We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join. When being referred to officially they are called Senior Member Jones (SM Jones) as if "Senior Member" were a CAP grade. The fact that such people are referred to in the regulations as "senior members without grade" obviously means that they don't have a CAP grade though they are given a title that makes it seem like they do.
We've had quite a few different proposals with dealing with new senior members ranging from calling them "Officer Candidates" to making them "Airmen" until they can jump up to 2nd Lt. (or whatever other rank they can get while taking advantage of the various special or mission-related promotion opportunities we have available.
However, the one thing that I don't think has ever been brought up here is the fact that we're treating new cadets and new seniors differently. When a cadert joins they are immediately assigned the rank of Cadet Airman Basic. They don't exist in some limbo phase as a "Cadet without grade" until they complete the Curry and go to Cadet Airman.
So, shouldn't we be giving new senior members SOME sort of grade?
New Senior Members are just that - SM. The "WOG" is unofficial terminology we've adopted over time. Their grade is "SM".
Perhaps theres some sort of influence by the "temporary" standing until the background check is completed. Although the limbo does not change until 2Lt is applied for, and granted.
OTOH, I just get the impression that 'SM' is the grade. The WOG is something that .. just became.
Where as since the cadet application is processed immediately.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 05:22:42 PM
New Senior Members are just that - SM. The "WOG" is unofficial terminology we've adopted over time. Their grade is "SM".
As we are evolving, just evolve the unofficial terminology to "without higher grade."
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 05:22:42 PM
New Senior Members are just that - SM. The "WOG" is unofficial terminology we've adopted over time. Their grade is "SM".
No, the regs are pretty clear that they are, in fact, Senior Members "without grade".
Quote from: CAPR35-5
4. Initial Grades. All senior members will be enrolled as CAP senior members without grade, unless they are specifically exempt from Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program and immediately qualify for an officer grade in consideration of previous CAP experience, as set forth in section C.
Quote from: CAPR35-5
30. General. Only senior members under 21 years of age will be appointed to or promoted to the flight officer grades. This category is designed as a transition for cadets transferring to senior member status and for those senior members who are otherwise eligible for CAP officer grade except that they have not yet reached the minimum age of 21. Upon reaching age 21, the member will be appointed to an appropriate officer grade or will be classified as a senior member without grade until he or she is eligible for promotion to officer grade.
..I could go on, but you get the point.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 05:22:42 PM
New Senior Members are just that - SM. The "WOG" is unofficial terminology we've adopted over time. Their grade is "SM".
Which is what I said. I didn't use the SMWOG common on CAPTalk. But, there are numerous references to "senior members without grade" in the regulations.
The grade is "SM", not SM WOG - if you don't believe me, check eServices or the ID cards.
Nowhere is SMWOG listed as a grade identifier.
What Joe has listed is a sentence and statement of fact, not a grade or identifier.
'SM' is ambiguous. It can refer to all adult members as one large group (the senior members), and it is used that way quite often. It can also refer to those adult members who are at the bottom on the rank structure. In informal communication, it is usually clear from the context which meaning is desired.
'Senior members without grade' allows us to talk about that second group without the ambiguity. 'SM' functions as the grade the abbreviation for this group, when needed.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 05:47:24 PMBut, there are numerous references to "senior members without grade" in the regulations.
Looking at the two references quoted above, specifically the bolded parts, can any of you show us a better way to differentiate between my two groups than the one in use?
FNG or "Cherry" works for me.
In what context would you need to distinguish between an "SM" and an "SMWOG"? Once they are approved by NHQ, the grade is fairly irrelevant in terms of participation.
What we have here is several related but separate issues.
A new adult member in CAP is referred to in the regulations as SMWOG.
By definition they have no grade.
But their title is senior member (SM).
Is this confusing? Not really...only if you want to be nit picky about it.
Do SM have grade? Sure thing...they are SMWOG. Even it that is a contradiction in terms.
But we deal with that all the time.
We have Officers and we have Enlisted....even if half the enlisted personnel have the word "officer" in their title!
So is a Staff Sergeant an officer? It says so right there on my certificate of appointment to the Non Commissioned OFFICER corps.
But we live with this contradition in terms all the time.
The initial "grade" for all new members is "SMWOG" and he is referred to as "senior member" or "Mr/Ms".
Any one have any problems understanding that?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 06:57:55 PM
In what context would you need to distinguish between an "SM" and an "SMWOG"? Once they are approved by NHQ, the grade is fairly irrelevant in terms of participation.
'SM' as an abbreviation fills the grade block as needed (forms, rosters, etc).
'Senior member without grade', never abbreviated, distinguishes the two groups of adult members I spoke of above, as is done in the bolded text I referred to.
This entire conversation is lowering our IQ's...
It has also been hashed out a number of times to no resolution before.
Except that no one is actually talking about the discrepancy I pointed out between how we treat new cadets vs how we treat new seniors.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 03, 2010, 07:00:38 PM
What we have here is several related but separate issues.
A new adult member in CAP is referred to in the regulations as SMWOG.
By definition they have no grade.
But their title is senior member (SM).
Incorrect. The "grade" is SM. "SMWOG is
NEVER used as an abbreviation. You only see it spelled out, referring to that particular level of members as a group.
QuoteIs this confusing? Not really...only if you want to be nit picky about it.
Do SM have grade? Sure thing...they are SMWOG. Even it that is a contradiction in terms.
Again, incorrect. See above.
QuoteBut we deal with that all the time.
We have Officers and we have Enlisted....even if half the enlisted personnel have the word "officer" in their title!
So is a Staff Sergeant an officer? It says so right there on my certificate of appointment to the Non Commissioned OFFICER corps.
But we live with this contradition in terms all the time.
The initial "grade" for all new members is "SMWOG" and he is referred to as "senior member" or "Mr/Ms".
Any one have any problems understanding that?
Apparently, a lot of people. Here's another instance where word-of-mouth has overwhelmed what's written in the regs, and people have done their very best to over complicate things. We need to invoke "KISS" and get people up to speed on what's really correct.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 07:10:52 PM
Except that no one is actually talking about the discrepancy I pointed out between how we treat new cadets vs how we treat new seniors.
I don't see what the problem is, other than the lack of understanding of what is being read in the regs.
New cadet = C/AB.
New adult member = SM.
What's the discrepancy?
I have discussed the ambiguity issue above, and it seems pretty simple to me.
Dave....I use SMWOG only because I was too lazy to spell it out. ::)
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 07:10:52 PM
Except that no one is actually talking about the discrepancy I pointed out between how we treat new cadets vs how we treat new seniors.
True.
Cadets are welcomed to the the next BBQ and begin a rich, rewarding journey towards being better citizens and community leaders.
Seniors are immediately overwhelmed with 12 staff positions and more work than most do during their full time employment, which only increases as they show a competency in a given area.
However I don't see that changing with a different grade indicator.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 03, 2010, 07:15:09 PM
I don't see what the problem is, other than the lack of understanding of what is being read in the regs.
New cadet = C/AB.
New adult member = SM.
What's the discrepancy?
This discrepancy is that C/AB IS A GRADE. SM is not.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on July 03, 2010, 07:15:09 PM
I don't see what the problem is, other than the lack of understanding of what is being read in the regs.
New cadet = C/AB.
New adult member = SM.
What's the discrepancy?
This discrepancy is that C/AB IS A GRADE. SM is not.
Then why is it used to fill the grade block on forms and membership cards?
It's even in the grade listing in CAPP 151. It it absent from the list in CAPR 35-5. The 151 is newer.
Here's another example where the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 03, 2010, 07:36:51 PM
Here's another example where the left hand isn't talking to the right hand has more important things to worry about.
Fixed that fer 'ya...
SM/OC. Senior Member/Officer Candidate.
Then again, neither has an insignia. C.A.P. cutouts are not a rank insignia.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 03, 2010, 07:36:51 PM
Then why is it used to fill the grade block on forms and membership cards?
Because computers don't like blank spaces.
If it looks like a grade, quacks like a grade, smells like a grade........but is technically not a grade...who cares?
We are talking about stupid semantics that last only six months.
Is it too much to ask that as much of CAP life as possible have some logical reason or purpose behind it?
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 08:31:40 PM
Is it too much to ask that as much of CAP life as possible have some logical reason or purpose behind it?
Yes, when you expect their logic to match yours 100% of the time. >:D
Geeez, this discussion makes my head hurt. By the way, how many angels can stand on the head of that pin?
Quote from: PA Guy on July 03, 2010, 09:07:49 PM
Geeez, this discussion makes my head hurt. By the way, how many angels can stand on the head of that pin?
That one is easy......measure the ass of an angle....measure the head of a pin....divide one into the other.
I will leave the rest as an exercise for the student. :D
(tip of the hat to Robert Heinlein).
Just because all possible issues are not of earth-shattering importance doesn't mean that they aren't worth talking about.
In fact, one might say that most of what we talk about is in that category, so I would advise folks to not get too high and mighty about which issues are too nitpicky to discuss since somewhere in their prior posts I'm sure we could find an example of them doing the same thing.
Point taken - but this isn't new - just new today.
We've discussed it a bunch of times, same with most of the other active threads on here right now. And you're not some newb, you were in those conversations as well.
It would actually be ok, when nothing's going on, to have no activity here.
SM is not a "temporary" grade any more than an actual grade.
We have multiple members who have absolutely no interest in grade. We have one SM who has been an SM(WOG) for almost two years. They are promotion eligible, they just don't want to.
Of course cadets are treated differently.
Cadets are kids and senior members are adults. We're supposed to be treated differently.
There are Senior Member pilots who join JUST TO FLY, or JUST TO PLAY WITH RADIOS, or JUST TO SPEND TIME WITH THEIR KIDS (who are cadets) and couldn't care less if they have a military-sounding grade. A cadet does not join with similar motivation.
If you HAD to do something radical, I would say this: Make new members choose. If they don't care about military grade/uniforms, let them stick with "SM" but if they want to pursue the PD THEN give them "Officer Candidate" or "Flight Officer" or "Warrant Officer" or whatever other suggestions are floating out there.
Some people just don't want the rank/uniforms. Why would we force it on them?
WIWAC, Senior member was the initial grade for adults. If you get out your old CAPM 50-3, it will tell you the title of address for each grade. SM was addressed as "Senior Member." Mr/Ms is reserved for FOs and military WOs.
SM is a grade. It is the lowest grade. If you say they are without grade, then they have no relation to any other member. Their grade is below FO or any CAP NCOs you may have. You can't have a member without grade, you just have someone at the lowest grade. They are, more correctly, senior members without grade insignia.
Quote from: Gunner C on July 04, 2010, 12:05:37 AM
Their grade is below FO or any CAP NCOs you may have. You can't have a member without grade, you just have someone at the lowest grade.
I suppose this brings us to a discussion on the point of CAP rank.
What does it mean for a CAP rank to be "above" or "below" another?
In the military, there is a difference in pay and (generally) responsibility.
In the military, you will not likely find a unit commanded by an O-1 with two O-5's serving under him/her.
Likewise, you may consider SM "below" another grade, but the reality is, it is an orange in a bunch of apples. It is a non-military sounding grade smack dab in the middle of a military-style hierarchy.
The fact is, we have SM Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels who have never served in command positions.
Rank denotes completion of PD requirements more than anything else because the prevailing wisdom is that members "deserve" promotion if they get all of the "check-offs" rather than being related to additional responsibilities.
The last thing we need is more ranks, more Levels or anything of the sort.
I think the time has come for CAP to either rethink how we apply military grade or scrap the system altogether and go to a system like what the USCG Auxiliary uses.
Quote from: Gunner C on July 04, 2010, 12:05:37 AM
If you say they are without grade, then they have no relation to any other member.
Thats the exact situation we're in. Looks at the list of senior member grades in 35-5 1-3 and you won't find "senior member without grade on it" even though all CAP NCO, F/O, and Officer ranks are listed. No one can say that a senior member without grade is a grade in and of itself.
So, I actually do have an easy solution to this relatively minor problem.... Just make "Senior Member" an actual grade.
Sure it isn't a "real military" rank, but then again our FO ranks aren't "real" either.
Where to put it? Below all other SM grades since all you can do from there is move up.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 12:41:58 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on July 04, 2010, 12:05:37 AM
If you say they are without grade, then they have no relation to any other member.
Thats the exact situation we're in. Looks at the list of senior member grades in 35-5 1-3 and you won't find "senior member without grade on it" even though all CAP NCO, F/O, and Officer ranks are listed. No one can say that a senior member without grade is a grade in and of itself.
So, I actually do have an easy solution to this relatively minor problem.... Just make "Senior Member" an actual grade.
Sure it isn't a "real military" rank, but then again our FO ranks aren't "real" either.
Where to put it? Below all other SM grades since all you can do from there is move up.
]
It is. I pointed out two examples of it above. I'm sure there are more, but it's not important enough to do any more research.
I have been accused of being pedantic many times, both on here and elsewhere. I have, in the past, gone way overboard at picking fly poop out of pepper. Having been given many lessons that behaviour, I think I can recognize it fairly well. I am seeing it all over this thread.
IMHO, nothing's broken, except a little bit of explanation from the olde hands to the newbs. This ain't rocket surgery.
Quote from: Gunner C on July 04, 2010, 12:05:37 AM
WIWAC, Senior member was the initial grade for adults. If you get out your old CAPM 50-3, it will tell you the title of address for each grade. SM was addressed as "Senior Member." Mr/Ms is reserved for FOs and military WOs.
SM is a grade. It is the lowest grade. If you say they are without grade, then they have no relation to any other member. Their grade is below FO or any CAP NCOs you may have. You can't have a member without grade, you just have someone at the lowest grade. They are, more correctly, senior members without grade insignia.
Speaking of the 50-3, I just looked in my olde one (2nd ed, 1967) and on the page titled - Civil Air Patrol Grade Insignia and Titles - down at the very bottom in the Non-Commissioned Members section, it says Senior Member (SM). That's the way it's been since I joined CAP in 1964, although its manner of explanation has suffered over the years. Right across the table is Cadet Basic (CB). Neither of these grades have insignia. The structure has changed a bit over the years with additions and subtractions, but the system remains the same.
SM is not just for those Senior Members that don't want to go through the PD program either, it is also for ANY SM who does not possess a high school diploma. CAP has determined that to (be entitled to/have earned) the rank of 2Lt or higher one must meet certain requirements, predominantly Level One. Any member that will not or can not complete those requirements needs to be referred to as something. Assigning a member the "rank" of Senior Member" makes them feel more a part of CAP. While they are not an "Officer" there are (to my knowledge) no benefits or drawbacks to being a SM vs. an Officer. It's just a prefix. In the "real world" we use Mr., Mrs., etc. In CAP, being, at least in part, modeled after the Air Force, our prefixes are rank. Since rank has no substantive meaning in CAP, who cares?
Did that come out as a disastrous mumbling or was it actually coherent?
Coherent mumbling...
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 03, 2010, 11:25:02 PM
Cadets are kids and senior members are adults. We're supposed to be treated differently.
(Off - Topic, but important.)
Strong non-concur.
The concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.
Apples and oranges.
Some cadets are minors; some are adults.
Some seniors are minors; some are adults.
Cadets are cadets, by deninition a military student, usually training to be an officer. Uncle Sam has cadets ranging in age from 12 (JROTC) to over 30 (in ROTC and the Service Academies).
Now back to your typical nit-picking CAPTalk thread, where we will spend several pages arguing about nothing. The regs are somewhat inconsistent it their use of SM.
And ultimately it simply doesn't matter. Everyone knows what we are talking about. Stakeholders don't care about the inconsistency. The general public doesn't care. 99.99% of CAP doesn't care. It is literaly not worth the time and effort it would take to update and harmonize the regs.
But that has never stopped us here, has it?
Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 06:53:15 AM
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 03, 2010, 11:25:02 PM
Cadets are kids and senior members are adults. We're supposed to be treated differently.
(Off - Topic, but important.)
Strong non-concur.
The concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.
Apples and oranges.
Some cadets are minors; some are adults.
Some seniors are minors; some are adults.
Cadets are cadets, by deninition a military student, usually training to be an officer. Uncle Sam has cadets ranging in age from 12 (JROTC) to over 30 (in ROTC and the Service Academies).
Now back to your typical nit-picking CAPTalk thread, where we will spend several pages arguing about nothing. The regs are somewhat inconsistent it their use of SM.
And ultimately it simply doesn't matter. Everyone knows what we are talking about. Stakeholders don't care about the inconsistency. The general public doesn't care. 99.99% of CAP doesn't care. It is literaly not worth the time and effort it would take to update and harmonize the regs.
But that has never stopped us here, has it?
Care to elaborate?
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join. When being referred to officially they are called Senior Member Jones (SM Jones) as if "Senior Member" were a CAP grade. The fact that such people are referred to in the regulations as "senior members without grade" obviously means that they don't have a CAP grade though they are given a title that makes it seem like they do.
We've had quite a few different proposals with dealing with new senior members ranging from calling them "Officer Candidates" to making them "Airmen" until they can jump up to 2nd Lt. (or whatever other rank they can get while taking advantage of the various special or mission-related promotion opportunities we have available.
However, the one thing that I don't think has ever been brought up here is the fact that we're treating new cadets and new seniors differently. When a cadert joins they are immediately assigned the rank of Cadet Airman Basic. They don't exist in some limbo phase as a "Cadet without grade" until they complete the Curry and go to Cadet Airman.
So, shouldn't we be giving new senior members SOME sort of grade?
The joke is that if that individual were to take an AFDLI course, they'd be an E-1 grade wise.
Therefore, I really think that officer trainee or candidate would be a great idea, better than just senior member. It would also solve some of the uniform insignia inconsistancies. I always thought it odd that an AB/E-1 in the Air Force wears a flight cap with blue piping. In the CAP, however, there's officer piping on fhe flight cap and a CAP device...for what it's worth in this forum.
No more insignias, please.
Do like the USCG Aux if we have to do something.
Have an organizational crest that is worn on the epaulets by SMs.
I would strongly favor either eliminating FO ranks or actually recording them at national, however.
Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:50:00 PM
Care to elaborate?
Sure.
First, the age at which a person legally becomes an adult with responsiblity for themselves is generally called "the age of majority." Persons who have not reached this chronilogical age are minors.
For the great majority of our nation's history, the age was fairly universal at 21. In the late 20th century, it was changed to 18 for most - but not all - states.
And Puerto Rico stayed at 21.
So, we have a bunch of 18, 19, and 20 year old seniors who are legally minors in their home state/commonwealth.
And we haven't even talked about the overseas units.
(Don't confuse the age of majority with the "voting age" which indeed is 18 in all states by federal law. But voting age and the age of majority are different concepts.)
Second, we currently have some 17 year old senior members because the 39-2 allows them to be seniors if they are serving on active duty ("regardless of age. para 3-2 (b)).
Thanks for asking.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 03:29:07 PM
Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:50:00 PM
Care to elaborate?
Sure.
First, the age at which a person legally becomes an adult with responsiblity for themselves is generally called "the age of majority." Persons who have not reached this chronilogical age are minors.
For the great majority of our nation's history, the age was fairly universal at 21. In the late 20th century, it was changed to 18 for most - but not all - states.
And Puerto Rico stayed at 21.
So, we have a bunch of 18, 19, and 20 year old seniors who are legally minors in their home state/commonwealth.
And we haven't even talked about the overseas units.
(Don't confuse the age of majority with the "voting age" which indeed is 18 in all states by federal law. But voting age and the age of majority are different concepts.)
Second, we currently have some 17 year old senior members because the 39-2 allows them to be seniors if they are serving on active duty ("regardless of age. para 3-2 (b)).
Thanks for asking.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Lesson learned. thanks for replying. :-[
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 03, 2010, 11:25:02 PM
SM is not a "temporary" grade any more than an actual grade.Of course cadets are treated differently.
Cadets are kids and senior members are adults. We're supposed to be treated differently.
Explain to me the age-critical reason for assigning new cadets a grade while not doing so for adults?
Sure we treat cadets differently than seniors differently in a lot of areas of CAP, but there is usually a logical reason behind it.
Are you saying that 65-year old new seniors can't handle being given a grade when joining CAP, but that 12-year old cadets can?
I do not understand what all the ruckus is about with this topic, according to CAPM 39-2, Civil Air Patrol (CAP) has ten types of membership categories. Of these, grade may be awarded or earned in only six of them; Cadets, Seniors, State Legislative members, Congressional members, Honorary members and Life members.
When a youth member joins CAP, s/he is a Cadet and addressed as Cadet. When an adult joins CAP, s/he is a Senior and addressed as Mr., Ms. or Miss.
Those senior's who have attained a grade, are addressed by their grade and last name. Again, those that have not, are addressed by utilizing the terminology; Mr., Ms or Miss and their last name.
CAPR 35-5, Section A, paragraph 1-3 lists all the senior member grades. Senior member without grade is not listed and therefore does not exist (as a grade).
In the next paragraph (1-4), it makes it clear that not all senior members have grade (as stated above) unless certain conditions are met. To be a member without grade does not imply a grade but that fact that one has not yet been attained, nothing more.
If anything, to avoid confusion on this issue, CAP could change paragraph 1-4 to read; "Initial Status. All seniors will be enrolled as CAP seniors without grade, unless they are specifically exempt from Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program and immediately qualify for an officer grade in consideration of previous CAP experience, as set forth in section C."
By removing the term "Grade" from the paragraph identifier and replacing it with "Status" would go a long way in avoiding confusion. In addition, removing the word "members" from "senior members" would be a plus. After all, we are speaking of the individual, not the category.
QuoteWhen a youth member joins CAP, s/he is a Cadet and addressed as Cadet.
Actually, they are addressed as Airman (as are C/AMN, C/A1C, C/SrA) when you want to use their grade, though "Cadet" can be used as a generic term for all cadets by senior members. There is no generic form of address for all senior members in the same way.
Quote from: CAPOfficer on July 04, 2010, 04:55:27 PMThose senior's who have attained a grade, are addressed by their grade and last name. Again, those that have not, are addressed by utilizing the terminology; Mr., Ms or Miss and their last name.
Actually no. According to CAPP 151, senior members without grade are addressed as "Senior Member". And, of course we have the contradiction of this pamphlet indicating that "Senior Member" is a grade itself (p. 16) even though it isn't one (offiically).
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 12:30:15 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on July 04, 2010, 12:05:37 AM
Their grade is below FO or any CAP NCOs you may have. You can't have a member without grade, you just have someone at the lowest grade.
I suppose this brings us to a discussion on the point of CAP rank.
What does it mean for a CAP rank to be "above" or "below" another?
Don't confuse GRADE with RANK.
Grade is what you wear on your shoulder and RANK is where you are in the pecking order.
CAP is special as all our authority comes from position and not grade.
Our "rank" is driven by that authority.
In a purely social context we default to the RM military tradition where RANK and GRADE are in sync....but operationally RANK comes from position. The IC is always the boss....no matter what his grade. The Squadron CC is always the boss...no matter what his grade. The Operations Officer is always the boss over the Assitant Ops Officers....no matter what his grade.
QuoteIn the military, there is a difference in pay and (generally) responsibility.
In the military, you will not likely find a unit commanded by an O-1 with two O-5's serving under him/her.
No but you will find any number of situations where an O-3 or O-4 may be over an O-5 or O-6. (Pilots In Command, Captains (position not rank) of Navy Ships, etc). I have personally been placed over an E-7 when I was a lowly E-7 as a shift leader for the Disaster Preparedness Support Team. It happens all the time in the RM....they just have mechinims in place to ensure that it does not happen often.
QuoteLikewise, you may consider SM "below" another grade, but the reality is, it is an orange in a bunch of apples. It is a non-military sounding grade smack dab in the middle of a military-style hierarchy.
NO not realy. They wear a uniform....if the choose....they have a title, they are just below all other senior members and above all cadets. The name is kind of clunky......if that's your problem....let's call them 3rd Leutenants! Think of them as sort of like ROTC or USAFA cadets.....they don't rate any sort of salute or authority except to other cadets. They are Senior Memebers.
QuoteThe fact is, we have SM Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels who have never served in command positions.
Only because they never bothered to fill out the paper work. Commanders get an automatic promotion to 1st Lt and an advance to Capt after one year. Not very conductive to your argument.
QuoteRank denotes completion of PD requirements more than anything else because the prevailing wisdom is that members "deserve" promotion if they get all of the "check-offs" rather than being related to additional responsibilities.
No....GRADE denote completion of PD requirmens and other box checking......and a subjective evaluation by their commanders. That the bar is held low does not mean it is not there.
QuoteThe last thing we need is more ranks, more Levels or anything of the sort.
I think the time has come for CAP to either rethink how we apply military grade or scrap the system altogether and go to a system like what the USCG Auxiliary uses.
So now we go from one extreme to the other......No NCOs because it is confusing and not needed to let's completely throw out the grade system!
While I will admit there is some merit to giving GRADE to match your RANK (i.e. position) you will not be able to sell that to the rank and file.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 04:11:04 PM
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 03, 2010, 11:25:02 PM
SM is not a "temporary" grade any more than an actual grade.Of course cadets are treated differently.
Cadets are kids and senior members are adults. We're supposed to be treated differently.
Explain to me the age-critical reason for assigning new cadets a grade while not doing so for adults?
Sure we treat cadets differently than seniors differently in a lot of areas of CAP, but there is usually a logical reason behind it.
Are you saying that 65-year old new seniors can't handle being given a grade when joining CAP, but that 12-year old cadets can?
We do assign new SM's a grade....it is called SM! They were the same insigina as a C/AB (CAP cutouts).
At this point we are just arguing semantics....and technicalities.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2010, 06:03:57 PM
We do assign new SM's a grade....it is called SM! They were the same insigina as a C/AB (CAP cutouts).
At this point we are just arguing semantics....and technicalities.
I find this a surprising comment from someone who just spent an entire post emphasizing how important it is to distinguish between rank and grade. A Senior member without grade is by definition someone that does not have a grade. CAP certainly could make Senior Member (SM) an actual grade. It would only take a few minor regulation changes. It would just sort of stand out from the other military grades that CAP uses.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2010, 06:01:23 PM
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 12:30:15 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on July 04, 2010, 12:05:37 AM
Their grade is below FO or any CAP NCOs you may have. You can't have a member without grade, you just have someone at the lowest grade.
No but you will find any number of situations where an O-3 or O-4 may be over an O-5 or O-6. (Pilots In Command, Captains (position not rank) of Navy Ships, etc). I have personally been placed over an E-7 when I was a lowly E-7 as a shift leader for the Disaster Preparedness Support Team. It happens all the time in the RM....they just have mechinims in place to ensure that it does not happen often.
This example is....well...poorly formulated. You seem to be claiming that a Navy Captain (position not rank) who is, say, an O-4 could be in command while, say, an O-5 is placed below their command. This is just not the case. Your example is a very common situation, but is, well...different.
There is a difference between having an O-5 CO with an O-6 under their command and say, an E-6 being in charge of a safety team, a disaster preparedness team or even an inventory team that has an E-7. It is sort of like the protocol for a life boat.
You have a life boat filled with seamen and airmen, along with an Ensign (O-1) who has been in the Navy for a year and a Senior Chief Petty Officer. Who takes command? The SCPO. For survival, experience has to trump grade. That's RTC stuff.
That does not mean that the SCPO will ever assume a permanent command with an O-1 placed under him.
QuoteLikewise, you may consider SM "below" another grade, but the reality is, it is an orange in a bunch of apples. It is a non-military sounding grade smack dab in the middle of a military-style hierarchy.
NO not realy. They wear a uniform....if the choose....they have a title, they are just below all other senior members and above all cadets. The name is kind of clunky......if that's your problem....let's call them 3rd Leutenants! Think of them as sort of like ROTC or USAFA cadets.....they don't rate any sort of salute or authority except to other cadets. They are Senior Memebers.
No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers. WOs have a grade, they are just able to hold position over those of a higher grade.
QuoteThe fact is, we have SM Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels who have never served in command positions.
Only because they never bothered to fill out the paper work. Commanders get an automatic promotion to 1st Lt and an advance to Capt after one year. Not very conductive to your argument.
Wrong. Nothing is "automatic." We have SM Commanders who do not want the rank. They are eligible for a special promotion, which is not "automatic" it is something that must be applied for and approved. Have I ever seen one disapproved? Indeed I have.
QuoteRank denotes completion of PD requirements more than anything else because the prevailing wisdom is that members "deserve" promotion if they get all of the "check-offs" rather than being related to additional responsibilities.
No....GRADE denote completion of PD requirmens and other box checking......and a subjective evaluation by their commanders. That the bar is held low does not mean it is not there.
Your statement further buttresses the argument for the abolition of grades altogether.
QuoteThe last thing we need is more ranks, more Levels or anything of the sort.
I think the time has come for CAP to either rethink how we apply military grade or scrap the system altogether and go to a system like what the USCG Auxiliary uses.
So now we go from one extreme to the other......No NCOs because it is confusing and not needed to let's completely throw out the grade system!
No....let me type slower for you, you seem to have difficulty understanding. We either need to make the CAP grade matter, or abolish grade altogether. If being a Lieutenant Colonel doesn't mean anything, why do we even have the check boxes? Why don't we spend all of our time on mission training and just organize ourselves like a volunteer fire department? That is the point I was trying to make.
QuoteWhile I will admit there is some merit to giving GRADE to match your RANK (i.e. position) you will not be able to sell that to the rank and file.
CAP has never been a democracy. You'd be surprised how many people feel that grade should be tied to position. Let the powers that be rain it down upon the masses. There will be grumbling. But if we get rid of half the people who are here to play soldier, I'd be happy.
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 07:29:05 PM
No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers.
Please provide an example of this as I have never seen it and I have had WOs working for me. The only exceptions are pilots in command of aircraft, captains in command of ships, a commander in charge of a school, etc.
Quote from: Short Field on July 04, 2010, 07:33:47 PM
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 07:29:05 PM
No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers.
Please provide an example of this as I have never seen it and I have had WOs working for me. The only exceptions are pilots in command of aircraft, captains in command of ships, a commander in charge of a school, etc.
Certainly.
I was attached to a Weapons Station under the command of an O-4 (LCDR). Immediately below him was the Deputy WEPSO who was an LTJG. Below him, a CWO4 and then into the senior enlisted.
Whenever the WEPSO left the base, the CWO4 was in charge.
I'm not saying you cannot have a WO working below you. I am saying that a WO can be appointed over another officer who is higher in grade.
Then the Deputy wasn't really the deputy was he? That is a really strong comment on the Deputy's leadership ability.
Quote from: Short Field on July 04, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Then the Deputy wasn't really the deputy was he? That is a really strong comment on the Deputy's leadership ability.
No, the Deputy had been in the Navy for 3 years. He was filling the only billet available for an O-2 in the Department.
The CWO4 has been in the Navy for 25 years.
I find it funny that in the other thread, I commented on how the USAF and the Navy were clearly different and you (defensively) added that the culture of the USAF is different. Yet, over on this thread, because the Navy treats WO's differently, the O-2 MUST be incompetent. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the Navy just utilizes WOs differently than you did.
Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 08:04:23 PM
Quote from: Short Field on July 04, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Then the Deputy wasn't really the deputy was he? That is a really strong comment on the Deputy's leadership ability.
I find it funny that in the other thread, I commented on how the USAF and the Navy were clearly different and you (defensively) added that the culture of the USAF is different. Yet, over on this thread, because the Navy treats WO's differently, the O-2 MUST be incompetent. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the Navy just utilizes WOs differently than you did.
Seem like this thread got "hijacked" like others that you've recently added your comments to >:(
Frankly all of you need to realize that this is the CIVIL Air Patrol. That new senior members who don't have any rank can be addressed as Mister or Misz CAP. Someone's rank in CAP doesn't necessary indicate their current proficiency level or specific expertise. There's some folks without rank that have special skills and regardless of no rank need to be listen to by everyone regardless of rank.
Again it's CIVIL Air Patrol -- Go join the military if you want to be in the military; CAP isn't the military but for some adults allows them to fulfill their "fantasy" of living their interpretation of military :angel:
RM
Instead of arguing the semantics of a SM being a grade vs. a SM being a Senior Member - without grade, more time could/should be spent on trying to clear up the confusion in the regs and come to some agreement one way or another.
When in the presence of cadets or other squadron's seniors, or being referred to in the presence of either, I'm referred to as Senior Member. The cadets also call me sir. I did not tell them they had to; they just do so. If we argue the semantics, I shouldn't be called "Sir" because that's only for 2d Lt and above. They do so more because most SM's do eventually promote, and it's also more polite then saying "Yes, Mister" or "Thank you Mister." That just makes me think of the 1960s TV shows, like Leave It to Beaver, with the neighborhood children receiving something cool from a neighbor, and them yelling "This is swell! Gee, Thanks Mister!" :)
And, I'm sure we could more constructively create a uniform guide for the Senior Members without Grade instead of this!
Ps. As an aside in relation to grade insignia, I was told once, either here or elsewhere, that the CAP cutouts are not a grade insignia. They are worn on the C/AB and SM uniforms to distinguish them from USAF new recruits, who would have no stripes/insignia. Now, I don't know how many 12 year old cadets would get confused for AD recruits, but it's much easier to confuse new seniors, especially younger ones, with AD recruits, therefore there is a need to distinguish SMWOG by adding the CAP cutouts to clear any possible confusion.
Quote from: kd8gua on July 05, 2010, 03:04:30 AM
Ps. As an aside in relation to grade insignia, I was told once, either here or elsewhere, that the CAP cutouts are not a grade insignia. They are worn on the C/AB and SM uniforms to distinguish them from USAF new recruits, who would have no stripes/insignia. Now, I don't know how many 12 year old cadets would get confused for AD recruits, but it's much easier to confuse new seniors, especially younger ones, with AD recruits, therefore there is a need to distinguish SMWOG by adding the CAP cutouts to clear any possible confusion.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, sir. (Notice the automatic "sir"- I typed that on autopilot.)
Remember, too, that you can join as a cadet at 17- perfectly legal age for an AD recruit, so long as they have a diploma or GED. That could lead to confusion, with even a 17 yr old not sure how to handle the situation.
I joined at 16 1/2. Same deal- my History teacher even asked me if I had enlisted. (In the National Guard, no less...) My response? I used my patches, nametapes for visual clarification, because I really was caught off guard by the question and probably couldn't have explained otherwise. So the cutouts did their job :D
We are talking about the same CAP right?
We call Senior Members without grade 'Senior Members' because frankly, what else logically would we call them? Also it follows suit, a lot, I regress, A LOT of sqns call SMWOG 'Senior Members' Why be different/difficult?
For instance, lets talk about following suit vs. using loopholes,
NHQ nor wing supplements require wing patches nor specify which one to wear, therefore because of this technical loophole, I'm going to get one of those cool overseas wing patches and to wear around. Why don't I? Because, I come from Missouri, I'll stick out oddly and almost every other sqn has mo wing patches.
So I wear one. No matter how much the mule looks like an Armadillo
Here's my stick to stir the pot:
Why not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)". Because, in essence, that is what they are. They are a member of CAP, in the senior member catagory, but have not been awarded a CAP a grade. Unlike the cadet program, a senior member does not have to advance in grade to contiune to be a member. The title is respectful of the CAP M(S), but clearly shows they do not have a CAP grade. A poster awhile ago suggested "Officer Trainee" however that is not an accurate reflection of who they are becasue they do not have to become an officer.
Think of Col. Boe. A USAF Col, but a CAP SM w/o grade. Col. Boe retains his affiliation with us becuase he believes in the cadet program and what it did for him. He allows CAP to use him as a marketing tool. Do you think that someone who is a senior member with grade - say a CAP Major - going to try and order Col. Boe around (which they technically could do under the regualtions)?
QuoteWhy not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)".
Its not so much what we call new senior members, but what they actually ARE that is the issue at hand. Once we decide to give them a grade, we can argue about what that grade should be called (assuming we just don't call them Airmen, which would be the easiest thing to do).
Someone pointed out in another thread (and I don't know this to be true, but will accept their word for it), that the CAP Aerospace Education Members and Cadet Sponsor Members get membership cards with "SM" on them. If that is the case, the situation is even worse than I had thought -- Not only do we not assign new regular members with a real grade, we refer to them as if they had a grade, and then use that same non-grade term to refer to members outside the regular membership category. Sort of weakens the argument that "if it looks like a grade....it is a grade", since now those saying that are going to have to believe that AEMs and CSMs have grades as well....
It is also my understanding that Senior Member NCOs also are listed as "SM" in the database.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 05, 2010, 02:20:50 PM
QuoteWhy not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)".
Its not so much what we call new senior members, but what they actually ARE that is the issue at hand. Once we decide to give them a grade, we can argue about what that grade should be called (assuming we just don't call them Airmen, which would be the easiest thing to do).
I still haven't figured out how giving them an arbitrary grade of "Airman" (or whatever) would actually CHANGE anything. For all intents and purposes, SMWOG IS a grade, even if it's considered "not a grade." At the end of the day, nothing would change for the SM except the words we use to refer to them. Would they be granted access to anything else they should have with a title other than "SMWOG"? Would they be more respected? Doubtful.
Not only that, has anyone mentioned the fact that any regulation dealing with SM's would likely have to be rewritten or supplemented for the sake of giving the SMWOG a new title?
I've argued for grade changes on the cadet side so that we had an all-enlisted cadet corps, since cadets GENERALLY do the job of the enlisted guys in CAP, while SM generally do the job of officers. I think there would be a lot of issues SOLVED by changing the grades, such as the coherence of the program (difference between a Maj and a C/Maj), a training program that's easier to focus, etc. These would be noticeable changes (arguably).
But unless I've missed something in the thread, I can't find what would actually CHANGE for the SM except the title, and it seems like we have other things we could be spending time on than changing an arbitrary title that most SM's hold for six months (or less, in the case of advanced promotions).
Quote from: RiverAux on July 05, 2010, 02:20:50 PM
QuoteWhy not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)".
Its not so much what we call new senior members, but what they actually ARE that is the issue at hand. Once we decide to give them a grade, we can argue about what that grade should be called (assuming we just don't call them Airmen, which would be the easiest thing to do).
Someone pointed out in another thread (and I don't know this to be true, but will accept their word for it), that the CAP Aerospace Education Members and Cadet Sponsor Members get membership cards with "SM" on them. If that is the case, the situation is even worse than I had thought -- Not only do we not assign new regular members with a real grade, we refer to them as if they had a grade, and then use that same non-grade term to refer to members outside the regular membership category. Sort of weakens the argument that "if it looks like a grade....it is a grade", since now those saying that are going to have to believe that AEMs and CSMs have grades as well....
I think we are all just going around in circles here.
What exactly is a "grade" any ways?
SM is a title, designation, place holder, what ever.........how is that any different the 2d LT or C/AB?
They have "rank" as senior members.......(above all cadets and below all CAP NCOs)......at least socially.
So I get back to my original statement even when they are refer ed to as Senior Members With Out Grade...they in fact do have a grade.
Part of this argument even touches the old thread about referring to Senior Members as Officers....and the confusion that come out of that.
The fact that sponsor, patron and AE members are all refer ed to as SM does not lesson the "if it looks like a grade" argument but actually strengthens it, as all those "other" category members have grade too. At least as long as we want to include them in the discussion that CAP is a military organisation.
Bottom line......no matter what the legal or regulatory implications come to.....when a new member has to fill out a form that asks for "grade" they are going to put down either SM or SMWOG.
So it is a de facto grade.
QuoteNo, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers. WOs have a grade, they are just able to hold position over those of a higher grade.
You are incorrect. You have no idea whatsoever as to what a warrant officer is. A warrant officer is an officer in the RM. They are single specialty officers who, in the paygrades of W2 and above, hold presidential commissions, just like 2d Lts through Colonels. They command but DO NOT command officers of higher grades. Period. Check out the federal law that governs warrant officers. CAP Senior Members ARE NOT like warrant officers. Warrant officers have skills, 2d Lts do not. Neither do SMs.
Before you put electrons to screen, do some research.
Quote from: Gunner C on July 05, 2010, 10:39:09 PM
QuoteNo, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers. WOs have a grade, they are just able to hold position over those of a higher grade.
You are incorrect. You have no idea whatsoever as to what a warrant officer is. A warrant officer is an officer in the RM. They are single specialty officers who, in the paygrades of W2 and above, hold presidential commissions, just like 2d Lts through Colonels. They command but DO NOT command officers of higher grades. Period. Check out the federal law that governs warrant officers. CAP Senior Members ARE NOT like warrant officers. Warrant officers have skills, 2d Lts do not. Neither do SMs.
Before you put electrons to screen, do some research.
+5
GO WARRANT OFFICERS! WOOOO!!
Quote from: HGjunkie on July 06, 2010, 02:32:46 AM
+5
GO WARRANT OFFICERS! WOOOO!!
Well thought out comments....not.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join.
So why are you starting another one? This is a solution looking for a problem. Does anyone, other than a few on CAPTalk, care?
I didn't think so.
Quote from: AirDX on July 06, 2010, 05:16:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join.
So why are you starting another one? This is a solution looking for a problem. Does anyone, other than a few on CAPTalk, care?
I didn't think so.
I just like arguing about it! :)
Quote from: Short Field on July 06, 2010, 03:26:26 AMWell thought out comments....not.
:clap:
Seems it's all about post count. >:( Quality is better than Quantity.
+5!!! :o :-[ :P :'(
And that reason apparently escapes most of the readers. :)
Quote from: SarDragon on July 06, 2010, 07:44:45 AM
And that reason apparently escapes most of the readers. :)
well, nobody on this board knows that reason.
Quote from: HGjunkie on July 06, 2010, 07:49:23 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on July 06, 2010, 07:44:45 AM
And that reason apparently escapes most of the readers. :)
well, nobody on this board knows that reason.
Then why do it?
My solution to that would be to run ALL new senior members - not just the 18 to 21 group - through the flight officer ranks.
The only person who would hold the rank of SM would be the brand new member who has not yet done level 1, and the title would probably be gone before they even have a uniform
Make FO1, 2 & 3 an automatic promotion for levels 1, 2 and 3. for the 18-21 group, this is approximately what they are anyway, so they don't even need to be redefined.
Leave the commissioned officer ranks just as they are. When the person qualifies for promotion to 2LT and wishes to take that route, they leave the FO structure behind. Some will. Some will not.
Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 06, 2010, 02:18:46 PM
Make FO1, 2 & 3 an automatic promotion for levels 1, 2 and 3. for the 18-21 group, this is approximately what they are anyway, so they don't even need to be redefined.
Not really.
Flight Officer = L1 & 3mos SM
Technical Flight Officer = Specialty Track Rating & 6mos FO
Senior Flight Officer = L2 and 12mos TFO
No level 3.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 06, 2010, 02:29:09 PM
Not really.
Flight Officer = L1 & 3mos SM
Technical Flight Officer = Specialty Track Rating & 6mos FO
Senior Flight Officer = L2 and 12mos TFO
No level 3.
You can't get to level 3 in 3 years. But if it was extended past age 21 you could.
Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 06, 2010, 02:18:46 PM
My solution to that would be to run ALL new senior members - not just the 18 to 21 group - through the flight officer ranks.
Why?
Rank/grade has nothing to do with the functioning and leadership of CAP. It merely denotes PD accomplishment (or lack thereof).
This is an issue that, if the new member is active, goes away in six months. If the member is not active, then it works even better.
A three-year in-service training program would be exactly what we need to fix a lot of issues, from empty shirts, once-a-year band campers, and members so ill informed as to be dangerous.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 05:13:34 PM
A three-year in-service training program
It would certainly pare our numbers down to the truly dedicated...
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 05:13:34 PM
A three-year in-service training program would be exactly what we need to fix a lot of issues, from empty shirts, once-a-year band campers, and members so ill informed as to be dangerous.
That additional (?) training program could be incorporated into the lieutenant grades. I still don't see the problem these solutions purport to solve.
A CAP promotion
neither bestows neither a pay raise nor increased responsibility in and of itself. It merely indicates professional development achievement--nothing more and nothing less.
v/r
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on July 06, 2010, 05:27:37 PM
A CAP promotion neither bestows neither a pay raise nor increased responsibility in and of itself. It merely indicates professional development achievement--nothing more and nothing less.
What it conveys, however, is an understanding and participation at a given level, which implies at least some fundamental understanding and experience in how the organization operates.
The majority of the challenges I personally see are with members who receive too much grade or position early on and rest on their laurels - they receive the gratification of calling themselves "x", without ever having done any of the actual work to get there, so they are always behind the curve.
Many of the most important lessons in CAP only come about through PD, and those who choose to simply rent our planes, or some similar
specialization, lack the basic understanding of what it takes to keep CAP going, which in turn would explain the animosity towards the empty shirts who always feel its "some other dude's job".
In many cases, all it takes to light someone up is get them in an effective class of their peers and see how much work so few people are doing - most people join to help and belong, they just don't know where.
Require they learn all that before getting their grade and you've got a whole different CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 06:01:26 PM
Require they learn all that before getting their grade and you've got a whole different CAP.
Or you get a whole slew of folks stagnating at Flight Officer instead of SM (or SMWOG or whatever the outcome of THAT discussion is).
Methinks strong leadership at the squadron level can alleviate the issues described without wholesale changes to the current PD program.
Please, don't get me wrong as I truly believe in a strong PD program. My pitch is that progressing in PD makes you into a 'giver' instead of a 'taker,' which I believe is one of the points you are trying to make.
How in God's holy name did this topic go on for 5 pages?
This is perhaps the most trivial topic I have ever seen on CAPTalk and that is saying a lot.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on July 06, 2010, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 06:01:26 PM
Require they learn all that before getting their grade and you've got a whole different CAP.
Or you get a whole slew of folks stagnating at Flight Officer instead of SM (or SMWOG or whatever the outcome of THAT discussion is).
Preferable to 10-year old Captains. Note I also used the word "mandatory" - just like cadets, you're playing or you're out of the sandbox.
Quote from: cnitas on July 06, 2010, 06:47:07 PM
This is perhaps the most trivial topic I have ever seen on CAPTalk and that is saying a lot.
Not by a long shot, besides, we stopped talking about the
topic almost immediately.
Quote from: cnitas on July 06, 2010, 06:47:07 PM
How in God's holy name did this topic go on for 5 pages?
This is perhaps the most trivial topic I have ever seen on CAPTalk and that is saying a lot.
Careful there. Some folks might take your statement as a challenge! ;)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 06:49:14 PM
Preferable to 10-year old Captains.
Why? If we accept that grade equates strictly to PD progression, what is the difference?
The problem to be solved, if any, is stagnation, not the grade at which stagnation occurs.
On the other hand, your position seems to be incorporating some sort of "up or out" scheme, which I foresee would have mixed results of a different sort.
I still believe that strong leadership at the squadron level can fix much.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on July 06, 2010, 06:57:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 06:49:14 PM
Preferable to 10-year old Captains.
Why? If we accept that grade equates strictly to PD progression, what is the difference?
We hand out Captain's bars today to a lot of people who know nothing about CAP, simply because they know how to drive a vehicle.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on July 06, 2010, 06:57:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 06:49:14 PM
Preferable to 10-year old Captains.
Why? If we accept that grade equates strictly to PD progression, what is the difference?
We hand out Captain's bars today to a lot of people who know nothing about CAP, simply because they know how to drive a vehicle.
And their captain's bars denote exactly that and nothing more. We do not assign duty positions based on grade, so what difference does it make?
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on July 06, 2010, 07:08:18 PM
And their captain's bars denote exactly that and nothing more. We do not assign duty positions based on grade, so what difference does it make?
That's the point, we are discussing changing things and raising the bar - we should not be giving people recognition (grade) when they
don't know anything about CAP.
Military officers, professionals, pilots, etc., have a lot to offer CAP, but almost universally they struggle the first few years because CAP is not "the military, a corporate environment, or an FBO", and we should not be conferring grade that insinuates otherwise. That's what we need to fix.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 07:19:35 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on July 06, 2010, 07:08:18 PM
And their captain's bars denote exactly that and nothing more. We do not assign duty positions based on grade, so what difference does it make?
That's the point, we are discussing changing things and raising the bar - we should not be giving people recognition (grade) when they
don't know anything about CAP.
Military officers, professionals, pilots, etc., have a lot to offer CAP, but almost universally they struggle the first few years because CAP is not "the military, a corporate environment, or an FBO", and we should not be conferring grade that insinuates otherwise. That's what we need to fix.
I s'pose I was the exception to your "almost universal" rule, as I think I was/am able to navigate the differences between CAP and the military fairly easily; however, I would not object to removing professional appointments, either. To me, grade in CAP means what grade in CAP means. But I believe having the same subset of personnel stagnating at a different grade is the only difference a new system would make.
Quote from: AirDX on July 06, 2010, 05:16:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join.
So why are you starting another one? This is a solution looking for a problem.
Read the third paragraph of the original post for why I thought it worth bringing up.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 06, 2010, 08:59:28 PM
Quote from: AirDX on July 06, 2010, 05:16:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join.
So why are you starting another one? This is a solution looking for a problem.
Read the third paragraph of the original post for why I thought it worth bringing up.
Quote from: the aforementioned third paragraphHowever, the one thing that I don't think has ever been brought up here is the fact that we're treating new cadets and new seniors differently. When a cadert joins they are immediately assigned the rank of Cadet Airman Basic. They don't exist in some limbo phase as a "Cadet without grade" until they complete the Curry and go to Cadet Airman.
But the new senior member IS assigned a grade. It's SM.
If it looks like a grade, quacks like a grade, smells like a grade...
I also provided references where SM is specifically stated as a grade. What more do we need here?
Quote from: SarDragon on July 06, 2010, 10:54:37 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 06, 2010, 08:59:28 PM
Quote from: AirDX on July 06, 2010, 05:16:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join.
So why are you starting another one? This is a solution looking for a problem.
Read the third paragraph of the original post for why I thought it worth bringing up.
Quote from: the aforementioned third paragraphHowever, the one thing that I don't think has ever been brought up here is the fact that we're treating new cadets and new seniors differently. When a cadert joins they are immediately assigned the rank of Cadet Airman Basic. They don't exist in some limbo phase as a "Cadet without grade" until they complete the Curry and go to Cadet Airman.
But the new senior member IS assigned a grade. It's SM.
If it looks like a grade, quacks like a grade, smells like a grade...
I also provided references where SM is specifically stated as a grade. What more do we need here?
My first membership card reads "SM."
Well, I'm not going to be able to make any headway against people who believe that members have a grade even though the applicable regulation clearly says they don't.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 07, 2010, 02:02:11 AM
Well, I'm not going to be able to make any headway against people who believe that members have a grade even though the applicable regulation clearly says they don't.
Since when has regulations ever reflected reality?
They defacto have grade....even when that grade is SMWOG.
It is stupid.....but it works.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 07:19:35 PM
Military officers, professionals, pilots, etc., have a lot to offer CAP, but almost universally they struggle the first few years because CAP is not "the military, a corporate environment, or an FBO", and we should not be conferring grade that insinuates otherwise. That's what we need to fix.
Really? The military officers I know had no problem with it. Rank = PD progress, technical skills, and a few organizational positions.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 07, 2010, 02:02:11 AM
Well, I'm not going to be able to make any headway against people who believe that members have a grade even though the applicable regulation clearly says they don't.
So you're saying that the new CAPP 151 (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGdFvfBzRMAYQBhbNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEybG9lZzQxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0Y5NDVfOTQ-/SIG=12ocl2a65/EXP=1278564703/**http%3a//members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P151_9028588D89DD2.pdf) should just be ignored. Check out page 16.
I am saying that the REGULATION governing CAP member grades has a lot more weight than a dinky little PAMPHLET that (sort of) covers customs and courtesies.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2010, 03:22:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 07, 2010, 02:02:11 AM
Well, I'm not going to be able to make any headway against people who believe that members have a grade even though the applicable regulation clearly says they don't.
Since when has regulations ever reflected reality?
They defacto have grade....even when that grade is SMWOG.
It is stupid.....but it works.
x2