SM vs C/AB - Why the discrepancy?

[Short Field]

A three-year in-service training program

It would certainly pare our numbers down to the truly dedicated...

[FlyTiger77]

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

[Eclipse]

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.

[FlyTiger77]

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.

[cnitas]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[FlyTiger77]

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!

[FlyTiger77]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[FlyTiger77]

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

[FlyTiger77]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

[SarDragon]

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.

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.

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?

[Lt Oliv]

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.

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.

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."

[RiverAux]

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. 

[lordmonar]

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.

[Short Field]

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. 

[SarDragon]

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 should just be ignored. Check out page 16.