FO discrimination

[DNall]

I actually find many older members to be threatened by that youth & vigor rather than refreshed by it, but that's another topic.

There's two forms of discrimination at issue. First, there is personal treatment of the individuals by our members. In that sense, you are correct. Members regardless of age or grade need to practice the core value of mutual respect, or they need to seek volunteer opportunities elsewhere.

However, there is also another aspect. That is the discrimination by the national program through use of the FO grade system. This explicitly devalues these members and their service. Indirectly, it serves to promote & justify the personal discrimination you describe.

I can't cause every member to behave with mutual respect toward other members regardless of age, race, religion, etc. But, a small aspect of the national program can be tweaked to set the right example based on our core values. If we don't do that, then those values are a lie & we have no business existing as an organization.

[hatentx]

Is the thought by the rank on the collar or by the age they are?  I am not saying younger FO can't do the job but there are things the can't do like drive due to Insurance reason.  There will always be a difference between the 18-20 group will be different that the older crowd.

[lordmonar]

Is the thought by the rank on the collar or by the age they are?  I am not saying younger FO can't do the job but there are things the can't do like drive due to Insurance reason.  There will always be a difference between the 18-20 group will be different that the older crowd.

It is both.....their age is always going to be a factor....but with CAP not allowing under 21 members holding "real officer" ranks it help justify that sort of discrimination.

Yes the insurance and regulation issue do not help....but we also have to remember that those people who are writing those regulations may already be infected by the "FO's are just old cadets" syndrom.

Again...there are several possible fixes for this type of problem.

1).  Eliminate the FO ranks all together. 
2).  Make FO ranks part of the normal progression of all members.
3).  Raise the minimium age for SM membership to 21 (everyone under 21 is a cadet).

What needs to be done is...
1) Determine why we have the 21 year old rule for officer rank.
2) Determine if there is a legitamate need to restrict any "adult" from doing anything...I find it strange that we let an 18 year old SM fly a CAP plane as PIC....but not a Corporate Owned Vehicle.
3) Determine how many of the age restrictions are driven by the "we don't want cadets doing this" mentality.
4) Do a wash of all regulations and make sure they all have a consitant set a rules.  i.e. if we have a hard 21 year rule due to insurance rules...then those under 21 should not be allowed any roles of responsibilities.  (such as 20 year old PICs, commanders, ground team leaders, etc).

Anytime we have a system that sets up large gray areas when it comes to who can do what...it sets up a system that allows institutional discrimination.

[davedove]

What needs to be done is...
1) Determine why we have the 21 year old rule for officer rank.
2) Determine if there is a legitamate need to restrict any "adult" from doing anything...I find it strange that we let an 18 year old SM fly a CAP plane as PIC....but not a Corporate Owned Vehicle.
3) Determine how many of the age restrictions are driven by the "we don't want cadets doing this" mentality.
4) Do a wash of all regulations and make sure they all have a consitant set a rules.  i.e. if we have a hard 21 year rule due to insurance rules...then those under 21 should not be allowed any roles of responsibilities.  (such as 20 year old PICs, commanders, ground team leaders, etc).

Those are exactly the questions that need to be answered and the answer shouldn't be "because the regs have always been that way."  It may be that the restriction has existed for decades; the 26th amendment wasn't ratified until 1971 (Right to vote at 18, for those who don't know.)

All regulations should be examined from time to time to see if they're still valid, after asking "Why was this reg put in place?"

[RiverAux]

I do agree with lordmonar in that we should be consistent in how we treat people.

However, I think the FO issue is similar to the NCO issue in that as it effects only a small amount of people, it is much harder to get brought to the attention of those in charge. 

You never know, perhaps the NCO discussion might lead CAP down a different path for how we treat everybody in terms of rank and responsibilities.

[BillB]

As to when the 21 year requirement for officer grade and cadets being PIC. As a cadet I flew USAF L-4 aircraft as PIC on missions AND often carried a cadet Observer. Cadets could also drive CAP vehicles (usually military surplus). TYhe Air Force and Corporate thinking then was anything a senior member could do a cadet also could do, except command a Squadron as long as they were checked out in the equipment and could perform staff assignments. Cadets were not thought of as children which seem to be the Corporate thinking now.

[Major Carrales]

As to when the 21 year requirement for officer grade and cadets being PIC. As a cadet I flew USAF L-4 aircraft as PIC on missions AND often carried a cadet Observer. Cadets could also drive CAP vehicles (usually military surplus). TYhe Air Force and Corporate thinking then was anything a senior member could do a cadet also could do, except command a Squadron as long as they were checked out in the equipment and could perform staff assignments. Cadets were not thought of as children which seem to be the Corporate thinking now.

I have noticed a strange phenomenon amoung cadets.  The reasoning behind it being something I often point out.  I have cadets that fail math in school, I'm talking 8th grade and 7th Grade stuff.  However, in the Cadet Program they are doing good with weight and balance simulations and even trig functions associated with the more advanced side of rocketry.

I also have cadets that are holy terrors in class, but are well adjusted cadets that are respectful and focus on the given activity.

BillB's above comment on the treatment of CADETS got me to thinking about the issue.  I train cadets that choose ES as if I were training Adults, that is, they learn how to be MROs, UDF and the like as if they were CAP Officers.  Sometimes, the results among the cadets outshine those of senior members.

I suspect it is because they view that as being "REAL."  Actually training to be used, even if only in the smallest way.

Treat them like "worthless" kids and they will be "worthless" kids, treat them like adults and you will create that in them...adulthood.

[DNall]

^ Joe, school program sounds just about right for your cadets.

Again...there are several possible fixes for this type of problem.

1).  Eliminate the FO ranks all together. 
2).  Make FO ranks part of the normal progression of all members.
3).  Raise the minimium age for SM membership to 21 (everyone under 21 is a cadet).

What needs to be done is...
1) Determine why we have the 21 year old rule for officer rank.
2) Determine if there is a legitamate need to restrict any "adult" from doing anything...I find it strange that we let an 18 year old SM fly a CAP plane as PIC....but not a Corporate Owned Vehicle.
3) Determine how many of the age restrictions are driven by the "we don't want cadets doing this" mentality.
4) Do a wash of all regulations and make sure they all have a consitant set a rules.  i.e. if we have a hard 21 year rule due to insurance rules...then those under 21 should not be allowed any roles of responsibilities.  (such as 20 year old PICs, commanders, ground team leaders, etc).

Anytime we have a system that sets up large gray areas when it comes to who can do what...it sets up a system that allows institutional discrimination.

There's nothing that says under 21 members can't drive vans, it's just the insurance would cost more so we choose to make it the policy that they can't. Okay, I support that. It'd bring the rate down further if we restrict drivers to 25 & older. There's also the issue of drivers over 65, 70, 75. Each of those point pushes up the rate actually more than younger drivers, and effects many times more people. Let me tell ya, I'm a lot more scared of some of our older pilots than I am an 18-20 van driver.

I understand & support age restrictions based on insurance & real justifiable purposes. When that happens though, it needs to be applied in both directions, or it's wrong.

We don't have a mandatory retirement age. We shouldn't have a second class senior members based on age.

[RiverAux]

I'd be surprised if anyone is getting that detailed with our insurance since as far as I know national doesn't track who has a CAP drivers license and couldn't provide a age breakdown of CAP drivers if asked. 

Conversely, one might wonder if our insurance premiums for the aircraft are any higher based on doing flight training for cadets and having young pilots.  Though I'm not sure there is a correlation there -- the AOPA Nall report doesn't seem to report on pilot age and accidents. 

[DNall]

Since when does anyone named Nall know anything? 

Seriously, all auto insurance is broke down by age, with the young side age breaks at 18 & then 25 & old side varies by company, but generally 65/70/75. I could be completely mistaken on this, but I believe CAP is actually self-insured. Meaning there is no policy from some outside company, but rather we have enough assets in the foundation to cover state minimums. We just choose to enforce a policy similar to insurance rate breaks to reduce overall liability.

I have seen stats on aircraft accident rates. It shows student pilots (w/ instructor or solo) have a lower accident rate than licensed low time pilots & older pilots. Both of which have similar accident rates.

Again, I concede that insurance/liability issues relating to vehicles/aircraft are reasonable causes to restrict activities of under 21 members. BUT, in doing that we MUST also apply related restrictions on over-70 members. Otherwise it's discriminatory rather than justified/reasonable risk mgmt.

Regardless, that has no effect on members under 21 being or not being officers; the extent to which that is either actually or perceptually & therefor supportive of discrimination; and, what we should do about it to improve the organization.

[RiverAux]

There is a big line-item in the annual report for liability insurance.  Might be right about the rest.

[ol'fido]

I think we have flogged the dead equine into glue by now. Car insurance?

[DNall]

I think we have flogged the dead equine into glue by now. Car insurance?

Well, they're trying to devil's advocate reasons why we might actually be justified in having FO grades for 18-20yo members, other than outright discrimination. That's a fair part of the discussion. I don't think it legitimately applies, or reaches the threshold to justify the discrimination, especially if not also applied to older members.

[hatentx]

I think the argument about FO based on their rank is garbage.  In CAP our grade means nothing at all.  No UCMJ to give authority no commisioned officers but to give one some acomplishment and something to work for in our organisastion.  So making everyone be a FO is going to change the way we treat the 18 to 20 group?  Not in the least.  Should we have FOs?  I don't know but the let's make them real officers is crap. 
In my SQD I am the youngest SM.  Yes I have noticed some peoples treating of me different and I think that of my age.  Granted I am 24 an Army NCO and a proven combat leader (just not a combat speller) and I still get treated different because of my lack of age compaired to others.
If Insurance for A/C and vans go up substaually at certain ages then yeah ok what ever we need to do to save a buck, but If your a FO that is butthurt that you have been in CAP for 5 years and have to salute a newbie, or can't be a 2nd LT yet and drive a car then look at why you are really here.  If you want to call the discremination then what about cadets and not being able to do a lot more or what about the 11 year old that wants to join.
All I hear is crying about not being able to wear big boy rank and calling it something that it is not.

[lordmonar]

I disagree with your assertion about ranking having nothing to do with this issue.

First...yes rank means "nothing" in the literal sense of the word...no extra pay, no extra authority, no access to the first class lounge at the airport......but it does have a lot to do with how we perceive each other and how we treat each other.

If you doubt this....just suggest "there should be no rank in CAP" and see what sort of terrors come screaming out of the woodwork.

So...as part of the discrimination problem of younger folk in CAP in general...and FO's in particular....being an FO definately makes them 2nd class citezens.   "If he was any good they would let him be a Lt".

This not necessarily about letting anyone wear "big boy" rank...in fact most of the people discussing it here are all old crusties that it does not affect in any way.

It comes down to the basic question.

Why can't under 21 SM's be 2d Lts?

If there is a logical reasoning behind this basic rule....why is it not clearly spelled out and consistantly applied across all of our regulations.

No one is sayint this is a whining session....it is a discussion about treating our members with respect.

[hatentx]

Maybe I am seeing this through my rose colored glasses with rank having authority and a level of knowldege from the RM.  I personally do see the point of the FO or SMWOG but that is me.  But if we let the 18-20 geoup be general officers the lack of respect is still going to be there.  So wanting to make changes based on descremination isn't going to do any good.  Other than these younger people proving their worth like the would in any real job they are new at.  I get what is being said about being looked at and not expection much from a 2nd Lt just transfering in but if a Lt Col transfer your are going to think he should know everything.  But that is were you work past the being new and prove your worth.  When I get back from Iraq I will be a CAP 2nd Lt for 2 1/2 years at least.  If I transfered squadrens are they going to descriminate because I have been a 2nd LT forever or assume I not know much?  Sure that is were you prove your worth.

[lordmonar]

No one is suggesting that eliminating the FO ranks is going to end the age discrimination.

But it would help.

[Dutchboy]

This is one of the aspects of my "cadets over the age of 18" argument.

In my experince FO's are generally treated like over aged cadets.
Some of our regulations (besides rank) limit the activities of under 21 year olds ) they can't drive CAP vehicles for one.

Please check the regs again. CAP members over 18 and under 21 are allowed to drive CAP vehicles, they are not allowed to drive with a cadet inside the vehicle (This is what I am told by a wing staff member). Basically, they can move a vehicle from point A to point B. They would be like a cargo or transport driver  with no cadet passengers (regardless of Cadet age). 

[BillB]

It looks like almost everyone agrees that the 18-21 year old CAP members, cadet or senior presents problems of one sort or another. The grade insignia looks like something from Junior ROTC, the 18-21 year old is legally an adult. And in many cases as a FO they are treated as "older children.
The 18-21 year old is fairly rare in CAP since they are mixed in with 12 year old cadets and have no perr group, plus the training program for cadets is designed and written for the 12-15 year old cadet
That's why I think the old Officer Training Corp program that CAP used to have years ago, meets the needs of the young adults. The main difference between the old program and what's needed is to allow OTC members to progress in both the cadet program and senior program. To do this it would be manditory for an 18 year old to transfer to OTC as being manditory. This allows the OTC member to take tests in the cadet program while fulfilling training and duties as a Senior member. And get rid of the mickey mouse grade insignia and replace it with something that a Senior member would recognize. The old USAF Flight Officer (Warrent Officer) insignia for example.
I won't argue that OTC members should have ALL the privledges of a senior member (driving vans with cadets on board etc, but treat a OTC member as an adult.
There needs to be a line between cadet membership and senior membership that an OTC program would fill. In summery:
1. membership manditory at age 18
2. OTC members may test in the cadet program to advance up to Spaatz
3. Make the grade insignia more inline with military insignia
4. Design a training program different that the cadet program in leadership
         and senior professional developement.
This moves the 18-21 from being an "older cadet" to prepare for senior membership on an equal footing. The reason the old OTC program failed was it was voluntary. And few 18 year olds wanted to end their cadet training. This concept deletes that problem.
The reason the age of 21 was required to be a 2LT was that came from the real military. Granted commissioning of 18-21 did occur, but it was not the norm.

[Eclipse]

This is one of the aspects of my "cadets over the age of 18" argument.

In my experince FO's are generally treated like over aged cadets.
Some of our regulations (besides rank) limit the activities of under 21 year olds ) they can't drive CAP vehicles for one.

Please check the regs again. CAP members over 18 and under 21 are allowed to drive CAP vehicles, they are not allowed to drive with a cadet inside the vehicle (This is what I am told by a wing staff member). Basically, they can move a vehicle from point A to point B. They would be like a cargo or transport driver  with no cadet passengers (regardless of Cadet age). 

Members under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.