears to cause in our operations.
I was researching if there were any other agencies, departments, or private organizations that compare to CAP under these circumstances, and it dawned on me that instead of trying to fit all members of CAP into this bi-personality mold, CAP may be better served by reorganizing our senior officer corps into two distinct tracts, one, the current CAP Appointed Officer Corp, and a separate Commissioned Officer Corp similar to the smaller and relatively unknown Public Health Service Commissioned Officer Corp (PHS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corp (NOAA).
Before you summarily dismiss this train of thought, please take a look at my rationale below.
The CAP Commissioned Officer Corps would be the natural offshoot of our Air Force Auxiliary and AF Assigned Missions. This Corp would provide dedicated members who meet all of the Air Force's requirements for carrying out these missions and who would be the only CAP members who would be eligible to wear the AF uniform with CAP distinctive markings. These Officers would be duly commissioned officers similar to the PHS and NOAA officers, except would function purely within CONUS and be considered "Noncombatants" similar to the Chaplain Corps and subject to non-combat call-out for national emergencies like the National Guard.
Those members who either do not meet the AF requirements for being commissioned in this new Corp, or who do not want to be considered for this selective-CAP service, would remain corporate appointed officers as we have now, and would only be allowed to wear the truly CAP distinctive uniforms.
Currently, I believe that our senior member professional development program is based upon, and does already include much of the academic portions of standard Air Force Officer training, meaning we have this in place already. All that would be needed would be for the AF to design the requirements to allow for basic commissioning.
So, what good would this do for CAP and the Air Force?
1. Having a commissioned officer corp that meets the requirements of the Air Force and who would be the only CAP members eligible to wear the CAP marked AF uniform (similar to the PHS and NOAA marked Navy uniforms) would allow those CAP members who for whatever reasons cannot meet the AF requirements for active-duty or reserve officer commissions, but who can compete in the same league academically and leadership-wise to have another avenueto contribute their talents in an way that regular AF troops appreciate, and the AF would not have to compromise in the area of AF-Style uniform use.
2. Rather than perpetuating a barrier between CAP and the AF, the commissioned officer corp would stand in the gap between the organizations in a real way and act as a real bridge between the two. Both the AF and CAP would be fully invested in the positive promotion of CAP.
3. Those members who remain corporate appointed would strive to continue our already proud humanitarian service missions under the same regulations, but for those who desire more, they will now have an avenue for progression that is more "military" than "paramilitary".
4. The general membership and leadership of CAP would be enhanced by the additional training and quality of the new commissioned officer corp.
Anyway, I know this is just a very brief and simplified overview presenting this ides for CAP growth. I wonder if anyone else has thoughts on this and has this ever been discussed at the national level?
So you have defined new groups for the group pictures but I totally missed where the roles would change for any of the categories you have defined other than what is now done by any member.
You also seemed to miss defining those of us who are already AF Commissioned Officers but retired. You also seem to miss the fact CAP is a civilian organization and only functions as a Air Force Auxiliary on AF assigned missions.
Please expand on your belief that CAP's PD program already includes much of the academic portions of standard Air Force Officer training. How much of the CAP PD program would a member have to complete to be "commissioned". Is that reached at Level One or Level Five (the Wilson Award).
Quote from: Short Field on March 17, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
So you have defined new groups for the group pictures but I totally missed where the roles would change for any of the categories you have defined other than what is now done by any member.
Well, this is just an initial surface scrape of the idea - in my mind the roles would be separated more in terms of operations - new corp would be the AFAM group and the appointed officers would remain humanitarian civil service. No more wondering if someone was "qualified" for an AFAM or who is in charge of the mission.
Quote from: Short Field on March 17, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
You also seemed to miss defining those of us who are already AF Commissioned Officers but retired. You also seem to miss the fact CAP is a civilian organization and only functions as a Air Force Auxiliary on AF assigned missions.
Already retired from AF - that would have to be ironed out. If we went with regs similar to NOAA, then you could not be in the commissioned corp but would remain appointed. IN terms of civilian organization, the commission corp would no longer be "civilian", appointed would remain civilian. This would be a fundamental change in the organization of CAP.
Quote from: Short Field on March 17, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
Please expand on your belief that CAP's PD program already includes much of the academic portions of standard Air Force Officer training. How much of the CAP PD program would a member have to complete to be "commissioned". Is that reached at Level One or Level Five (the Wilson Award).
That would be for the AF and CAP national to decide. I'm not saying that CAP currently has exactly the same overall PD that the AF does, or that you could just use the present incarnation of training for the new corp, only that we have a framework in place that could be used for part of the academic commission corp training.
We already have a problem with uniforms over weight and grooming issues....now you want to add one based on age and education?
We tore this one apart years ago IIRC...or was that on CS?
Quote from: lordmonar on March 17, 2010, 11:46:16 PM
We already have a problem with uniforms over weight and grooming issues....now you want to add one based on age and education?
We tore this one apart years ago IIRC...or was that on CS?
Again, it's just an idea...I'm not saying "Let's do it now!" and I certainly don't pretend to know whether it would be 100% feasible. It certainly would take a lot of ground work first to even begin to formulate some sort of proposal. It really comes down to whether or not we CAP members feel the organizational setup we have now is the best for our missions and charter, or whether there is a viable alternative available.
Again, I'm not trying to sell anyone anything, just bouncing an idea off everyone.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 17, 2010, 11:46:16 PM
We already have a problem with uniforms over weight and grooming issues....now you want to add one based on age and education?
We tore this one apart years ago IIRC...or was that on CS?
So we have these new castes so our AF-style and CSU uniforms make more sense? Isn't that putting form before function?
And if you thought some people felt like second class members now because of the uniform regulations, now you want to add castes for "really professional and skinny" members and "somewhat less professional and fat" members? Perhaps we should add a third caste above the "Commissioned Officer Caste" and call them "Special Forces" or "CAPGods" or "Brahmins"?
Would a lower ranking Commissioned Officer Caste Member have to salute a higher ranking Appointed Officer Caste Member? Would the Commissioned Officer Caste Member get to tell the Appointed Officer Caste Member that they are the ones who have to pick up the trash after the meeting as they are of a lower caste and it is their lot in life as less enlightened beings and hope for a better result in the next reincarnation? Would we put dots on our foreheads too to further indicate our status when we are not in our now separate uniforms?
And what about our Cadets? Two castes? Geez, no potential hazing or other problems there. Might as well have a Cool Kids Table and Nerdy Kids Table and issue the Nerdy Kids a wedgey upon joining.
I think we need more ways to bring us together as an organization and members, not more ways to drive us apart. The USCGAux has this right. They are all simply Auxiliarists. We are all volunteers who assist on three prime missions: disaster services, cadet training, and aerospace education. If you want to join a commissioned service, by all means, join the military, the PHS, or NOAA. We have enough trouble with big egos. Your caste system would tear us asunder.
I still haven't quite sorted this out, so let's use an example here.
How would you classify someone who:
Is within the current CAP and AF weight standards
Is retired enlisted military
Has a full beard
Inquiring minds await.
Oh, and which uniform would this member wear?
Am I the only one who couldn't read the whole post because of all the "Corp"..
In all seriousness, there is a whole lot of difference between a payed professional commissioned officer corps like the NOAA or PHS, than an all volunteer organization such as ourselves.
If I was that serious about getting a commission, I'd just join the ANG.
OK, I joined CAP because it was the only way I could fulfill my lifelong dream to be in the military in some way shape or form. I have med issues that prevent me from going RM. I'm one of those "wannabe's" and dern proud of it.
That being said, for completely selfish reasons, I love the idea of there being a way I could get a commission in CAP. I know that all the previous replies have very valid points and I'm sure there's a heavy debate to be had over the idea, and I'm sure that's there would be all sorts of crazy issues, but...
Sign me up. Yesterday.
I guess I'm not seeing any distinction between the groups other than appearance in this proposal. I had thought you were leading in to a suggestion that those who couldn't meet the appearance standards not wear any type of military uniform, which would be a somewhat logical approach.
Just what would a real Commission do other than authorize people to wear a uniform that they can already wear as a regular CAP member? Those that can't meet those standards can't wear that uniform now.
Now, NOAA and PHS do represent alternative examples of civilian uniformed services though the reasoning for having such a status eludes me. There are already procedures in place for when civilians are on a battlefield and for some reason need to be in a military uniform.
There have been quite a few discussions here about various ways to drastically upgrade the standards to be a CAP officer, but I see that as a whole separate thing from uniform issues (except for those discussions that propose limiting CAP membership to those that can meet the weight/grooming standards).
Quote
There have been quite a few discussions here about various ways to drastically upgrade the standards to be a CAP officer, but I see that as a whole separate thing from uniform issues (except for those discussions that propose limiting CAP membership to those that can meet the weight/grooming standards).
River:
I guess if the weight standards become mandatory for CAP, I'll have to then form the FAP--Fatty Air Patrol. I'll then recruit some of the those AVR folks who REALLY know how to put together an ensemble to design our uniforms. I can't wait to be a Lt. General--and large and in charge! I'll then make all the skinny folks in FAP wear gray pants, a plain white shirt, and a blue blazer. :D
Quote
There have been quite a few discussions here about various ways to drastically upgrade the standards to be a CAP officer, but I see that as a whole separate thing from uniform issues (except for those discussions that propose limiting CAP membership to those that can meet the weight/grooming standards).
Oh, and River: How do a lot of other organizations decide who gets to be a member or in charge? By the size of the checks they write. As far as I know, there's little "rank by checkbook" in CAP.
The fundamental mission that Newbie has the "commissioned" officers performing is the "Air Force" missions. The CAP appointed officers would only perform the "humanitarian" missions. Newbie needs to go back and learn about the missions in CAP and what makes a mission a "A" , "B", or "C" mission. Newbie also needs to compare the CAP PD program with the Air Force Commissioning Programs. If you make a proposal, it needs to be based on at least a little bit of fact.
The proposal also requires everyone getting a "commission" to meet the AF requirements to carry out the mission. It implies if you don't qualify for a AF Commission now, you wouldn't qualify under this program.
FYI - it just takes a stroke of a pen to move a officer off the retired list and onto the active list.
Quote from: tdepp on March 18, 2010, 02:20:32 AM
Quote
There have been quite a few discussions here about various ways to drastically upgrade the standards to be a CAP officer, but I see that as a whole separate thing from uniform issues (except for those discussions that propose limiting CAP membership to those that can meet the weight/grooming standards).
Oh, and River: How do a lot of other organizations decide who gets to be a member or in charge? By the size of the checks they write. As far as I know, there's little "rank by checkbook" in CAP.
Uh, I was just pointing out that such discussions had taken place, not that I was supporting those concepts.
For starters Newbie it's Commissioned Corps not Corp. Let me guess, you are in the uber kewl group? Learn more about CAP and it's structure/operations warts and all then come back if you feel this idea is viable. Right now......bad idea.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 18, 2010, 03:02:15 AM
Quote from: tdepp on March 18, 2010, 02:20:32 AM
Quote
There have been quite a few discussions here about various ways to drastically upgrade the standards to be a CAP officer, but I see that as a whole separate thing from uniform issues (except for those discussions that propose limiting CAP membership to those that can meet the weight/grooming standards).
Oh, and River: How do a lot of other organizations decide who gets to be a member or in charge? By the size of the checks they write. As far as I know, there's little "rank by checkbook" in CAP.
Uh, I was just pointing out that such discussions had taken place, not that I was supporting those concepts.
River:
Sorry to sound cranky. Should have used the smiley dude in my original post. :) I usually agree with your posts. You know, that whole great minds thing. ::)
Quote from: PA Guy on March 18, 2010, 03:26:05 AM
For starters Newbie it's Commissioned Corps not Corp. Let me guess, you are in the uber kewl group? Learn more about CAP and it's structure/operations warts and all then come back if you feel this idea is viable. Right now......bad idea.
PA:
As a retired English major, I should have caught the corps/corp usage error. But I prefer my term: caste. :P Then again, it's not like any of the rest of us ever misspell words or make usage errors in our postings. :o
Maybe the Commissioned Corps/Corp/Caste Officers is a good idea if we can all then get really cool new titles. Here are a few suggestions
Regional Air Marshall Potentate with Oakleaf Cluster
Aviatrix du Merit of the Prairies
Major General of Meeting Confections
Sky Commodore of Cadet Moral Guidance
The Appointed Corps/Corp/Caste could have more basic titles, like:
Hey You!
What's your name?!
Associate
Little feller/lady
Gray Boy/Girl
Underling
We could even consider Mafia rank titles:
Capo di tutti capi (Boss of all bosses)
Capo bastone (underboss)
Consigliere (counselor)
Caporegime (captain)
Sgarrista (soldier - 'made man')
Picciotto (associate)
Have we got an offer you can't refuse! ;D
Quote from: SarDragon on March 18, 2010, 12:15:50 AM
I still haven't quite sorted this out, so let's use an example here.
How would you classify someone who:
Is within the current CAP and AF weight standards
Is retired enlisted military
Has a full beard
Inquiring minds await.
Oh, and which uniform would this member wear?
Still waiting.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 18, 2010, 06:12:25 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 18, 2010, 12:15:50 AM
I still haven't quite sorted this out, so let's use an example here.
How would you classify someone who:
Is within the current CAP and AF weight standards
Is retired enlisted military
Has a full beard
Inquiring minds await.
Oh, and which uniform would this member wear?
Still waiting.
--Field uniform: Woodland camo blouse, BBDU trousers, OD nametape and organizational tape only says "Patrol", no rank above flight officer showing, American flag backwards optional, unit patch on left shoulder, CAP baseball cap, one pants leg bloused, the other cuffed
--Dress uniform: AF-Style coat with no insignia, name tag, rank, or ribbons, gray pants, white shirt, gray name tag, regimental stripe tie, no cover
--Polo shirt uniform: Blue polo shirt with round logo but no name or rank; plaid Bermuda shorts; blue web belt with black buckle, black flipflops, white golf visor for cover
--Flightsuit: Gray/blue striped Key coveralls or tan Carharts from farm supply store, no rank or insignia except plastic encased unit patch on left sleeve; flight cap w/o CAP badge, if pilot, plastic wings from Wal-Mart, er, I mean Vanguard, the exclusive provider of CAP plastic pilot wings.
As a "tweener" caste member, he'd have a half blue/half red dot on his forehead.
Yee Gads! What's the average time for this subject to resurface? Is it every 18 months we have to beat this thing around?
Iwould have to say...........negative ghost rider...........Sorry folks :(
Believe it or not, there are some members who do not (in some cases cannot) meet USAF commissioning standards who fill essential roles in SAR, DR, CD and HLS missions.
A 'commissioned corps' is a divisive concept, not needed, and probably counter-productive.
Drop the word probably!
......or, we could leave it the way it is. Yeah, thats it.
With being a Sq.CC, (actually, my Deputy is the CC, but hes not very attractive) being a Mission Pilot, keeping up with the PD I want to do but dont have the time to do, trying to keep current on the reg changes and not to mention keeping you guys in check here on CAPTalk, the last thing I have time for is becoming a "CAP commissioned officer." I really dont see how it changes anything we do in CAP. Besides, most of us would need age waivers for commissions anyway!! >:D
Oh and one other thing.....those other services we all cite about having commissions, The NOAA, Public Health, lets not forget that their "officers" get paychecks.
Sheesh - tough crowd. Sorry I mentioned it. (ducking the flying tomatos and other garbage). :-X
Considering the requirements for "commissioning" and the responsibility that goes with a "commission" and the inherent liabilities so assumed, I would recommend that instead we move into the area of "warrants".. From what I know of Army aviation and WO's in particular, I do believe that we come much closer to the high jinks and escapades and dare devilry, could care less attitude of most WO pilots... Why not have all of the fun, fly (or ground team, if you must) and not have the responsibilities that commissioning assumes?? We could all wear black stetson's and grow mustaches and fly cobra's..(Isn't this secretly what we all truly want anyways)?? I say, let's hear if for the Warrant Corps.. And I will gladly be first in line..
Dont take it personally, but we beat this topic to death about once every 6 months.
This does not assist a single mission and causes additional problems we don't need.
But then they will HAVE to respect us!! >:D
I disagree with the idea of two seperate entities within CAP. However the Adult members of the Canadian Air Cadet Corps are commissioned Limited Duty Officers, whose only duty is serving the cadets corps. That would be amenable. Keep in mind that they must meet all the standards of any other reserve officer. Not that this will ever happen
Another can of worms that this opens would be the perception of the RM - would they be required to salute higher-ranking CAP Warrant/Commissioned officers? I can see THAT argument turning ugly FAST.
We don't need commissions.
We don't need warrants.
And we don't even have any way of getting them if we needed them, since without pay and job protection, most of our members couldn't take the 2-3 weeks off for "salutin' school" anyway. And of those who could go, a lot would either not understand, or be interested in the responsibilities that would go along with the certificate.
What we need is top-down consistency of mission and purpose, along with a reboot of a lot of programs and probably about 10,000 uncomfortable conversations with people who don't understand the what and why of CAP, but continue to be impediments to progress, growth, and execution.
A lean mean cadre of 35,000 with renewed purpose and a clear understanding of "my way (i.e. The Top-Down Plan) or the highway" would do wonders for our internal spirit and external respect.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 18, 2010, 05:23:12 AM
We could even consider Mafia rank titles:
Capo di tutti capi (Boss of all bosses)
Capo bastone (underboss)
Consigliere (counselor)
Caporegime (captain)
Sgarrista (soldier - 'made man')
Picciotto (associate)
Have we got an offer you can't refuse! ;D
Of course, with this system, once you volunteer you are always a member (or else!!!). ???
On many practical levels, it would not work.
I have semi-experience with this in that several years ago I applied for the NOAA Corps and wasn't accepted on medical grounds. They have very stringent standards.
First of all, NOAA officers are truly commissioned officers in a uniformed service of the United States. They are paid at Armed Forces officer rates, are subject to the UCMJ, and rate a salute from all junior ranked personnel (including us). If you are a CAP Captain and you pass a NOAA Lieutenant Commander, you are obligated to salute and render a greeting.
They have to attend a four-month Academy at the Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. Following that, they spend three years sea duty aboard a NOAA vessel.
They get all the retirement benefits that an officer in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and U.S. Public Health service does.
Not to disparage us, because we do what we do, and try to do it well, but it's light-years away from a young NOAA Ensign shivering his/her butt off pulling watch duty in the Arctic.
If I were to do any "shake-and-bake" of the CAP ranks (which would remain all-volunteer), I would re-introduce a true enlisted/NCO tier and Warrant Officers.
E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman
E-3 Airman First Class
E-4 Senior Airman
E-5 Sergeant
E-6 Staff Sergeant
E-7 Flight Sergeant (Technical Sergeants aren't all "technical")
E-8 Master Sergeant
All insignia would be blue embroidered on grey background, USAF pattern. This rank tier would be for 18-year-olds and up that are high school graduates with no prior service. They would be specialists in one speciality track.
WO-1 Warrant Officer 1
CWO-2 Chief Warrant Officer 2
CWO-3 Chief Warrant Officer 3
CWO-4 Chief Warrant Officer 4
CWO-5 Chief Warrant Officer 5
Standard USAF warrant officer insignia (still authorised, but not in use), like CAP used to have.
For 21+ with no prior service and at least an associate's degree. Cadets achieving Spaatz at 18 come in at CWO-2.
O-1 Second Lieutenant
O-2 First Lieutenant
O-3 Captain
O-4 Major
O-5 Lieutenant Colonel
O-6 Colonel (reserved for Wing Commanders and National staff officers)
O-7 Brigadier General (reserved for Region Commanders and Deputy National CC)
O-8 Major General (National Commander)
Direct commissions available for the following:
Pilots (FAA and/or military certified)
Lawyers, Attorneys, Barristers and Solicitors
Doctors (MD, DO)
Physician Assistants
Nurse Practitioners
Dentists (DDS)
Nurses (RN)
Chaplains
Mental Health clinicians with at least an M.S.W.
Prior service military with at least E-5 can apply for the officer ranks, maximum of First Lieutenant. Former military officers (active, reserve, Guard, State Defence Forces) would come in at their last-held rank.
OK, it's not perfect, and it wouldn't happen, but it's just a thought.
We would also be much less top-heavy with officers.
Eclipse, do you really mean to be mean to the fat and fuzzies?? All of this talk about lean and mean.. Can't we have it pleasantly plump and gruff??? I mean, come on.. We have some really great leaders and members that will never see their feet again.. and some of it is due to medical conditions, so lets not be so harsh..
Quote from: JoeTomasone on March 18, 2010, 05:31:23 PM
Another can of worms that this opens would be the perception of the RM - would they be required to salute higher-ranking CAP Warrant/Commissioned officers? I can see THAT argument turning ugly FAST.
No. The current policy would remain in place, where they are not required to salute, but can do so voluntarily.
Quote from: AirAux on March 18, 2010, 06:55:35 PM
Eclipse, do you really mean to be mean to the fat and fuzzies?? All of this talk about lean and mean.. Can't we have it pleasantly plump and gruff??? I mean, come on.. We have some really great leaders and members that will never see their feet again.. and some of it is due to medical conditions, so lets not be so harsh..
Um, yeah...not remotely what I meant or was referring to...
Quote from: CyBorg on March 18, 2010, 06:57:16 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on March 18, 2010, 05:31:23 PM
Another can of worms that this opens would be the perception of the RM - would they be required to salute higher-ranking CAP Warrant/Commissioned officers? I can see THAT argument turning ugly FAST.
No. The current policy would remain in place, where they are not required to salute, but can do so voluntarily.
Not much point in a commission not even recognized by other services.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 18, 2010, 05:23:12 AM
We could even consider Mafia rank titles:
Capo di tutti capi (Boss of all bosses)
Capo bastone (underboss)
Consigliere (counselor)
Caporegime (captain)
Sgarrista (soldier - 'made man')
Picciotto (associate)
Have we got an offer you can't refuse! ;D
From Coastal Patrols to Cosa Nostra in 60 some years...gives new meaning to "Flighsuit MAFIA." Chuck...you're a regular riot!!! ;D
/me rings the bell for the moderator.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 18, 2010, 06:55:05 PM
On many practical levels, it would not work.
I have semi-experience with this in that several years ago I applied for the NOAA Corps and wasn't accepted on medical grounds. They have very stringent standards.
First of all, NOAA officers are truly commissioned officers in a uniformed service of the United States. They are paid at Armed Forces officer rates, are subject to the UCMJ, and rate a salute from all junior ranked personnel (including us). If you are a CAP Captain and you pass a NOAA Lieutenant Commander, you are obligated to salute and render a greeting.
They have to attend a four-month Academy at the Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. Following that, they spend three years sea duty aboard a NOAA vessel.
They get all the retirement benefits that an officer in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and U.S. Public Health service does.
Not to disparage us, because we do what we do, and try to do it well, but it's light-years away from a young NOAA Ensign shivering his/her butt off pulling watch duty in the Arctic.
If I were to do any "shake-and-bake" of the CAP ranks (which would remain all-volunteer), I would re-introduce a true enlisted/NCO tier and Warrant Officers.
E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman
E-3 Airman First Class
E-4 Senior Airman
E-5 Sergeant
E-6 Staff Sergeant
E-7 Flight Sergeant (Technical Sergeants aren't all "technical")
E-8 Master Sergeant
All insignia would be blue embroidered on grey background, USAF pattern. This rank tier would be for 18-year-olds and up that are high school graduates with no prior service. They would be specialists in one speciality track.
WO-1 Warrant Officer 1
CWO-2 Chief Warrant Officer 2
CWO-3 Chief Warrant Officer 3
CWO-4 Chief Warrant Officer 4
CWO-5 Chief Warrant Officer 5
Standard USAF warrant officer insignia (still authorised, but not in use), like CAP used to have.
For 21+ with no prior service and at least an associate's degree. Cadets achieving Spaatz at 18 come in at CWO-2.
O-1 Second Lieutenant
O-2 First Lieutenant
O-3 Captain
O-4 Major
O-5 Lieutenant Colonel
O-6 Colonel (reserved for Wing Commanders and National staff officers)
O-7 Brigadier General (reserved for Region Commanders and Deputy National CC)
O-8 Major General (National Commander)
Direct commissions available for the following:
Pilots (FAA and/or military certified)
Lawyers, Attorneys, Barristers and Solicitors
Doctors (MD, DO)
Physician Assistants
Nurse Practitioners
Dentists (DDS)
Nurses (RN)
Chaplains
Mental Health clinicians with at least an M.S.W.
Prior service military with at least E-5 can apply for the officer ranks, maximum of First Lieutenant. Former military officers (active, reserve, Guard, State Defence Forces) would come in at their last-held rank.
OK, it's not perfect, and it wouldn't happen, but it's just a thought.
We would also be much less top-heavy with officers.
This is by far the most useful serious post in reply (Don't get me wrong - I like humor and a good laugh as much as the next guy).
Good analysis CyBorg. This type of suggestion does make some sense in my mind and I think might give us more credence with our AF teammates. In light of this and having experience with lots of Warrant Officers from my time in the Army Air Cav (great visual by the way to the Stetson wearing Cobra jockeys ;D ) this re-org really does make sense.
Except for Pilots and actual Command Staff, the rest of our whole officer corp
s is technician based and fits better into the warrant officer position than the "Commissioned" positions.
This really wouldn't upset the boat too much since we currently authorize enlisted, flight officer (i.e. warrant officer), and commissioned-style ranks.
Any further thoughts on developing this avenue of thought?
Thank you, except it'll never happen...I think we're too enamoured of our bars, leaves, etc. for that, though I'd have no problem trading in my Captain's bars for Warrant bars and squares.
Also, I should have replaced the wording "direct commission" with "direct appointment," for medics, lawyers, etc., since we are not commissioned.
I posted up a chart in the photo gallery of a very simplistic rank structure based on the warrant officer idea. I even included the corresponding official AF warrant officer rank graphics. Have to wait for the moderator to approve it before it will show.
**update - I think it's working now here: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=mgallery;sa=item;id=150 (http://captalk.net/index.php?action=mgallery;sa=item;id=150)
Another thought in our favor - there are currently no AF Warrant Officers so we would never be confused with regular AF officers if we went this route. This could be a CAP / AF Aux only rank.
Let's just keep it like it is.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Let's just keep it like it is.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"
Anyone else see the irony here :P
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 19, 2010, 10:03:31 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Let's just keep it like it is.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"
Anyone else see the irony here :P
What you are proposing has no operational affect to our missions nor any true movement other than to reorganize for no other, or pressing, reasons but rather just to do it. You do not address how you will transition from the status quo to this new system or why it needs to happen.
The power to change CAP does not imply making changes on such items that, in the grand scope of things, will produce little impact other than making people waste money on new doo-dads for their uniform. The power to change CAP is most done at the local levels, killing "flying clubs" and replacing them with operational CAP units, developing resources and logistics for your squadron and groups so these Units can put into effect Wing, Region and National Mission.
It mean you buil dnew units where none exist, help cadets better themselves and promote aerospace education to whomever you can.
Redesigning uniforms, ranks structures for senior or new logos is not the sort of change needed, in fact, it is a distraction.
The only irony I detect here is that this topic keeps coming up ad infinitum, dies...and then gets brought up yet again.
As for commissions, how do you intend to get Congress to go along with that? If CAP was a paid independent UNIFORMED service of the US government that would be another matter. However, there is no identified need that would justify such actions. CAP is useful and viable because it is volunteer in every sense of the word, once it is not...its will be rolled away into som other group and dissolved.
Let's just leave it the way it is.
Major Carrales: My "restructuring" is a flight of fancy, based on past CAP structure (I've seen pictures), nothing more.
I have no illusions that it would be adopted.
As well, I suppose I wasn't clear enough in stating that actual "commissions" are not in the picture, never have been, never will be.
I do have problems with us being nearly all "officers," especially since it wasn't always that way. I do think it can be an operational hindrance when we interact with the actual military.
Eclipse stated that there would be no point in having commissions not recognised by another service...I agree to a point, except that there is already precedent. State Defence Force officers hold commissions and warrants issued by their state. They are not Federally recognised (unlike dual-status ANG/ARNG commissions/warrants) and carry no weight outside of their state, and they have no command authority over Federal forces, though they are usually saluted out of courtesy by active-duty troops.
I agree with you about the focus on "killing the flying clubs," having belonged to one of those myself.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 10:05:27 PM
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 19, 2010, 10:03:31 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Let's just keep it like it is.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"
Anyone else see the irony here :P
What you are proposing has no operational affect to our missions nor any true movement other than to reorganize for no other, or pressing, reasons but rather just to do it. You do not address how you will transition from the status quo to this new system or why it needs to happen.
The power to change CAP does not imply making changes on such items that, in the grand scope of things, will produce little impact other than making people waste money on new doo=dad for their uniform. The power to change CAP is most done at the local levels, killing "flying clubs" and replacing them with operational CAP units, developing resources and logistics for your squadron and groups so these Units can put into effect Wing, Region and National Mission.
It mean you buil dnew units where none exist, help cadets better themselves and promote aerospace education to whomever you can.
Redesigning uniforms, ranks structures for senior or new logos is not the sort of change needed, in fact, it is a distraction.
The only irony I detect here is that this topic keeps coming up ad infinitum, dies...and then gets brought up yet again.
As for commissions, how do you intend to get Congress to go along with that? If CAP was a paid independent UNIFORMED service of the US government that would be another matter. However, there is no identified need that would justify such actions. CAP is useful and viable because it is volunteer in every sense of the word, once it is not...its will be rolled away into som other group and dissolved.
Let's just leave it the way it is.
I understand and agree with most of what you are saying here, but I just couldn't resist the jab. ;)
However, and there is always a "however" when it comes to postulating ideas for improvement, I have been converted by Cyborg's earlier posting and I now believe that the Warrant Officer rank structure I posted up in the gallery makes a lot more sense operationally and organizationally to how we operate in coopoeration with our AF teammates than my initial idea of Commissioning.
The bottom line is clarification of rank vs. duties. In CAP currently, the only ranks that matter in terms of command structure are Colonel and above. The majority of our operational duty assignments and in fact our whole professional development program is based on skills training. Historically within the military Warrant Officer ranks more accurately reflect a highly trained technician with management assigned duties than does the commissioned-style ranks. This also provides greater respect for our officer corps as a whole and makes our rank structure actually more meaningful, especially in a volunteer organization.
For instance, in CAP I don't want to command troops or participate in regional politics - I just want to fly the planes and do missions. That's great, CAP has a rank for you - it's called Flight Officer. Oh, you want to also be the master Commo Officer, well then, we have the rank for you - Warrant Officer. What, you only want to show up occassionally and just be an extra hand - that's great too and we have a rank for you - it's called Staff Sergeant. YOu know what though, on second thought, my squadron commander is stepping down and I think I might like that role, voila - we have the command rank for you too!
Seems like it works just fine, offers all members regardless of intent a rank suitable to their desires and participation levels. It does mean that those members who just can't stand the thought of losing their bars or leaves will have to evaluate whether they want to stay in CAP for the wrong reasons, or adjust and continuing serving for the right reasons. The current rank structure is just missing something - and it discredits our organization for everyone to be a "command officer" even though they are not in command of anything except their own personal development. 8)
Crikey. I wasn't trying to "convert" anyone. I have no doubt that if I would submit my "suggestion" through the chain it would end up in the CS file at Maxwell, if it got that far, especially given the current sensitivity about uniforms.
The fundamental flaw in most of is that most people here are equating CAP rank with that of Military rank...and that is folley. Rank and Grade in CAP is that it is...a reflection of professional development or skills in CAP...nothing more and nothing less.
It is not any sort of "operational hinderance" when working with the military unless people work really hard at making that happen. Simply put, a CAP Major or CAP Captain is exactly that. Don't start making parallels where none exist.
When an active duty or reserve officer, NCO or enlisted person see a CAP officer, they should respect CAP for what it is...not for what it is not. They should see a person preforming CAP duties as prescribed by CAP regulations and policies. That we have an internal grade structure should not enter into it at all. No more than the grades and insignias of a volunteer fire department or police force should.
Keep it the way it is. We have ranks for people who don't want command, there are called 1st and 2d Lt. Want to be a Captain, take the classes and the test. Want to be a Major, do the time and extra work. Complete the program and be a Lt Col. I still see no actual good out of changing the names and ranks of people to conform to some ideal of what we "are not."
If you really were trying to accomplish your "objective..."
Then the warrant officer stuff is not where you should start. In fact, if I did support your reasoning I would have to say that everyone without a college degree should start as an Airman and work there way up through the NCO grades...yes, the coveted NCO GRADES...bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. All college educated members should be appointed to 2d Lt upon completeion of ECI 13 with the potential to advance to Capt. Majors would commander Sqadrons, Lt Cols would be Group Commander, Cols the Wings, Brig Generals the Regions, Maj General the National Vice-Commander position and a Lt General the office of National Commander (all of which would retain the grade after the service).
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 11:02:57 PM
The fundamental flaw in most of is that most people here are equating CAP rank with that of Military rank...and that is folley. Rank and Grade in CAP is that it is...a reflection of professional development or skills in CAP...nothing more and nothing less.
It is not any sort of "operational hinderance" when working with the military unless people work really hard at making that happen. Simply put, a CAP Major or CAP Captain is exactly that. Don't start making parallels where none exist.
When an active duty or reserve officer, NCO or enlisted person see a CAP officer, they should respect CAP for what it is...not for what it is not. They should see a person preforming CAP duties as prescribed by CAP regulations and policies. That we have an internal grade structure should not enter into it at all. No more than the grades and insignias of a volunteer fire department or police force should.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. This would be all well and good if we were not the Air Force Auxiliary and wearing AF-Style uniforms with military commissioned officer-style ranks. We can try all we want to tell people that a tiger is really an elephant, but when they look at the tiger they will see a tiger and react accordingly.
This is especially true in an operational / mission setting where emotions are running higher than normal and the hornets nest has been stirred up. It is especially relevant during those times to ensure that what you are looking at is exactly what IT is. What is wrong with a tiger looking like a tiger? Why must we stop and have to explain to everyone first that a CAP Officer really isn't an officer. It begs the question of, "Then why are you dressed like an officer?"
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 19, 2010, 11:15:18 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 11:02:57 PM
The fundamental flaw in most of is that most people here are equating CAP rank with that of Military rank...and that is folley. Rank and Grade in CAP is that it is...a reflection of professional development or skills in CAP...nothing more and nothing less.
It is not any sort of "operational hinderance" when working with the military unless people work really hard at making that happen. Simply put, a CAP Major or CAP Captain is exactly that. Don't start making parallels where none exist.
When an active duty or reserve officer, NCO or enlisted person see a CAP officer, they should respect CAP for what it is...not for what it is not. They should see a person preforming CAP duties as prescribed by CAP regulations and policies. That we have an internal grade structure should not enter into it at all. No more than the grades and insignias of a volunteer fire department or police force should.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. This would be all well and good if we were not the Air Force Auxiliary and wearing AF-Style uniforms with military commissioned officer-style ranks. We can try all we want to tell people that a tiger is really an elephant, but when they look at the tiger they will see a tiger and react accordingly.
This is especially true in an operational / mission setting where emotions are running higher than normal and the hornets nest has been stirred up. It is especially relevant during those times to ensure that what you are looking at is exactly what IT is. What is wrong with a tiger looking like a tiger? Why must we stop and have to explain to everyone first that a CAP Officer really isn't an officer. It begs the question of, "Then why are you dressed like an officer?"
In the 13 years I have been in CAP, I have yet to step on foot on a USAF Facility. What's more...when we have dealt with USAF personel it was the biggest of non-issues. When emotions are "running high," like the Hurricane Relief Missions we do down here, the last thing on the Governor, 1st Airforce or FEMAs mind is "is that man a Lt Col or what?" They are more interested in having the aerial recon photos in Austin, the FEMA personal transported or the materials to 1st Airforce than uniform bickering.
I am going to present this based on two assuptions, they may be true or not, but the points will be made none-the-less. You are new to CAP, and likley either a cadet (based on some of your diction) or a person new to CAP from on of the other services. Additionaly, it is a common folly for cadets to want to twist CAP to their world view or for a new CAP officer from one of the Services to try to apply the institutions/policies/practices of the military into CAP. Simply put, whatever the case, CAP is what it is and operates as it does. Be more proud of what you are, than ashamed of what you are not.
Oh...and one more thing, we are dressed like CAP Officers, not USAF ones...if it bothers you to any degree to have to educate anyone as to what your status is (which, if done well, grants us allies, and if done poorly makes us untold critics and even enemies)...then you need to switch over to the golf shirt and grey slacks. I'm proud of my service in CAP...are you?
^^^ +1 Nicely said. :clap:
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 19, 2010, 11:15:18 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. This would be all well and good if we were not the Air Force Auxiliary and wearing AF-Style uniforms with military commissioned officer-style ranks. We can try all we want to tell people that a tiger is really an elephant, but when they look at the tiger they will see a tiger and react accordingly.
Ohh Newbie......
As "CAP Officers" we are volunteers. We can be ordered to do something and just WALK AWAY if we don't like it. In the Military when an Officer disregards, disobeys, or violates verbal or written orders they will stand in front of a superior and if their answer for their actions is not good enough will at the minimum, be cashiered from the Service. Look at the history of the American Military. Failure to follow orders can lead to a summary execution by a superior Officer.
Commissioning Officers specifically for CAP may sounds like an awesome idea. Can you imagine the years of WORK that will go into implementing a program like that. Laws and US Code would need changing, and the actual funding for such an undertaking would be enormous. By the time it finally took effect, you would be too old to receive a CAP Commission.
Do I believe that CAP needs more oversight and control from the Air Force? You Bet! For starters we need the AF to write our regulations, manuals and directives like they did until 1990. Second we need access to the GSA fleet of vehicles so we can carry out missions. It would be nice to go sign a van out from the GSA lot to take Cadets to Encampment each year. We could also benefit from on-line AAFES access and the permission to buy anything at an exchange. I think CAP has earned that right.
We need to solve so many little issues, that HUGE issue like Commissioning CAP Officers will never be undertaken.
If we need Commissioned Officers, then there are more than enough retired and former Officers floating around CAP that we can pull from.
I would say that a requirement for Wing, Region and National Leadership positions would be a Military Commission or (for those that have not served in a Uniform Service) the attainment of the Air Command and Staff College completion certificate. I would make ACSC a requirement and phase it in for the future leaders of CAP by 2020. That is more attainable than getting CAP Members Commissions.
Quote from: Spike on March 20, 2010, 01:56:12 AM
Do I believe that CAP needs more oversight and control from the Air Force? You Bet! For starters we need the AF to write our regulations, manuals and directives like they did until 1990. Second we need access to the GSA fleet of vehicles so we can carry out missions. It would be nice to go sign a van out from the GSA lot to take Cadets to Encampment each year. We could also benefit from on-line AAFES access and the permission to buy anything at an exchange. I think CAP has earned that right.
I think all of those things would be a lot more beneficial to CAP in the long run than actually saying "hey, I'm a commissioned officer."
However, I think there are those throughout CAP with such a "corporate" mindset that they aren't going to
want the AF to resume the role it had pre-1990.
I also doubt we'll ever get full BX privileges.
Quote from: Spike on March 20, 2010, 01:56:12 AM
I would say that a requirement for Wing, Region and National Leadership positions would be a Military Commission or (for those that have not served in a Uniform Service) the attainment of the Air Command and Staff College completion certificate. I would make ACSC a requirement and phase it in for the future leaders of CAP by 2020.
Would that also include a commission in a State Defence Force, since those are not Federally recognised?
The ACSC should be a must for anyone putting on Colonel's eagles and above.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 11:18:06 PM
In the 13 years I have been in CAP, I have yet to step on foot on a USAF Facility.
That amazes me, Major.
I attended my first Comms school on an ARB before I ever put on 2nd Lt.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 20, 2010, 06:29:51 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 19, 2010, 11:18:06 PM
In the 13 years I have been in CAP, I have yet to step on foot on a USAF Facility.
That amazes me, Major.
I attended my first Comms school on an ARB before I ever put on 2nd Lt.
The nearest USAF installation is in San Antonio (250 plus miles away), the closest thing to a USAF installation I have been on is Brooks City Base. I have never been to Lackland or Randolph on any CAP business.
When we have been on US Navy installations, the "rank/grade" issue has been a non-issue.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 20, 2010, 06:27:37 AM
Quote from: Spike on March 20, 2010, 01:56:12 AM
Do I believe that CAP needs more oversight and control from the Air Force? You Bet! For starters we need the AF to write our regulations, manuals and directives like they did until 1990. Second we need access to the GSA fleet of vehicles so we can carry out missions. It would be nice to go sign a van out from the GSA lot to take Cadets to Encampment each year. We could also benefit from on-line AAFES access and the permission to buy anything at an exchange. I think CAP has earned that right.
I think all of those things would be a lot more beneficial to CAP in the long run than actually saying "hey, I'm a commissioned officer."
However, I think there are those throughout CAP with such a "corporate" mindset that they aren't going to want the AF to resume the role it had pre-1990.
I also doubt we'll ever get full BX privileges.
Quote from: Spike on March 20, 2010, 01:56:12 AM
I would say that a requirement for Wing, Region and National Leadership positions would be a Military Commission or (for those that have not served in a Uniform Service) the attainment of the Air Command and Staff College completion certificate. I would make ACSC a requirement and phase it in for the future leaders of CAP by 2020.
Would that also include a commission in a State Defence Force, since those are not Federally recognised?
The ACSC should be a must for anyone putting on Colonel's eagles and above.
Um, we're the CIVIL Air Patrol? I understand the need for education about our mommy/daddy the USAF but while we have missions that assist the USAF, we're not the USAF, only their auxiliary. If you are the right age, health, etc., then there is the option for you to join the ANG or USAF. We're not going to be dropping bombs on the Taliban any time soon.
All this time spent arguing about something that will never happen. Shouldn't we get back to complaining about something more productive, like the variation of gray pants? ::)
Some thoughts:
1) US 'warrant' officers actually are granted presidential commissions on reaching a certain point in their grade structure, generally CW2 (first grade for Navy, second for Army & USMC)...in theory, at least, we'd still be an "all officer" force
2) USAF does not use warrant grades, although they are still legally possible...to my mind, this makes them ideal for CAP as a distinguishing element, but USAF has not been warm to the notion
3) USAF NCO corps is less than enthused about CAP members wearing stripes, which is why NCO grades were eliminated from CAP originally.
Commissioned Officer Corps in CAP??
IT would require "A LOT" more than just on line testing and a few visits to NSC every so often!!!
Try some ongoing leadership programs FAAAAAR in excess of the current SLS. CLC, UCC 2day course to really bolster a CAP Commissioned Officer Program.
Otherwise, do not make a CAP sham of already established core curricula and syllabus that means more.
IF CAP ever gets serious about this....ever..... then contact the military on how to do it...do not start from CAP "scratch."
Quote from: heliodoc on March 20, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
Commissioned Officer Corps in CAP??
IT would require "A LOT" more than just on line testing and a few visits to NSC every so often!!!
Try some ongoing leadership programs FAAAAAR in excess of the current SLS. CLC, UCC 2day course to really bolster a CAP Commissioned Officer Program.
Otherwise, do not make a CAP sham of already established core curricula and syllabus that means more.
IF CAP ever gets serious about this....ever..... then contact the military on how to do it...do not start from CAP "scratch."
I was waiting...and hoping...you would comment on this. I agree. Our current structure is sufficient for what we do and are able to do as "citizen airmen." We have jobs...that pay...that require attention. CAP is our duty and community service element, like the militiamen and minutemen of Colonial Times.
If I needed a commission to accomplish my mission, I would seek one out via the Armed Forces. To maintain a commission in good judgement and integrity, I would alter my life to be of service to the Military instead of an Auxiliary. Thus, having a comission would mean being a member of the US Armed Forces in my estimation and I would no longer be an auxiliarist.
Contray to your, Helidoc, comments on other matters en re what can best be described as "uniform fetishism" in CAP, I feel that the status quo is fine. We of CAP accomplish a great deal with limited resources and, many times, the force of WILL alone to make things happen in all elements of CAP.
The Rank structure and unifroms are an ancillary issue, necessary for tradition and culture, but ancillary none-the-less. The well written proposals for new uniforms, new rank structures and the like are distracting at best. Let us more concern ourselves with accompishing the mission objectives and limit our energies on uniforms and rank to the correct wear as mandated by policy.
Although I've already said that this proposal doesn't make any sense to me, I'm also not seeing the sense in some of the arguments being made against it either. Some have said you have to be paid to get a Commission...says who? Some have said that there are steep educational requirements that have to be met...says who?
Assuming someone thought giving Commissions, which seem meaningless to me anyway, to CAP officers was a good idea, I'm sure that something could be worked out to recognize the different needs of CAP vs military officers, PHS, etc.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 20, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
Although I've already said that this proposal doesn't make any sense to me, I'm also not seeing the sense in some of the arguments being made against it either. Some have said you have to be paid to get a Commission...says who? Some have said that there are steep educational requirements that have to be met...says who?
Assuming someone thought giving Commissions, which seem meaningless to me anyway, to CAP officers was a good idea, I'm sure that something could be worked out to recognize the different needs of CAP vs military officers, PHS, etc.
Really?! Why do we need them? It is obvious, however, that holding a "Federal Commission" for CAP Officers would require more than just "a piece of paper." To avoid ridicule, which has no standing now since we are volunteers operating in an "internal" rank structure, will rise to a fever pitch if and when a "Federal Commission" is extended to CAP.
We would have to be "more military" than the military and have way more stringent training inorder to avoid ridicule. It would make more sense to join the USAF Reserve than be in CAP. Plus, no matter what, there are still going to be those that will ridicule us no matter what.
I've read forums in the past knocking the PHS and NOAA for "not really being the military" or needing to wear uniforms of Naval design.
The whole "let's get a commission" issue seems, to me at least, as a grasp at some sort of legitamacy. Which we already have as an organization "as we exist now." We are the USAF Auxiliary, congressionally charters, with over 60 years of service in peace and war. We are community level volunteers (for the most part) that operate our squadrons locally.
We provide a proven cadet element...Emergency Servies in the face of Disasters as large as hurricanes and as small as non-distress ELTS. And we do it for free in a well established structure hand in hand with the USAF.
Why is that so hard for people to understand. Be more proud of what you are than ashamed of what you are not.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 20, 2010, 08:13:08 PM
Really?! Why do we need them? It is obvious, however, that holding a "Federal Commission" for CAP Officers would require more than just "a piece of paper." To avoid ridicule, which has no standing now since we are volunteers operating in an "internal" rank structure, will rise to a fever pitch if and when a "Federal Commission" is extended to CAP.
That is an opinion that you are stating as fact.
A Commission is just a piece of paper and would have absolutely no more impact on anyone in the world than my CAP ID card does.
Does anyone think military officers give any credit towards NOAA or PHS people? Do you think they view those Commissioned officers as real officers? I very much doubt it.
That being the case ,I don't see where any particular educational or salary requirements would legitimize those "Commissions" in any form or fashion no matter what the qualifications were.
I agree with your conclusion Sparky, just think your reasoning is off.
Want a commission as a CAP member? Viola! By the power vested in me by my imagination, you are hereby commissioned as a CAP officer. >:D
Since most of us have little to no authority as CAP members the idea of a "commission" seems pointless. What little authority we need to carry out our tasks is granted by virtue of our CAP membership, qualifications, or delegation from those in authority over us. That's all we need as CAP members, at least as CAP currently exists.
This whole business of grade without associated authority, even within our own organization, is just silly. Professional Development could be recognized in a variety of other ways. But that's fodder for another thread.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 20, 2010, 08:26:47 PM
That is an opinion that you are stating as fact.
I would better call it an informed speculation based on established trends. For CAP to hold Federal Commissions, they would be a called upon, by almost everyone, to "add teeth" to the commissions. Think of it this way based on precedent...Why have we no NCO corps autonmous to CAP? Answer, because the USAF NCOs have, or are preceived to have, some problem with it.
Ideally, a "man off the street" should start as an airman and progress through NCO grades with Officers holding command or some other function. When NCOs in CAP are discussed, if non-prior service is even considered, the amount of training to become an NCOs is heeped up to a point beyond even what a CAP Wing Commander should have to do.
Now, my old CAPTALK FRIEND, tell me that is not so.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 20, 2010, 08:13:08 PM
The whole "let's get a commission" issue seems, to me at least, as a grasp at some sort of legitamacy. Which we already have as an organization "as we exist now." We are the USAF Auxiliary, congressionally charters, with over 60 years of service in peace and war. We are community level volunteers (for the most part) that operate our squadrons locally.
We provide a proven cadet element...Emergency Servies in the face of Disasters as large as hurricanes and as small as non-distress ELTS. And we do it for free in a well established structure hand in hand with the USAF.
Why is that so hard for people to understand. Be more proud of what you are than ashamed of what you are not.
X2
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 20, 2010, 08:39:45 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 20, 2010, 08:26:47 PM
That is an opinion that you are stating as fact.
I would better call it an informed speculation based on established trends. For CAP to hold Federal Commissions, they would be a called upon, by almost everyone, to "add teeth" to the commissions. Think of it this way based on precedent...Why have we no NCO corps autonmous to CAP? Answer, because the USAF NCOs have, or are preceived to have, some problem with it.
Ideally, a "man off the street" should start as an airman and progress through NCO grades with Officers holding command or some other function. When NCOs in CAP are discussed, if non-prior service is even considered, the amount of training to become an NCOs is heeped up to a point beyond even what a CAP Wing Commander should have to do.
Now, my old CAPTALK FRIEND, tell me that is not so.
It all depends on what the deal is. If the commission mean that CAP officers were now considered "real" officers with the potential to be given authority over members of the military, sure there would be heaps of stuff that would be expected of them before getting that piece of paper. But, that wasn't what was being proposed here.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 20, 2010, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 20, 2010, 08:39:45 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 20, 2010, 08:26:47 PM
That is an opinion that you are stating as fact.
I would better call it an informed speculation based on established trends. For CAP to hold Federal Commissions, they would be a called upon, by almost everyone, to "add teeth" to the commissions. Think of it this way based on precedent...Why have we no NCO corps autonmous to CAP? Answer, because the USAF NCOs have, or are preceived to have, some problem with it.
Ideally, a "man off the street" should start as an airman and progress through NCO grades with Officers holding command or some other function. When NCOs in CAP are discussed, if non-prior service is even considered, the amount of training to become an NCOs is heeped up to a point beyond even what a CAP Wing Commander should have to do.
Now, my old CAPTALK FRIEND, tell me that is not so.
It all depends on what the deal is. If the commission mean that CAP officers were now considered "real" officers with the potential to be given authority over members of the military, sure there would be heaps of stuff that would be expected of them before getting that piece of paper. But, that wasn't what was being proposed here.
But that's exactly what a commission is. If you don't gain any authority or extra responsibility then nothing has changed.
This is just a rehash of the "we don't get no respect" and "Let's require degree" threads.
Bottom line......we will never get respect.
Aint going to happen.
AD types don't respect Reservists, Reservists don't respect NG types. AD USAF Pilots don't respect non-pilots. Fighter Jocks don't respect AWAC guys. They don't care about Commissions. They care about what you DO and how you do it.
If CAP went around and required 4 year degrees, A long OCS process, regular USAF PME, UCMJ authority.....we would still be the bastard step children.
And have a officer corps of about 20 members who were not commissioned as a member of the RM.
Quote
Be more proud of what you are than ashamed of what you are not.
Very Zen, grasshopper! And I completely agree.
Here in SD, we've been flying photo missions for our flooding every single day this week for the State. It is a great service at a great price that helps protect life and property. It is being done by dedicated volunteers. It makes me proud of my fellow Wing members and my organization. That is the sort of thing we should be concerned about--our important missions--not whether we are "real" officers or what color gray our corporate pants should be.
And I'll be up in the air tomorrow taking my turn to help out. Gladly and proudly, I might add. Not for pay, not for glory, but to help my fellow Dakotans in a time of need. And I know most of you do what you do for the same reasons.
Quote
Does anyone think military officers give any credit towards NOAA or PHS people? Do you think they view those Commissioned officers as real officers? I very much doubt it.
This is very unfair to USPHS and NOAA officers. Personally I know several officers of he PHS, I have even considered joining the PHS, and the level of training involved is more extensive than most people realize. Those officers earned their grade and there is a very good reason that they have authority over military personnel. I know one PHS officer who is a registered flight surgeon at an Army unit, no one flys without his clearance. That same officer has been a past instructor at NESA and he currently works at HHS/SOC.
Truthfully I see no reason that CAP officers would have need for a federal commission. I would suggest that a compromise would be state issued credentials to ES qualified members. In general a state level emergency manager has no idea what a 101 card is and will not trust it as a valid credential, this leads to a lower ops-tempo for CAP responders. a state credential would prove to non CAP personnel that we have the training required to participate alongside IMERT, DMAT, or SWMD teams, etc...
QuoteThis is very unfair to USPHS and NOAA officers.
You missed the point of my statement entirely --- despite their accomplishments, the military is not going to look on these folks as real officers, just like they would never look on CAP officers as real officers no matter what sort of educational and other requirements were instituted along with a commission for CAP officers.
As far as I know, most states don't have any "credential" system for CAP to participate in so that is not a compromise that can be made. There has supposedly been efforts towards a national system but I don't think it has gotten very far, but if it did I assume CAP would participate.
Actually there are methods in place that can put a 2nd Lt. in the air force over a commander in the PHS or NOAA, it has to deal with restricted, and unrestricted line officers. A restricted line officer is like your direct commission folks, Chaplains, Doctors, the PHS etc.. URL officers are your traditional military officers.
following is an example: Say you have a boat, and in the boat is a Navy LT. JG and a Chaplain Captain (O-6) and a Doctor Lt. Commander (O-4). Who is in charge of the boat? Why the Navy Lt. (O-2).
So be careful when you say that NOAA and PHS officers have authority over RM officers. You start to get into shades of grey.
Not to mention there is no reason for us to have any authority over the military. We are the CIVIL Air Patrol after all.
Quote
Not to mention there is no reason for us to have any authority over the military. We are the CIVIL Air Patrol after all.
My young Dakota friend makes a lot of sense. Let me summarize the Rupster's point more colorfully:
Cart, meet horse. Horse, Cart. Cart, you do not go before the horse.
We are the USAF's Auxiliary. As in functioning in a subsidiary capacity or providing help. We exist to serve them. Plus, we are volunteers. Trained, dedicated, and professional volunteers, but volunteers who are not members of the military (though some may also be in the military while also CAP members.)
Why is this so hard for some to understand? If you want the Full Monty militarily speaking, volunteer for the armed services, get an Academy appointment, go through your college's ROTC program, or join the NG or ANG .
It's like Cartman from South Park. Why are some so worried that no one will RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!? :D
Quote
following is an example: Say you have a boat, and in the boat is a Navy LT. JG and a Chaplain Captain (O-6) and a Doctor Lt. Commander (O-4). Who is in charge of the boat? Why the Navy Lt. (O-2).
So be careful when you say that NOAA and PHS officers have authority over RM officers. You start to get into shades of grey.
Not to mention there is no reason for us to have any authority over the military. We are the CIVIL Air Patrol after all.
On the other hand if they happen to be on land and the chaplain has smallpox guess who is in charge. The gray area goes in every direction.
I dont know every PHS officer, mostly I know the ASPR guys - high speed elite life savers. Legaly and functionaly PHS officers and NOAA officers are REAL OFFICERS. A hell of a lot more real than CAP officers. That is why I made no endorsement for CAP officers to have authority over or even with real officers, my state credential suggestion is just a way to help ES members use thier training just like any other responder. I make the same suggestion to any Boy Scout with a first aid or emergency prep merit badge that I sign off on.
To repcap;
There is no shame in being a local or state resource and at this point there is no way at all that EVERY CAP officer is ready to be a national level responder. Also, PHS and NOAA officers deserve respect.
I'm all in favor of our senior members moving to a rank system similar to the USCG AUX... All ranks are based off positions, and those not in a specific "office" are simply "auxiliarist". It seems to work for them...
I've always wondered why we have our senior members holding rank that really doesn't mean anything. Sure, it shows PD levels (and in very few cases, your office - i.e. NAT/CC, Wing/CC), but when you have a Capt in charge of a unit with multiple Maj's and Lt Col's, it gets a bit silly and confusing (especially to a prospective member).
I fully believe that a change towards a rank structure like this is one of the [many] steps needed to get on the right track with the USAF.
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 21, 2010, 03:06:20 AM
I'm all in favor of our senior members moving to a rank system similar to the USCG AUX... All ranks are based off positions, and those not in a specific "office" are simply "auxiliarist". It seems to work for them...
I've always wondered why we have our senior members holding rank that really doesn't mean anything. Sure, it shows PD levels (and in very few cases, your office - i.e. NAT/CC, Wing/CC), but when you have a Capt in charge of a unit with multiple Maj's and Lt Col's, it gets a bit silly and confusing (especially to a prospective member).
I fully believe that a change towards a rank structure like this is one of the [many] steps needed to get on the right track with the USAF.
Wow...a wrong conclusion to draw from all this. The rank does have meaning...within the Structure of CAP. The Rank/Grade is indicative of what you have done. If you have the Professional Development, a mission related skill or hold an office.
We are in good with the USAF...if not, we would be gone. I get so tired of people trying to speculate on the CAP/USAF relationship when they have no real way of knowing that and only repeat the same things over and over.
Let me make this clear...if the USAF and CAP realtionship was so bad...we would NOT EXIST.
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 21, 2010, 03:06:20 AM
I fully believe that a change towards a rank structure like this is one of the [many] steps needed to get on the right track with the USAF.
Non-concur and I agree with Maj. Carrales.
The only thing the USAF cares about is performance - either we are accomplishing the mission(s) or we aren't. Everything else,
everything, is background noise that is considered either a necessary evil in keeping volunteers reasonably happy and working for free, or part of traditions too ingrained to ever be negotiable.
Grade-based authority in a volunteer environment is meaningless. Commissions and warrants include
responsibility and
consequences. The last thing any CAP member needs is responsibility without the practical authority to accomplish his mission because everyone on the team below him is a volunteer with full "..SEEYA!..." options when they aren't happy.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 21, 2010, 03:18:20 AM
Wow...a wrong conclusion to draw from all this. The rank does have meaning...within the Structure of CAP. The Rank/Grade is indicative of what you have done. If you have the Professional Development, a mission related skill or hold an office.
I'm in total agreement here. In fact, I recently made a statement on a CG Aux board about how at least CAP rank represents completion of certain requirements and training, which while not significant or all that difficult, mean something. CG Aux rank insignia are potentially entirely meaningless since almost immediately after joining you could possible talk yourself into almost any rank insignia you want as a staff officer and after day 1 in that position, you've got the insignia for life even if you never do the job. I don't think that is common, but at the extreme that is what it means.
So, if Commissions were granted, how many Commissioned CAP Officers would move to a unit that is near a military installation? My bet, MANY.
I have this funny feeling that some in CAP are in CAP for the benefits and salutes, and nothing more.
Honestly, my Commission gets me no more in CAP than a person without one!
However, my CAC does present me as legitimate when I am doing work for CAP (AFFES Shopping, room reservations, setting up military Flights etc). I have been "brushed off" when I show my CAP ID Card, and then apologized too when my CAC comes out of my wallet.
Totally agree with the statements of Maj Carrales and Eclipse. They are "spot on" .... so let's move this along and file this thread as exhausted wishful thinking.
Quote from: Spike on March 21, 2010, 02:51:24 PM
I have this funny feeling that some in CAP are in CAP for the benefits and salutes, and nothing more.
Honestly, my Commission gets me no more in CAP than a person without one!
However, my CAC does present me as legitimate when I am doing work for CAP (AFFES Shopping, room reservations, setting up military Flights etc). I have been "brushed off" when I show my CAP ID Card, and then apologized too when my CAC comes out of my wallet.
Totally agree, I NEVER use my CAP ID card (other than for CAP required ES activities), for gaining access or using facilities on any military base. It is the retired commissioned officer ID card that is used. It does get a salute from security!!! I might add that I'm not after salutes and always make it a point to talk with all of the gate security people (unless there's a line of vehicles behind me :angel:), and I think this goes a long way in gaining "respect", and many of them know that I am also a member of the local CAP unit.
Again, these threads seem to bring out the "wanna bee" faction, personality types in CAP. The focus is CIVIL Air Patrol, and it means you are a "civilian" volunteer who is sometimes performing military (primarily Air Force) assigned duties. The AF Regulation (AFI 10-2701, especially para 1-3) is very specific about what CAP is, and what you as a member can expect from the military members you come in contact with. I wouldn't hold my breathe that this will change :angel:
RM
This is like comparing apples to hand grenades. Unless you run through OTS or other commissioning program, and raise your hand and swear to defend the constitution, and agree to be bound by the UCMJ, you won't be on par with a military officer. We're NOT the AF's sister service. We're a volunteer organization that is allowed to wear Air Force rank insignia. There seems to be alot of discussion about what it would take to make our officers "legitimate". Well, we're not officers; we're senior members of a volunteer organization with ties to the Air Force. And don't toss that "your just an NCO" bull my way. Any dork with a GED can walk in and pin on Lt bars in six months, without doing much more than showing up (some don't even have to do that regularly).
I love y'all like a brothers, and have a snappy Senior NCO salute for your dedication to CAP, but Jeezuz... enough already.
Received and understood, Master Sergeant.
I don't know what a "commission" would get us that we don't already have.
There is no way I would say "you're just an NCO" to you or any other NCO that has worked for their stripes. NCO's are the backbone of the military. Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.
However, it has always bothered me a bit that, as you say, "any dork with a GED can walk in and pin on Lt bars in six months." I think there should be more to it than that, but I don't have the answer as to what, and I don't have anything positive and doable to suggest, so I'll leave it at that.
I do agree that we need to rebuild our too-often needlessly adversarial relationship with the USAF. That's been going on at least since I joined in 1993, and for some time before. Unfortunately, we have only ourselves to blame for much of it, wanting things from the AF but wanting them our own way.
I don't have the answers as to how to rebuild that on a macro level, but I only do my bit on a micro level by being respectful to all AF (and other military) personnel that I encounter, from E-1 up to O-10 (haven't encountered any of those, though) and giving them assistance when asked for. I sure as hell don't troll for salutes I'm not entitled to, though I am very appreciative of those I do receive.
One thing that I think could be helpful is to raise awareness of CAP among the Air Force. Too many AF people don't know who we are or what function we serve, though I notice more of an awareness among ANG and AFRES than on the active side.
I remember a conversation I had while breaking bread with two AFRES Sergeants about 15 years ago at an on-base Burger King. They were very surprised to hear that not only were we unpaid, but we did not receive retirement points. I think one said, "you put up with Air Force bureaucracy and BS voluntarily and don't get paid for it?!"
Unfortunately, I've found that the most widespread knowledge of us among our parent service is among recruiters being aware of our cadets, and that the function of adult members is to shepherd them through the cadet levels until they raise their right hand and are off to Lackland.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 21, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.
I guess that is why all the airplanes are flown by NCOs in the USAF?
Even I as a former E6 in the ARNG KNOWS about that CAP rank and grade structure
IS MSgt Van's answer enough for y'all??
Even RM can see RIGHT through all this CAP Commissioned Officer BS
Want it ??? Sign up RM and earn and take the responsibility required of a TRUE commissioned officer(s)
CAP? Let it lie ..... be happy any of y'all are even called LT Maj or Colonel for that fact
Shheeeeeeeesh ...CAP wanting to be commissioned officers...think enough RM and ARNG types have addressed y'all on this quite enough already?
^^^
err that is Not LT MAJ
It's LT, MAJ for you flamethrowers
Quote from: Short Field on March 21, 2010, 07:53:16 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 21, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.
I guess that is why all the airplanes are flown by NCOs in the USAF?
Don't get me wrong - I have the utmost admiration and respect for those officers I served with while active duty. I also will be the first to say that I've seen an incredible amount of dedication "to the mission" from those serving CAP.
I heard the phrase "NCOs get it done" continually repeated at a recent CAP NCO school. Just wanted to point out that the USAF Officer/NCO model is not the same as the other services and Cadet slogans are just that - slogans. Most of this is due to the high technical level required in a lot of jobs in the AF.
I have served with lots of dedicated and very skilled NCOs and have the utmost respect for them (durned, I even worn stripes for a while). Just don't forget that in a lot of the USAF warfighting related AFSCs, the Officer is as hands-on getting the mission accomplished as the NCOs.
This is even more the case in CAP since finding a Senior Member wearing NCO rank is a rare event.
While the plane flyers may be officers, it doesn't negate the way the service works for the majority of the members that are in it.
Inherently, officers are responsible for strategic direction of whatever the mission is. Officers still "do" stuff, just in a different way.
The enlisted corps for the most part is responsible for the execution of that strategic goal - they are tactical in nature.
You can row a boat without a destination, but the effort is rather pointless. However, you can have a destination, but without anyone to row, you won't get far.
The two compliment each other well and would not be able to succeed in the mission without the other.
"... the Officer is as hands-on getting the mission accomplished as the NCOs. "
Roger that. :clap:
First off, Maj. Carrales, while I respect most of what you say, your snide and quite frankly, naive comments assuming that I'm either a whining cadet because of my "diction", or some fresh off the bus recruit are way beneath you. I could be Gen. Courter for all you know. >:(
That's what's wrong with CAPTALK most of the time; as soon as someone's opinion differs from someone else's on here, here comes the pettiness and cheap shots. If you want to discredit someone's opinion, please do it with facts and not mere conjecture, unfounded personal opinions, and just plain old sarcasm.
Like I mentioned earlier, I started this thread to explore an idea with other CAP folks that I thought might be interesting. And contrary to popular belief, I did not start this thread as just another avenue to say "Why can't I be like the REAL military officers.", or "Please salute me...I'm an officer too!" crud.
My purpose initially, until I thought about it objectively after reading some intelligent and non-abrasive responses, was to address what I perceived as a shortcoming in our overall organizational structure. Of course, I agree with the line of thought that "Commissioning" our officers really would not solve the problem of why hold a command rank in the first place.
Some of the responses seem to want to tell everyone that visible rank and uniforms has no affect on how the organization operates. Some people say, why have a command rank if it really doesn't have anything to do with command. The argument that we are all volunteers so it doesn't matter who wears what rank or who is visibly in charge is again another of those cheap red-herring ploys to deflect us from the objective.
As far as rank being symbolic in CAP of your personal professional development, that is not the whole picture. In CAP, professional development milestones are exhibited with ribbons, (i.e. Membership, Leadership, Loening, Garber, Wilson) and not rank. Working your way up the PD tree does not automatically equate to a higher rank. Nor does obtaining ES or other specialized training.
In fact, it does matter to others outside of CAP what rank you are wearing. Go anywhere in your AF-Style uniform in public and see the reactions you get. Now do the same in your golf-shirt combo and see the difference.
Perception is stronger than reality for most humans and the reason that the AFI states than the CAP uniform must be distinctly different from any other military uniform is precisely for this reason. If it REALLY doesn't matter that we have any rank, let alone display it on a uniform then I would submit that we should just ditch every military-style uniform and just wear civvies for everything and everyone.
All I think I'm trying to say is that if we are going to have a rank structure that is helpful to our organizational structure and operations, and one that equates a member to their professional status, that the structure that seems to fit us more than the current structure is the warrant officer-style structure.
I guess the bottom line is, there appears to be no middle ground for CAP, either we are joined to the AF and use AF standards, or we are just another civilian organization like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and UNICEF.
Trying to maintain the status quo between CAP's dual personality is tantamount to vewing a tug-o-war competition.
Quote from: Spike on March 21, 2010, 02:51:24 PM
So, if Commissions were granted, how many Commissioned CAP Officers would move to a unit that is near a military installation? My bet, MANY.
Exactly zero.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 21, 2010, 09:35:05 PM
I guess the bottom line is, there appears to be no middle ground for CAP, either we are joined to the AF and use AF standards, or we are just another civilian organiation like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and UNICEF.
Trying to maintain the status quo between CAP's dual personality is tantamount to vewing a tug-o-war competition.
I think you're wildly overestimating the position of those generally considered here as in favor of a "military" CAP. For the most part they are for the basic status quo in that we remain civilians who wear military style uniforms. It is really those most in favor of a "civilian" CAP that are advocating in radical change to the organization. The "military" CAP members mostly just want to see our regulations enforced while the "civilian" CAP members want to get rid of the ones that make CAP a paramilitary organization.
Quite frankly, it seems to me that those who most strongly push for higher officer standards (because they don't match what the real military does) in particular are those that actually favor a "civilian" CAP and are using supposed deficiencies in our PD system as their argument for dumping that stuff altogether. Mind you, I'm not saying that all who favor higher officer standards are in the "civilian" camp.
So long as CAP has avenues for adults to exist and serve in CAP as "civilians" (wearing non-military uniforms and generally ignoring rank, customs & courtesies, etc.) then there will be conflict with those who favor our paramilitary heritage. This is the bed CAP and the AF have made.
But, keep in mind, this split mostly exists on CAPTalk, not in the real world. Such issues are not cared about or discussed for the most part in real life.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 21, 2010, 09:35:05 PM
I guess the bottom line is, there appears to be no middle ground for CAP, either we are joined to the AF and use AF standards, or we are just another civilian organization like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and UNICEF.
"just another"?
Those organizations have internal issues and external perception issues same as everyone else, but I think being considered in the
same sentence as them would be fine with me, especially the ARC.
Our public affairs folks would kill to be as well known as them.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 21, 2010, 09:35:05 PM
First off, Maj. Carrales, while I respect most of what you say, your snide and quite frankly, naive comments assuming that I'm either a whining cadet because of my "diction", or some fresh off the bus recruit are way beneath you. I could be Gen. Courter for all you know. >:(
(thought better of it)
I posted what I posted not to degrade you, but rather to give you two perspectives on this issue. If you took it personally, then I submit that that is your error, not mine. However, I will apologize.
My numbers are rough and out of date: ARC annual budget = $4.1 billion. CAP annual budget = $35 million. ARC appears to be doing something right - even if they only wear non-standard polo shirts and pants.
Quote from: Short Field on March 21, 2010, 10:37:40 PM
My numbers are rough and out of date: ARC annual budget = $4.1 billion. CAP annual budget = $35 million. ARC appears to be doing something right - even if they only wear non-standard polo shirts and pants.
Do you know the source of their revenue? That's a lot of coin to be getting purely through donations.
Nope.
Quote from: Fubar on March 21, 2010, 10:42:20 PM
Quote from: Short Field on March 21, 2010, 10:37:40 PM
My numbers are rough and out of date: ARC annual budget = $4.1 billion. CAP annual budget = $35 million. ARC appears to be doing something right - even if they only wear non-standard polo shirts and pants.
Do you know the source of their revenue? That's a lot of coin to be getting purely through donations.
Private and corporate donations as well as the sale of commercial products or licensing their logo(s), and the sale of blood products and related services.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 21, 2010, 09:35:05 PM
That's what's wrong with CAPTALK most of the time; as soon as someone's opinion differs from someone else's on here, here comes the pettiness and cheap shots. If you want to discredit someone's opinion, please do it with facts and not mere conjecture, unfounded personal opinions, and just plain old sarcasm.
See, even a new guy with 28 posts (every single one concerning either uniforms and "commissions", BTW) has found us out.
Lots of argument, not so many facts. Usually because we are fighting over "solutions" to "problems" when there is no consensus that such problems exist. When we all have different ideas of the "problem," it is probably not very surprising that we disagree vehemently on the "solutions."
So, since you started this, let's go back to begining.
Exactly what problem are you trying to solve with a commissioning program?Since CAP more or less functions successfully, the burden is on you to show that there is a problem of some sort and that your proposed solution will improve our ability to perform our assigned missions.
Ready . . . . GO!
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 21, 2010, 09:35:05 PMconjecture, unfounded personal opinions, and just plain old sarcasm.
Welcome to the Internet - it can be found under AOL keyword "scary real world"...
Quote from: Eclipse on March 21, 2010, 10:48:47 PM
Quote from: Fubar on March 21, 2010, 10:42:20 PM
Quote from: Short Field on March 21, 2010, 10:37:40 PM
My numbers are rough and out of date: ARC annual budget = $4.1 billion. CAP annual budget = $35 million. ARC appears to be doing something right - even if they only wear non-standard polo shirts and pants.
Do you know the source of their revenue? That's a lot of coin to be getting purely through donations.
Private and corporate donations as well as the sale of commercial products or licensing their logo(s), and the sale of blood products and related services.
Cost recovery from all the CPR and First Aid classes they teach.
Quote from: Ned on March 21, 2010, 10:51:38 PM
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 21, 2010, 09:35:05 PM
That's what's wrong with CAPTALK most of the time; as soon as someone's opinion differs from someone else's on here, here comes the pettiness and cheap shots. If you want to discredit someone's opinion, please do it with facts and not mere conjecture, unfounded personal opinions, and just plain old sarcasm.
See, even a new guy with 28 posts (every single one concerning either uniforms and "commissions", BTW) has found us out.
Lots of argument, not so many facts. Usually because we are fighting over "solutions" to "problems" when there is no consensus that such problems exist. When we all have different ideas of the "problem," it is probably not very surprising that we disagree vehemently on the "solutions."
So, since you started this, let's go back to begining.
Exactly what problem are you trying to solve with a commissioning program?
Since CAP more or less functions successfully, the burden is on you to show that there is a problem of some sort and that your proposed solution will improve our ability to perform our assigned missions.
Ready . . . . GO!
+1
And I a guilty of the solution looking for a problem post as well....welcome to the club.
I guess I just don't see any merit to a "commissioned" officer corps. What we really ought to be doing is separating the fundraising side away from the mission side -- just like the Coast Guard Auxiliary does it now and just like most volunteer fire departments and EMS squads.
You know, not every officer in the ANG or AFRES is commissioned. Some of them, specifically nurses, doctors, chaplains and Staff Judge Advocates only have appointments. We should be concentrating on that idea of an "appointment" and making our officer corps as professional as possible, especially with the PME stuff.
I know that units at all levels have promotion boards, but I wonder what it would be like if the CAP promotion boards were on the same scale as the Air Force. I think I could measure up to that level of competition -- bet you wouldn't have problems like HWSRN, too.
Sadly, the majority of the membership doesn't have time for formal Air Force-style PME, and honestly, I'm sure there's a time factor in there, too. You can cramp a member with all sorts of requirements and, in the end, we as an organization will face the same manpower shortages that VFDs and EMS squads already feel.
Quote from: Short Field on March 21, 2010, 07:53:16 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 21, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.
I guess that is why all the airplanes are flown by NCOs in the USAF?
The last time I looked, pilots didn't do their own maintenance. That's in the realm of the NCOs. That said, I have always been of the opinion that we're all part of the same team, and everyone's contribution is significant.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 21, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
However, it has always bothered me a bit that, as you say, "any dork with a GED can walk in and pin on Lt bars in six months." I think there should be more to it than that, but I don't have the answer as to what, and I don't have anything positive and doable to suggest, so I'll leave it at that.
Agreed; now that we have an OBC, that course or a technician specialty rating (don't really care which) ought to be a minimum for butterbars.
What grade to give following completion of Level 1?
Here are some options:
A) None (remain SMWOG)
B) Senior Airman (not an NCO grade in USAF, so we shouldn't have too much trouble getting it approved)
C) FO
Quote from: SarDragon on March 22, 2010, 02:08:59 AM
Quote from: Short Field on March 21, 2010, 07:53:16 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 21, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.
I guess that is why all the airplanes are flown by NCOs in the USAF?
The last time I looked, pilots didn't do their own maintenance. That's in the realm of the NCOs. That said, I have always been of the opinion that we're all part of the same team, and everyone's contribution is significant.
I know Shortfield personally and I can attest that he does know exactly how the NCO and Officer corps work together to get it done.
I think he was just attacking the MYTH that officers don't work.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 22, 2010, 03:15:57 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 21, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
However, it has always bothered me a bit that, as you say, "any dork with a GED can walk in and pin on Lt bars in six months." I think there should be more to it than that, but I don't have the answer as to what, and I don't have anything positive and doable to suggest, so I'll leave it at that.
Agreed; now that we have an OBC, that course or a technician specialty rating (don't really care which) ought to be a minimum for butterbars.
What grade to give following completion of Level 1?
Here are some options:
A) None (remain SMWOG)
B) Senior Airman (not an NCO grade in USAF, so we shouldn't have too much trouble getting it approved)
C) FO
Now that has been the first sensable suggestion I have heard yet.
But....again......solution looking for a problem.
I never meant to say, or infer, that "officers don't work." They do. Their main, though not exclusive, role, is in formulating plans, strategies, etc. I am sorry if it sounded otherwise.
We, as CAP officers, uniformed civilian volunteers, do the biggest share of the legwork in our sometimes-troubled-but-I-still-love-it little organisation.
If our rank structure remains the same now and always, then so be it. We work within what we've been granted.
I do agree with ZigZag that there should be a bit more to getting second looie. What, I don't know. Maybe a closed-book test on CPPT, CAP's three primary missions, customs & courtesies and the relationship between CAP and the USAF?
As Sgt. Maxwell Q. Klinger once said, "if I had all the answers, I'd run for God."
Quote from: CyBorg on March 22, 2010, 04:22:37 AM
I never meant to say, or infer, that "officers don't work." They do. Their main, though not exclusive, role, is in formulating plans, strategies, etc.
Pick your service. The main role of USAF officers is pulling the trigger and killing the enemy. The number of USAF NCOs directly involved in conducting offensive operations and pulling the trigger is very small compared to the USAF Officers directly involved in pulling the trigger. Check out the manning in a typical fighter squadron and compare the number of officers to enlisted. US Army and USMC officers lead men into combat - but they are not the primary trigger pullers, their enlisted troops are the primary trigger pullers.
The main role of CAP officers is doing everything that needs doing since there really is no NCO corps. Or are you trying to discuss CADET NCOs and Officers roles in a topic concerning Senior Members?
Quote from: CyBorg on March 22, 2010, 04:22:37 AM
I never meant to say, or infer, that "officers don't work." They do.
Thank you. I will buy you a Coke the first time we meet! :)
My thought on the topic at hand is: It is what it is. Rank in CAP means what rank in CAP means.
v/r
Quote from: Short Field on March 22, 2010, 05:58:45 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 22, 2010, 04:22:37 AM
I never meant to say, or infer, that "officers don't work." They do. Their main, though not exclusive, role, is in formulating plans, strategies, etc.
Pick your service. The main role of USAF officers is pulling the trigger and killing the enemy. The number of USAF NCOs directly involved in conducting offensive operations and pulling the trigger is very small compared to the USAF Officers directly involved in pulling the trigger. Check out the manning in a typical fighter squadron and compare the number of officers to enlisted. US Army and USMC officers lead men into combat - but they are not the primary trigger pullers, their enlisted troops are the primary trigger pullers.
The main role of CAP officers is doing everything that needs doing since there really is no NCO corps. Or are you trying to discuss CADET NCOs and Officers roles in a topic concerning Senior Members?
How many actually Air Force Officers are trigger pullers? Do you have a number compared with the number of AF Chaplains Doctors Logistics Management Officers? I think there are are more "noncombatant" Air Force Officers than Combatant Officers. I know the force breakdown, there are more Airman supporting a "fighter squadron" than there are Officers.
Are you telling me Army and Marine Officers are not "trigger pullers"?? There are more Combat Officers in the Army that "pull the trigger" than in the Air Force, Marines and Navy put together. That is just how it is.
The Air Force has way too many Officers as it is.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 21, 2010, 09:57:20 PM
However, I will apologize.
Apology accepted.
It's funny how far off the responses go from the original topic. Then there's Ned the "post stat keeper" to set you straight on how well you're doing on the forum. ;) Thanks Ned, I better hurry up and post more in the other categories so I can earn your respect.
Anyway, for my part, I think I'm done with this thread now, especially in light of not even agreeing with my own initial premise of the commissioned officer corps. :P Thanks everyone for your participation.
Quote from: NewbieOnTheLoose on March 22, 2010, 04:30:16 PM. Then there's Ned the "post stat keeper" to set you straight on how well you're doing on the forum. ;) Thanks Ned, I better hurry up and post more in the other categories so I can earn your respect.
I prefer to think of myself as a "troll avoider."
You're not the first or last guy to come aboard with strong opinions about uniforms and things like commissions. Usually they are honorable volunteers like yourself who have been waiting for a while to say something.
But sometimes people come to CT or CS to provoke discussion for the sake of discussion rather than to teach, learn, or improve the organization through dialogue. When I see contraversial postions taken by folks relatively new on the boards, I usually take a peek at their past posts. If every single one of their posts is about uniforms, for instance, that allows me to make some inferences and understand where the poster is "coming from", so to speak.
Because as others have pointed out, uniforms (and commissions for that matter) are just tools that let us perform our missions more effectively. If a uniform change would help us get our job done better, we can and should discuss it.
But all too often members get more excited about the clothes they are wearing than the mission they are performing. It is almost like uniforms become and end to themselves for some of us. That can be problematic when we spend more time arguing about who can wear what color of pants than we do about things that actually matter to our stakeholders, training and mentoring cadets, or training to perform actual emergency services.
So yes, if you care about earning my respect, consider posting on other topics and contributing to moving the ball forward.
(But as you have undoubtedly noticed, few if any posters seem to care much about earning my respect. ;) And they may well be right.)
Ned Lee
Quote from: Spike on March 22, 2010, 02:35:10 PM
The Air Force has way too many Officers as it is.
Thank you for your well thought out and documented comments.
Quote from: Ned on March 22, 2010, 05:49:32 PM
But all too often members get more excited about the clothes they are wearing than the mission they are performing. It is almost like uniforms become and end to themselves for some of us. That can be problematic when we spend more time arguing about who can wear what color of pants than we do about things that actually matter to our stakeholders, training and mentoring cadets, or training to perform actual emergency services.
Ned, my thinking on this is to agree with whomever said earlier in this thread that not everything discussed on CAP Talk is discussed IRL. I don't normally go discussing the latest uniform controversies and gossip regularly while doing my job at my unit. Generally I'm focused on what's going on at that point. I'm guessing that that's the case most of the time, and that CAP Talk is used exactly for what it turns out to be, people griping and postulating and whatnot on the things they don't discuss while getting the mission done.
YMMV
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on March 22, 2010, 10:01:34 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 22, 2010, 04:22:37 AM
I never meant to say, or infer, that "officers don't work." They do.
Thank you. I will buy you a Coke the first time we meet! :)
My thought on the topic at hand is: It is what it is. Rank in CAP means what rank in CAP means.
v/r
But, but, but Lt. Col., we want EVERYONE to RESPECT OUR AUTHORITY like a bunch of Senior Member Eric Cartmans. :o
Quote from: Ned on March 22, 2010, 05:49:32 PM
But all too often members get more excited about the clothes they are wearing than the mission they are performing. It is almost like uniforms become and end to themselves for some of us. That can be problematic when we spend more time arguing about who can wear what color of pants than we do about things that actually matter to our stakeholders, training and mentoring cadets, or training to perform actual emergency services.
This is because the baseline is a moving target, is enforced without uniformity, trained inconsistently, and in the end everything
is on our nickel.
Fix any
one of those and the grossing is reduced, fix all and it goes away.
Lock down and/or limit the styles, and it becomes easier to figure things out.
Enforce all the rules in the same way for all, and we're in the same boat.
Make sure unit CC's and their designates are held responsible with consequences for being knowledgeable about uniforms and acting as a mentor to new members.
...or simply issue us our uniforms and then change
whatever you want,
whenever you want because we'd have nothing to complain about...
Most of our members want to present a professional image for both themselves and the corporation, and have clothing options that fit the mission without looking like goobers or security guards. The other 1%'ers that just can't be bothered would pop up no matter what we do and the military and civilian agencies have the same issues there.
On a more serious note, we join because we want to serve. And as others have mentioned, the uniform discussion is rather a distraction.
Yesterday, I was a MS and aerial photographer for flooding sorties we're doing for the State of SD. We worked our tails off: Up early, took photos, landed to upload and tag, up in the air again, repeat, home at 2000. Lunch was a gobbled down stale gas station sandwich while I was uploading photos to ARGUS from an FBO on a laptop. We were redirected a couple of times to view and photograph critical flooding situations that suddenly arose.
It was a stressful, difficult, long, fun, and satisfying day helping my state and its citizens, if only just a bit.
And our crew? Our pilot is our former wing commander. He's an older gentleman but still extremely fit and former military What did he wear? CAP polo shirt, gray slacks, black shoes, civilian coat. Our MS? Our new squadron CC, former ANG, a member for just a few years, like me, in his 50s, but could still kick guys' butts half his age. He wore the sage green flight suit and flight cap with matching flight jacket.
And me? Fatboy that I am, wore my blue CAP flight suit and CAP ballcap and matching flight jacket.
Did each of us wearing a different uniform get in the way of the mission? No. As a new aircrew member, I like all the pockets in the flight suit for all my stuff. Were people confused? Not as far as I can tell. The folks we met either understood we were CAP--my CC and I had our names and CAP on our flight suit badges--or thought we might be ANG or USAF. We just told them who we were and what we were doing and they were appreciative that we were doing it.
No big deal.
It's function over form, fellow babies. Get the job done. Serve our communities and nation. Get trained and get to work! ;D That's the most satisfying thing about CAP in my opinion.