Change for change sake... CAP grades apart from what we have now

[BillB]

River Aux says no research was done. Actually it's been done at least twice I'm aware of. In 1972 Air War College paper, a survey was made of cadets that attended the 1965 Florida Wing encampments. The results showed that less than 10% of the cadets from that encampment that entered the military went into the Air Force. The majority 85% went into the Army. More cadets went to college majoring in Education that went into the Air Force.
A followup survey (I have a copy around somewhere) was conducted in Pacific Region of cadets that attended the 1992 California Wing encampment. This survey was done in 2000. The percentages from both were fairly identical, other than smaller increase went into the USAF. Keep in mind the first survey was during the Viet Nam period, the 2nd was during a "no-conflict" period.
Neither survey included information on cadets that may have gone through a University AFROTC commissioning program.

[Westernslope]

Hey......I was at the 1965 FLWG encampment. Hope they are not still tracking my where abouts. 

[SSgt Rudin]

Well, after all that I have traded my stripes in for butter bars so I can take the Deputy Commander position at my squadron... oh well, service before self.

[RogueLeader]

Well, after all that I have traded my stripes in for butter bars so I can take the Deputy Commander position at my squadron... oh well, service before self.

Actually, there can be a NCO Sq. Commander.  CAPR 35-5 does not REQUIRE the officer to hold a certain Grade

Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of first lieutenant concurrent with the member's appointment as squadron commander. He or she becomes eligible for promotion to captain at the end of 1 year's service as squadron commander. NOTE: Commanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

While it may be a good idea, as well as concurrent with traditional military wisdom, a CC or DCC/DCS should be an Officer Grade, but does not have to.

[brasda91]

Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of first lieutenant concurrent with the member's appointment as squadron commander. He or she becomes eligible for promotion to captain at the end of 1 year's service as squadron commander. NOTE: Commanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

While it may be a good idea, as well as concurrent with traditional military wisdom, a CC or DCC/DCS should be an Officer Grade, but does not have to.

The advancement of a senior in grade, as quoted above, has nothing to do with an NCO being a sqd cc.  That simply means if a sqd needs a commander, the Wing CC may promote a senior to 1st Lt right off the bat, for example a brand new sqd.

Other than that, I have not been able to locate anything that states the sqd cc has to be an officer.

[DNall]

CAP is not making a significant impact in the number of high quality people in that pool, as a recruiting source, or on people entering aerospace development.

Opinion, not backed up by any research I'm aware of.

Regardless of what you may believe, the govt is not funded on the basis of research, not ever. Stats are complete crap. Most govt stat research is done to back up pre-existing positions in congress. They know what the research will say before they ask it to be done, and do that selectively to advance their position. Always question that stuff & look at the motives/circumstances before you make any kind of judgement.

Intuitively though... CAP has 20-odd-k cadets spread btwn 12-21, out of 300mil US population, and how big's the AF now? If every one of them was an honor student & pursued the mil or aviation development careers, that'd be a drop in the bucket.

This is quanitity of high quality that we're trying to create. We aren't attracting and retaining large numbers of the best/brightest kids in the country, and then shaping them into core values driven aviation minded real leaders. We get a few, but not nearly enough to make ourselves a critical part of the AF's supply chain.

However, the govt's intent is that such a program exist in order to procure a higher number of better quality candidates drawn to military aviation or other service, or aerospace development in support of a strong air & space force.

Actually, it is not.  If the government intended that to be a primary focus of the cadet program, Congress would have written that into the law authorizing CAP.  They knew the difference as providing aviation training for youths going into the AAF in WWII was a big part of the cadet program when it started.  If that was what they wanted out of CAP, they would have been specific about it and they would have pushed us towards designing our program more around that specific goal. 

Should it be a goal?  I wouldn't have a problem with it.  But, it certainly isnt something that is currently on our task list.

Actually they wouldn't write that into law & I'll tell you why. Cause a program for 12+ yo kids that indoctrinates them to a values system, teaches them selfless service to the state, inspires them with weapons of war... that's the hitler youth there bud, especially to the ACLU crowd. So, they hint at it instead & they expect you to understand the congressional/commander's intent as it flows down.

The govt does not want CAP to run a program that is explicitly about funneling people into mil service. They want a community based program that teaches common values, inspires toward math & science with aviation, and instills volunteerism (which is the first step toward recognizing duty to the state thru selfless service)... because, the implicit side-effect if done correctly is to produce that supply chain of highly qualified candidates coming into the mil.

[Dragoon]

Going back a ways on the whole grade thing.

Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit.

You're missing the point - what if they WANT to go back to a local unit

People do.  I've done it.  Heck, I've seen a former Wing CC hang out in on squadron staff because his grandkids joined that unit.  

What are you gonna do - fire the guy because he doesn't want to work at Group.

Also, beware of "if you want a break, just become an assitant on Group staff."  That attitude is what fills up some Region HQs with former bigwigs who, frankly, are just taking up space.  And occasional screwing things up because they really don't have the energy or initiative to work hard at that level, but for some reason feel they want to hang out at the higher echelons.

Our work force is going to be more mobile, up and down, than any paid workforce will ever be.


Again, I think the only way to make grade meaningful is to tie it to position.

Either you can go halfway, and require service in a appropriate position before earning a permanent promtion (we do it for O-6s, so why not do it for 0-4s and 0-5s)
This helps a bit, but you will still end up with commanders being outranked by their staff.

Or you can go all the way, and use grade as a symbol of office (but require certain PD as well, to ensure quality).

The key to grade is not "it tells us how good you are."  The key is "it tells us what responsiblity and authority you possess."

[DNall]

Going back a ways on the whole grade thing.

Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit.

You're missing the point - what if they WANT to go back to a local unit

People do.  I've done it.  Heck, I've seen a former Wing CC hang out in on squadron staff because his grandkids joined that unit.  

What are you gonna do - fire the guy because he doesn't want to work at Group.

Also, beware of "if you want a break, just become an assitant on Group staff."  That attitude is what fills up some Region HQs with former bigwigs who, frankly, are just taking up space.  And occasional screwing things up because they really don't have the energy or initiative to work hard at that level, but for some reason feel they want to hang out at the higher echelons.

Our work force is going to be more mobile, up and down, than any paid workforce will ever be.


Again, I think the only way to make grade meaningful is to tie it to position.

Either you can go halfway, and require service in a appropriate position before earning a permanent promtion (we do it for O-6s, so why not do it for 0-4s and 0-5s)
This helps a bit, but you will still end up with commanders being outranked by their staff.

Or you can go all the way, and use grade as a symbol of office (but require certain PD as well, to ensure quality).

The key to grade is not "it tells us how good you are."  The key is "it tells us what responsiblity and authority you possess."

Grade should actually inidcate BOTH how good you are AND your resp/auth. In that you are advanced in grade only if you are good enough for the next one, & then placed according to that skill level in positions of resp/auth.

Far as wanting to move up/down. The system I proposed makes local units flights which are almost exclusively enlisted. It takes higher quals & long academically intensive trng to become an officer, and then you promote by virtue of trng/TIG & board to open slots. With the exception of Flt CC, all of that is above the local unit level. All of it deals with the strategic, with pgm mgmt, etc. Viturally none of it is tactical. An officer would not be qualified to do the hands-on technical stuff at a local unit.

If an officer no longer wanted to serve in an active position at higher then they become a reservist attached to higher & can attend/help out where ever within that command they choose. That doesn't mean asst or slotted in a position they won't be committed to. It doesn't even mean HQ. It means a seperate res-only Sq/flt which is attached to that echelon. They have no auth other than their grade, can serve where they want within the command, but can't hold a position there. If they REALLY want to digress from GBD at Sq/Gp to GTL at a local unit, then they can resign their commission & do so.

[RogueLeader]

Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of first lieutenant concurrent with the member's appointment as squadron commander. He or she becomes eligible for promotion to captain at the end of 1 year's service as squadron commander. NOTE: Commanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

While it may be a good idea, as well as concurrent with traditional military wisdom, a CC or DCC/DCS should be an Officer Grade, but does not have to.

The advancement of a senior in grade, as quoted above, has nothing to do with an NCO being a sqd cc.  That simply means if a sqd needs a commander, the Wing CC may promote a senior to 1st Lt right off the bat, for example a brand new sqd.

Other than that, I have not been able to locate anything that states the sqd cc has to be an officer.

That's what I was saying, according to the regs, the do not "have" to.  I also said that to most people, commanders should be Officers.  in the Military,  unit commanders ARE Officers.

[RogueLeader]

What about the wings that do not have the staffing capacity to make your squadrons work- if all local units were flights?  I do not see how changing the terms of units will actually change the situation, where the Rubber meets the Road.  If I started calling manure chicken, would it still not stink? 
There are some wings where you could do exactly what you are talking about, but like the Iowa Experiment, it can not work for all.  If you truly feel hat there is a problem with the current organization,  it needs to fit in our current model, or a new model that works for all.  At least the Iowa Model worked for that wing, and they did not say it should be applied uniformly across the board.  in fact, they repeatedly said that it wouldn't work that way.

[DNall]

What about the wings that do not have the staffing capacity to make your squadrons work- if all local units were flights?  I do not see how changing the terms of units will actually change the situation, where the Rubber meets the Road.  If I started calling manure chicken, would it still not stink? 
There are some wings where you could do exactly what you are talking about, but like the Iowa Experiment, it can not work for all.  If you truly feel hat there is a problem with the current organization,  it needs to fit in our current model, or a new model that works for all.  At least the Iowa Model worked for that wing, and they did not say it should be applied uniformly across the board.  in fact, they repeatedly said that it wouldn't work that way.

I thought I addressed smaller states earlier. No state is so small it can't support this structure. New or struggling units (below 20) would be dets. 20-45 is flt. At 45 & stable you're breaking that into two flts who answer to an area Sq. 2-5 flts fall under a Sq. 2-5 Sqs make a Gp. Small states fit in as Gps. Large states carry that thru to wing. There might be a couple cases where a lg state needs to form two wings, but it'd still be one state level HQ, kind of like the guard.

It's not a matter of calling it something dif, it's changing the way we do business. That is putting all the tactical operations at the local level in the hands of technical specialists (enlisted), and taking all the strategic & support functions off the local unit to a new echelon where resources get shared & the staff load is greatly reduced.

[ZigZag911]

WIWAC most seniors had to start off as  Warrant Officer, promote to (and serve a specific time as) Chief WO, THEN became eligible for 2nd Lt.

Perhaps if we simply re instituted something along those lines, using the Flight Officer Grades, and eliminated or severely restricted most of the special appointments/mission related, it would slow the rate of progression to field grade ranks.

For instance, perhaps a CFI ought to serve a year as 1 Lt, and be required to instruct at a flight encampment, serve as a check pilot, or give a specified number of O flights, BEFORE being eligible for Captain.

Perhaps a newly promoted Group CC should serve a year as Captain AND complete the PD requirements for Major BEFORE promoting.

[RogueLeader]

I thought I addressed smaller states earlier. No state is so small it can't support this structure. New or struggling units (below 20) would be dets. 20-45 is flt. At 45 & stable you're breaking that into two flts who answer to an area Sq. 2-5 flts fall under a Sq. 2-5 Sqs make a Gp. Small states fit in as Gps. Large states carry that thru to wing. There might be a couple cases where a lg state needs to form two wings, but it'd still be one state level HQ, kind of like the guard.

It's not a matter of calling it something dif, it's changing the way we do business. That is putting all the tactical operations at the local level in the hands of technical specialists (enlisted), and taking all the strategic & support functions off the local unit to a new echelon where resources get shared & the staff load is greatly reduced.

That does not change the staffing problems that Wings face right now.  OK just deactivated our 2 groups due to staffing problems.  It also doesn't change the way people operate.  Instead of calling us LT, Capt, or MAJ, you would prefer SSgt, MSgt etc, you think that would make us technical specialists?   The title we go by does no change the way we operate.

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this will help.  Who would do all the tracking?  Squadrons?  At two levels above the lowest level?  We hardly see Wing right now.  They don't have the resources to be able to track all the admin/personnel without the local admin/personnel/etc officers.  With the requirement that local Officers needed to do what you would like to see happen just defeaters the whole premise of your reorganization.   

[RiverAux]

Every unit, no matter what you call it and what the rank is of the people in charge will always have a certain minimum amount of staff and paperwork/electronic work that will have to be done at that level.  Only so much can be shuffled up to people in other locations and only so much can be cut as unnecessary. 

Someone at the local unit will still have to go pull the logs out of the airplane and the van and process them, someone will still be adminstering tests to cadets, etc.  For all the "minor" staff positions, small squadrons simply don't fill those jobs unless someone interested wants to do it and even though they're supposed to do a lot, except for certain key things there isn't much consequence for not doing them. 

Converesley, there are only so many people at "higher" levels willing to do paperowork and administrative work.  You are not going to find some untapped resevoir of people chomping at the bit to really do this sort of thankless staff work for people at lower levels in the organization.  Sad, but true. 

So, while there is a certain amount of sense in changing our unit names, it won't make any actual difference in what still has to be done. 

[DNall]

Man there's like six dif conversations going on in this thread. Gotta love CAPTalk. 

Step back with me for a minute. Imagine local units where there are no staff positions cause they don't do those functions. No supply, trans, PAO, ES, comm, DCS, DCC, nothing. ALL those functions occur at this new Sq echelon. All the decision making, programming, everything you're used to having at the local level would be gone. That'd be centralized & standardized at this new Sq level. See those officers there get all the power, but none of the fun.

The local unit now, they do nothing but the mission. Say it's GT focused. They organize & train for GT, nothing else. They don't do their own thing. They conduct a program created with & supervised by an ES officer at Sq. That ES officer is also overseeing a flt that focuses on air ops, one for comm, etc so that the Sq can come together & field an operable task force. Everything that unit needs from supply to logistics to whatever is dealt with by Sq personnel.

As NCOs, they can be play a role in that decsion making & support capacity by serving at higher echelons, just like happens int he real military, but they aren't going to command or fill primary decision making billets. Their job is to execute tactically.

Above that Sq level (gp/wg) the structure isn't drastically changed other than to standardize the size of force that title refers to. The difference in staffing is, like Iowa, we pull all field grade officers up to Gp/Wg level. That gives you resources to fill those holes. They can decline that promotion, but under this system there is real authority at those levels. A Gp ES officer can order subordinate Sqs to change elements of their trng or operations plan & they will do it or be fired & demoted. People won't take those slots right now because they're meaningless. All the power is at the local level. All you can do at higher is advocate for better practices, beg people to comply, and swim thru a nightmare of paperwork. Who wants to do that? You give those people real authority to effect positive change & they'll step up.

Right now... we don't do half of what we're actually supposed to function or reporting wise; don't really accomplish all our three missions; don't field geographic task forces that can respond to ES... the list goes on. What I'm talking about is taking all the BS off the local unit, freeing them to focus in specifically on tight mission parameters. Rather than trying to staff six units we now consolidate to staff one Sq that supports 5 subordinate operational units. We're taking a note from Iowa on consolidating power, but on a more local scale than them, and standardizing across our span of control. Those Sqs are still relatively local geographically focused units & directly organically tied to each of their functional elements (flts).

[arajca]

Let's take your GT based unit. How do they deploy? POV? CAP vehicle? Something else? Let's give them an apparopriate vehicle like a Suburban. Now, since that unit has no trans staff, who files the vehicle usage reports? The LGT at the headquarters who may or may not see the vehicle monthly? Someone at the unit? reports don't get filed? The headquarters unit may cover a few hundred square miles. Is the HQ staff supposed to visit every subordinate unit monthly to make sure all paperwork and staff functions are handled?

Who makes sure all the equipment is properly accounted for and maintained? Certainly not the GT unit, afterall, that's not their responsibility. And unless you're going to budget for serious gas monies, the HQ staff won't be making those kinds of monthly rounds.

Who enters the qualifications for the unit?

How big an area are you looking at? What about the person interested in GT who can't come to meetings on the night the GT unit meets but is available other nights? Too bad, so sad?

I found your idea that if a subordinate unit reaches 45-50 members, they should split, to be quite laughable. There are very few ideas put forth here that I can say that about.

[RogueLeader]

^^ Thank you, you have expressed what I was trying to say.

[DNall]

Let's take your GT based unit. How do they deploy? POV? CAP vehicle? Something else? Let's give them an apparopriate vehicle like a Suburban. Now, since that unit has no trans staff, who files the vehicle usage reports? The LGT at the headquarters who may or may not see the vehicle monthly? Someone at the unit? reports don't get filed? The headquarters unit may cover a few hundred square miles. Is the HQ staff supposed to visit every subordinate unit monthly to make sure all paperwork and staff functions are handled?

Who makes sure all the equipment is properly accounted for and maintained? Certainly not the GT unit, afterall, that's not their responsibility. And unless you're going to budget for serious gas monies, the HQ staff won't be making those kinds of monthly rounds.

Who enters the qualifications for the unit?

Such a Sq HQ unit should never be covering several hundred miles. The whole point is to keep it small & close to the ground, most likely co-loacated with one of the flights. And total pers in flts assigned to one sq, we're talking 60-80 on average. It's not changing how a Sq works, just cutting the admin load by a third by consolidating it.

A local GT focused unit would still have to pull logs & email them up to a LG NCOIC at Sq, but they wouldn't have to do the report. That same Sq staff member would be taking data from each of the other flts & combining it into one report, rather than one from each unit. They'd also have an officer there commanding the flt, and that's who is responsible for sign offs. As a corporate officer (under this system), he's legally responsible for the legitmacy of those sign offs. However, his primary responsibility is to supervise & ensure that ops/trng are being conducted according to the plan/pgm handed down from the dept director (ESO in this case) at the Sq level.

How big an area are you looking at? What about the person interested in GT who can't come to meetings on the night the GT unit meets but is available other nights? Too bad, so sad?

I found your idea that if a subordinate unit reaches 45-50 members, they should split, to be quite laughable. There are very few ideas put forth here that I can say that about.

Yeah if you can't get to the unit that does GT, or can't make that mtg time, then too bad. That's how it is right now. Despite regs, most units are focused on one aspect or another of the program, be that CP, GT, comm, or air ops. If you aren't willing to drive to a CAP unit then you can't participate, if you aren't willing to drive to one that does what you're interested in, then that sucks for you.

Our problem right now is we try to do too many thing at once & have too much admin hammered down on us while trying to do it, so we do very little well. What I'm trying to do is pull back & regroup. If we can consolidate & standardize functions, and if we can alleviate some of the admin load off our operators, then we should be able to do our jobs a lot better.

This is exactly how the military does it. I'm not saying we should do it their way because it's the mil way, I'm saying they do it that way for really good reasons that help them accomplish their objectives.

And what's the big deal about splitting a flight when it gets stable at a big size? Right now you can have 2 Wg CC, where one is in charge of 5k+ folks with dozens of aircraft, many times more vans, and millions in comm gear; or you can have one with a couple hundred folks & a miniscule fraction of the resources; yet, they both have the same authority? That doesn't make sense from a mgmt perspective.

The reason to split into two flts is to maintain a level span of control. One flt makes for two GTs. That comes with trainers & an officer to supervise. When you get big enough to split to two flts then you push that up to addl GTs, you get extra supervision & extra trainer/support slots. Each one of those units becomes a self-contained operating unit, and when you add it all together you get an ES task force.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, you're missing the point -- someone down at the lowest level is still going to be doing the nuts and bolts associated with the paperwork that has to be done.  Whether they're officially the squadron supply or logistics officer (in this example) makes no difference.  It will still be someone's job  In a small unit, it will still probably be the commander (no matter what their title/rank) and in a larger unit, it will probably be assigned to someone else if they can find a volunteer/sucker. 

And keep in mind that not everybody lives in a state where there are enough units close enough together to do paperwork in this fashion.  There is only 1 squadron in my state that is closer than an hour away from their nearest companion and most of them are even farther. 

The only place this might work is in some urban areas which now have enough units to form their own groups.  In the rest of the country, I don't see it as a viable option.   

[DNall]

Dnall, you're missing the point -- someone down at the lowest level is still going to be doing the nuts and bolts associated with the paperwork that has to be done. 

No, I do understand. You said it before. Only the most critical 10 or so positions will be manned & the other work won't get done. Okay, so if five units are manning those same 10 positions each, then first of all they're duplicating a lot of effort, and second of all none of those other positions are getting manned for any of them.

What if instead of that you all shared one staff section that did all of that support work for each of the units. I do understand that some essential functions have to happen at that local unit, but they are very few & far between. I can keep that number extremely low thru two methods. One is consolidating to Sq like I said, the other is focusing the scope of the mission that each unit is trying to accomplish.

In our logistics example, you just need an Amn to pull the log & scan/email it up, not to do a report. That leaves that operator a whole lot more time to focus on trng rather than house keeping.

And keep in mind that not everybody lives in a state where there are enough units close enough together to do paperwork in this fashion.  There is only 1 squadron in my state that is closer than an hour away from their nearest companion and most of them are even farther. 

You do paperwork in that fashion right now when you send it on for approval. The difference now is you just send the log used to fill out the form, rather than filling it out yourself. That LG NCO/Officer at Sq isn't doing any more work than a current Sq LG officer. They are just consolidating the several logs into one form.

Basically, this is 75% of the Iowa system scaled down to the local level. I know it's not perfect, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than what we're doing right now. And it is scalable to dif environments.