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

[arajca]

Let's apply this idea to real unit:
ABC Composite Sqdn is located about 100 mi from the nearest other sqdn. ABC currently has 1 C-182 w/ a couple crews, 1 van w/ a couple GT's, and a good cadet program. According to DNall's plan, this sqdn would break into four individual units: Air Flt, GT Flt, Cadet Flt, and Headquarters sqdn. What has changed for the better? Instead of having cadets able to serve in all missions, they are separated out as a separate flight or they abandon the cadet program to do ES. Where have efficiencies been found? Who 'owns' the van and a/c? Each flt? HQ? Who sets priorities for the equipment? Vans are assigned based on cadet strength, not GT status.

Additionally, you lose a tool to fill staff slots. If ______ job doesn't get done, you can't do the fun stuff. Suddenly, I can do the fun stuff and 'someone else' will handle the mundane. Why should I take on the admin job? Why should I worry about logistics? Those are HQ problems, not mine. My job is to keep my qualifications up and respond when called and available. When the aircraft and van are reassigned because HQ didn't do their job because no one wants to work at hq, who is really to blame? When the units fold because without an aircraft, you can't do flying stuff, and without a van you can't do GT, what impression would that leave on everyone - both in and out of CAP?

[RiverAux]

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.

Dnall, you've been around long enough that you should understand that this is like a lot of CAP -- it could work if everything goes right and every person does everything they're supposed to do.  In this case, if one staff position isn't filled or is filled with someone who doesn't really do the job then it would be 5 units that would suffer not just one.  How many staff officers at Group or Wing do you know about who don't do the job now?  Why make the local unit even more dependent on people "higher up" in the organization? 

Just how would this work in most of the country where units are few and far between? 

[DNall]

First of all, this is an academic discussion, not an effort to effect change. I understand CAP isn't willing to endure dramatic change.

In this case, if one staff position isn't filled or is filled with someone who doesn't really do the job then it would be 5 units that would suffer not just one.  How many staff officers at Group or Wing do you know about who don't do the job now?  Why make the local unit even more dependent on people "higher up" in the organization? 

So, in what way is that different than what we have now?

This seems so simple to me.

Problem: We expect more of our local units than they are capable of doing. The admin load is too high, the staffing too low. The same functions get left behind everywhere in favor of a common support load. Even though our regs say we can't specialize, all units do to some extent because they just can't do stuff like external AE or mission staff functions, but they will do things like GT/aircrew/CP.

Solution: Move the admin load up & off operators so they can focus on the mission. Consolidate those common support functions & share resources to accomplish them. Standardize btwn units & hold them accountable.

That just seems like common sense to me.

Let's apply this idea to real unit:
ABC Composite Sqdn is located about 100 mi from the nearest other sqdn. ABC currently has 1 C-182 w/ a couple crews, 1 van w/ a couple GT's, and a good cadet program. According to DNall's plan, this sqdn would break into four individual units: Air Flt, GT Flt, Cadet Flt, and Headquarters sqdn. What has changed for the better? Instead of having cadets able to serve in all missions, they are separated out as a separate flight or they abandon the cadet program to do ES. Where have efficiencies been found? Who 'owns' the van and a/c? Each flt? HQ? Who sets priorities for the equipment? Vans are assigned based on cadet strength, not GT status.

There are 1500 odd units in the country, almost all in clusters related to population centers. It is the extremely rare case that is 100 miles from the nearest other unit. There is no system, including what we have now, that works perfectly for everyone. You have to do what makes us most functional on the large scale.

Taking your example though... That would be three flts & a Sq HQ if they have something around 100 people. If that's the case then they're probably already operating informally as three flts (aircrew, GT, and CP) with a shared admin/support structure.

Far as cadets on ES, I don't think you're understanding me on this. The Sq, not the flt, is still the basic operating unit. When a mission comes, the Sq gets called up. They are a self-contained task force with GT, air, CnC, comm, etc. They have everything spread out amongst the flts. They do come together for trng & do cross-train. Cadets do learn ES. An aircrew flt should be able to put out a UDF team. It's not walled off so you cannot do anything else, just that each flt focuses more on one function than the others. Far as cadets, there would most likely be a cdt detachment at each of the flts, but they all answer up thru a DCC at the Sq level.

I know it's a little complicated to understand something so different, but are you seeing what I'm talking about? 

Additionally, you lose a tool to fill staff slots. If ______ job doesn't get done, you can't do the fun stuff. Suddenly, I can do the fun stuff and 'someone else' will handle the mundane. Why should I take on the admin job? Why should I worry about logistics? Those are HQ problems, not mine. My job is to keep my qualifications up and respond when called and available....

I thought I addressed this already. There's a few key parts.
1) Flts don't make policy or control their fate at all. In our GT example, there is an ESO at Sq dividing up the components of a complete self-contained SaR/DR task force among each of the flts. He directs that GT focused flt to train on XYZ, and they do it. They have input, but it's not their choice & they never do their own thing. People would want to serve at that Sq level cause they have real authority over policy, and on the ES side it's the only way to move up into CnC positions.
2) Sq level is were most of the officer slots are. You want ot be an officer, have some real authority, be able to make policy. You go to Sq & prob serve most of your career at that level.
3) The Sq CC, DC & XO would be officers, any other position could be a junior officer or NCO. That's the flts sharing personnel btwn each other to staff the HQ element. You're motivated to file those transportation reports because you came up from the flt that has that van & you deploy on a GT with them during a mission.

[RiverAux]

The difference is now that if you've got 5 squadrons, each of them probably has some holes that force the squadron commander do double duty to get the job done.  However, they will be different holes in each squadron.  One might not have an Ops officer which means more work for that squadron commander, but it is doable for him to cover it.  However, in your proposal if the Ops officer doesn't do his job, then 5 planes get grounded for not having their monthly reports turned in rather than just one.  You're putting all your eggs in one basket. 

I am all for paperwork reduction as much as possible, but you haven't actually proposed anything that would reduce it.  Some fraction of the paperwork might actually get done at a higher level with your proposal, but it would be very small and would actually result in redundant work being done in that it would still need to be initially worked at the local level, then shifted up for finalization where it would be re-done in some form or fashion. 

[arajca]

Got it. CAP should be an urban organization. OK.

I quit.

[RogueLeader]

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.

No, it is not.  The only thing that was different was in how they trained.  Training was done at Wing.  Proficiency was done locally.  All paperwork and reports was done by the squadron- the way it is for the rest of us.  Trust me I was there under the system.  The only squadron reports done at Wing were the finances, but that was due to the Wing Banker Program, not the Iowa Plan.  Making all reports done by wing would have resulted in a huge backlog of paper.  You'd have to get all the squadron officers to Wing so they could complete all the paperwork, at that point, you'd have only a few Officers to oversee/train all the Cadets.  At that point, there would be no point in having a WTA.

[DNall]

Got it. CAP should be an urban organization.

Whatever. I didn't say urban. Very few Sqs are in the middle of no where or beyond access to a neighboring unit.

It seems like yall are having trouble understanding what I'm getting at. Forget what I was saying, let me try this from another angle.
EX. -
You get a new Sq CC. He says, "I think we're doing too much admin & not enough operational trng. We're going to reorg a bit so we can be more efficient & I can keep my operators more focused on the mission. We're going to have separate flights for cadets, GT, & aircrew. For right now we're all going to still meet at the same time, but as we get our feet under us, each group may decide to meet on a dif day so they have full access to all the resources they need. We're also going to have a mission support section under the DCS. The flights are going to be told from the command section what they need to train on so the pieces of the puzzle come together to make a complete picture. But, they are going to do their own training, and otherwise are only responsible for the most essential & immediate self-support tasks. The mission support section will take care of the rest."

Now, ignoring for a moment how I'm going to staff the mission support section, does anyone actually have a fundamental problem with the rest of that?

ALL I'm doing is taking that mission support section from a couple units & combining them. Instead of now having 5 mediocre ops officers where one or two might not do the job well, now I got the one best ops officer out of that whole pool. You want to train in a specialty, hey look I actually have someone that knows what they're doing, you aren't getting tossed in the fire handed a reg to learn the job & set up for failure. Not only that, I now have the manpower to not only fill those short-term most critical jobs, but I can staff out the others that make a bigger difference for the long-term strategic health of the unit. And, I'm not trying to do all three missions of CAP & every ES specialty at every local unit. Now, I'm spreading that out over 2-5 units. Suddenly it's all more manageable.

I understand it's different than you're used to. I understand most people in CAP are distrustful of levels above local. This isn't some far off disconnected HQ unit that justs gets up in your business. This is one combined arms team at the street level sharing resources to do the job, and able to get it done better than we can now.

Does that make more sense, or are you still not feeling it?

[RiverAux]

Just doesn't seem workable considering that many active CAP members often wear multiple hats.  The most common example is that usually senior GT members are also active in leading the cadet program and now you would be having them go to multiple meetings instead of just one. 

You can still have special training for each of these groups as needed, but I don't see any advantage at all to formalizing such a split. 

[DNall]

Maybe, maybe not, that would depend on the exact circumstance.

It's a bad thing though that people wear so many hats. In trying to do too much they end up doing almost nothing well or completely; it burns people out fast; and, they don't have adequate time left for their operational role (be that an ES specialty or CP). The net result of that on every level of the program is what really holds us back more than anything else.

At the same time, you know there are FEMA standards coming down at some point. When that happens, it's going to require significantly more trng, both initial & on-going, to be involved in ES, especially GT. It's not really feasible to be a legitimate responder under that matrix unless you give it your full focus.

[ZigZag911]

DNall is making a great deal of sense here (in part because he is suggesting something I've been preaching for a very long time!)>

For a good number of our local units, the active membership would, in fact, constitute a flight...12-20 acitve members at most.

Even in our larger squadrons, it is not all that unusual to see a handful of officers actually doing most of the administrative work, no matter whose name appears in manning charts.

CAP's local units tend to be training oriented; some also carry out tactical operations (GT/aircrew).

Relatively few, if any, can run a UCC, SLS, CLC on their own, fully staff a GT school or provide  complete mission base staffing for a large operation.....which is fine, it's not their role.

DNall is proposing consolidation -- in these days of technology, instant communications, computer record keeping, there is no reason whatsoever that many staff functions can not be performed "virtually"....flight personnel can provide raw data to squadron/group staff officers, who prepare required reports, plan large scale training/operations, and so  forth.....in effect, as I think someone mentioned, expand "wing banker" into other areas....not to centralize power, but to free flight members to do what they joined CAP to do -- carry out the missions!

With much of the admin work happening online, there is no reason that interested seniors could not assist in various higher level staff sections -- providing a pool of talent for position succession when necessary -- but there would not be the pressure to fill every 'slot' at the local level, and try to replicate someone's idea of how a USAF squadron operated half a century ago!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it common in USAF for most admin, personnel, logistics, finance, professional development and such to be assigned anywhere except the operational squadrons?

[jimmydeanno]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it common in USAF for most admin, personnel, logistics, finance, professional development and such to be assigned anywhere except the operational squadrons?

AF bases have an "MPF" (Military Personnel Flight) typically that consists of Admin, Personnel, Finance, Retention, etc.  However, most squadrons also have their own admin/personnel person that handles someone getting assigned to the unit, award processing, etc.  So it is common to have a few admin people in each squadron - at least physically, not necessarily on the units roster.  My wife's last AD unit had 3 admin people and her unit was just barely large enough to be called a squadron.

[Dragoon]

Consolidation of "not fun" tasks is a good idea....BUT.

We've got to convince people to do these "not fun" jobs.

We'd probably need to change the way we hand out ribbons and grade so that the folks doing the "not fun" jobs get more of it and the folks just doing the "fun" stuff get less.

Otherwise....you'll have a lot of empty "not fun" job slots.

[DNall]

Consolidation of "not fun" tasks is a good idea....BUT.

We've got to convince people to do these "not fun" jobs.

We'd probably need to change the way we hand out ribbons and grade so that the folks doing the "not fun" jobs get more of it and the folks just doing the "fun" stuff get less.

Otherwise....you'll have a lot of empty "not fun" job slots.

Hence the officer/enlisted element. Local units become flights that are manned 99% by enlisted. The "not fun" tasks are consolidated to Sqs that service several local flts. Officer slots exist there & up.

And just to clarify, "not fun" jobs is a bad way to put it. It's a division of labor. The operators at flt level are first team GT/aircrew/comm. But they are never ES officers, ICs, OSC/PSC, etc. That's done by (mostly) officers at Sq & above. They get schools & trng that focus on qual'ing them to be operational leaders that can be inserted into a multi-agency ICS situation. The Sq when it comes together becomes a combined arms task force. It's got specialists in SaR/DR/HLS. Plus, a staffer at Sq or above can also spend the extra time to train with a flt so they can still go on missions in the field, but they'd very clearly be the second team in that regard. Beyond ES, all the power & decision making really happens at the Sq. The DCC is there for the whole Sq. The CP NCOIC at each flt doesn't make up their own program, they execute one standardized program handed to them by Sq. In other words, there's a natural progression of professional growth & authority across the unit matrix.

[MajFitzpatrick]

I am not sure why NCOs should be in CAP, Nor am I really sure why there are Officers anymore. As an Cadet Captian, learning about command structure was great and really helped me in my actual job.

In CAP as a 1st Lt. There are plenty of guys that are 2nd Lts. that I can admit are far more qualified in their fields (example, Former AF Flight Engineer, now FE Instructor) Getting told by a Capt. how he should do his flight plans.

But then we realize this in CAP, and now have a 2nd Lt. Incharge of how many Capt.s and Maj.s, when we put him into some type of staff position like the Ops Officer.

And as for being an NCO, Well to tell you the truth I would never take my rank as a SSgt/E-5 (my true rank and grade in the USAF) In CAP, because other officers don't listen to 22 year old 1st Lt., Why on earth would they listen to a 22 year old CAP SSgt?

(Oppps, CAP has a long way to go when it comes to professionalism, and command structure.)

[MajFitzpatrick]

I apologize for the above rant.

I am just a little angered by the lack of development in an organization as old and well staffed as ours.

The problem with having a flight system what has been proposed in the above, in my own opinion, is that we don't function as flights, nor do we function as squadrons.

A Flight or a squadron has one particular task.

If it is an Alphabetical organized Flight, it is usually one of mulitiple flights in a "Squadron" which preforms a very specific specialized task.

Example. Aplha flight and Bravo flight are two flights assigned to APGs in an AMXS. Alpha and bravo are both comprised soley of maintainers, and specifically of crew chiefs. The sole purpose of both flights is to field crew chiefs to maintain aircraft for a wing.

Numbered flights: Numbered flights are usually used when a like task must be accomplished, mainly I have seen numbers in basic training flights or field training flights.  example: Flight 704 of the 321 TRS would be just that the 704th training Flight to go through the 321st Training Squadron. They are usually only put together for a short duration, and at the end of the task are disbanded.

Then you have flights like you MPF (Military Personel Flight) which take care of only administrative tasks. And they are very specific in that need.


CAP Squadron- Has Logistics, safety, Leadership, Operations, Professional development, ect....

Half of these things would be flights themselves, others would actually encompas up to the Group level.
So to have a squadron redone as a flight makes no true sense at all.
Nor does the current command structure in CAP Squadrons.

But thats my 2 cents.

[Dragoon]

Consolidation of "not fun" tasks is a good idea....BUT.

We've got to convince people to do these "not fun" jobs.

We'd probably need to change the way we hand out ribbons and grade so that the folks doing the "not fun" jobs get more of it and the folks just doing the "fun" stuff get less.

Otherwise....you'll have a lot of empty "not fun" job slots.

Hence the officer/enlisted element. Local units become flights that are manned 99% by enlisted. The "not fun" tasks are consolidated to Sqs that service several local flts. Officer slots exist there & up.

And just to clarify, "not fun" jobs is a bad way to put it. It's a division of labor. The operators at flt level are first team GT/aircrew/comm. But they are never ES officers, ICs, OSC/PSC, etc. That's done by (mostly) officers at Sq & above. They get schools & trng that focus on qual'ing them to be operational leaders that can be inserted into a multi-agency ICS situation. The Sq when it comes together becomes a combined arms task force. It's got specialists in SaR/DR/HLS. Plus, a staffer at Sq or above can also spend the extra time to train with a flt so they can still go on missions in the field, but they'd very clearly be the second team in that regard. Beyond ES, all the power & decision making really happens at the Sq. The DCC is there for the whole Sq. The CP NCOIC at each flt doesn't make up their own program, they execute one standardized program handed to them by Sq. In other words, there's a natural progression of professional growth & authority across the unit matrix.

You have to draw a distinction between ES and everything else. 

Being a Ops section chief IS a "fun job".  Being Wing Director of Ops is not.

Those ES folks in the units WILL want to progress above pilot and GTL into the mission staff positions - but that doesn't mean they want to take on similar roles in the admin (non-CAP) side of CAP.

Effectively, CAP is going to have two chains of command - one for the administration of units, and one for ES missions.  And people's roles are going to be different.  I can't imagine telling someone they can't train for mission staff unless they agree to become the Group AE officer.  That dog won't hunt.

The issue is with the "not fun jobs" - handling finance, personnel, logistics, safety and even command - to most of our members, these are frankly not fun.  Those that do them now are those that realize they need to be done.  But there aren't ENOUGH folks with this attitude.  We need more incentives to get people to take on these jobs and do them well.

And you still have to deal with today's Wing Vice Commander who decides he just wants to be a pilot for a while down in a squadron.  Do we demote him to NCO? Of just let him hang out with Lt Col grade doing a 2d Lt's job?  That's where we are today!

[Ricochet13]

Effectively, CAP is going to have two chains of command - one for the administration of units, and one for ES missions.  And people's roles are going to be different. 

I can't help but think herein lies a problem or a potential for improvement.  In my Squadron (and within Group) we're taking a slightly different tack with this.  There is one chain of command within the squadron, and squadron personnel support wing ES missions. 

Where and when ever possible unit integrity is maintained.  I find this consistent with other agencies and organizations which act to support ES/DR missions. 

The Squadron, working with two other neighboring Squadrons within Group, has undertaken to train for self-contained ES/DR operations within our Group's geographic area.  That's training to handle all ES mission functions up to and including IC3. 

But I digress from the issue of CAP rank/grades. 

If we're going to wear it (rank/grade), it ought to mean something other than accomplishment of a PD goal.  A nice ribbon can denote that.

[FW]

But I digress from the issue of CAP rank/grades. 

If we're going to wear it (rank/grade), it ought to mean something other than accomplishment of a PD goal.  A nice ribbon can denote that.

Bingo!  And that my friends is how it should work.  We have a multitude of PD ribbons we earn while progressing our way up the PD charts.  Grade should only be awarded for progressing up the leadership chart.   I don't care how long you've been in CAP or if you made it to level 5 in 2 years.  If you want to be a Capt or Maj or Maj Gen, you need to be willing to accept a corresponding leadership position in CAP.  And, if you do the job right,  you get to keep the grade.

[davedove]

Grade should only be awarded for progressing up the leadership chart.   I don't care how long you've been in CAP or if you made it to level 5 in 2 years.  If you want to be a Capt or Maj or Maj Gen, you need to be willing to accept a corresponding leadership position in CAP.  And, if you do the job right,  you get to keep the grade.

PD and time in grade are important and should still be requirements for grade.  The RM does it and we should too by keeping it in the "Leadership Chart".  I do think the concept of serving at a certain level to achieve a corresponding grade has merit.

[FW]

Grade should only be awarded for progressing up the leadership chart.   I don't care how long you've been in CAP or if you made it to level 5 in 2 years.  If you want to be a Capt or Maj or Maj Gen, you need to be willing to accept a corresponding leadership position in CAP.  And, if you do the job right,  you get to keep the grade.

PD and time in grade are important and should still be requirements for grade.  The RM does it and we should too by keeping it in the "Leadership Chart".  I do think the concept of serving at a certain level to achieve a corresponding grade has merit.

Sounds like a plan to me.  Now, if I have it right; Grade to be awarded based on a combination of PD advancement, TIG, and a corresponding leadership position in CAP.
Soo.... maybe I'll ask Col. Guimond if he'll work on formalizing the"concept".