August 11, 2022, 04:56:31 pm

Recent posts

Pages 1 ... 8 9 10
91
The Lobby / Re: Pandemic Wasn't Cause of M...
Last post by flyboy53 - July 18, 2022, 01:34:10 am
Quote from: PHall on July 14, 2022, 12:11:39 amMaybe part of the solution is to not say we do everything ES everywhere but target the stuff we do by wing.
California does very little Ground Team stuff but we still get a couple of ELT's and PRB's a month plus AP stuff including the newest toy, Waldo. We also don't do tornado recovery stuff but we do have earthquakes and fires.
While on the East and Gulf coasts they get a number of Hurricanes and Tornadoes plus Ground Teams are actually used there. We also need to make it clear to the pilots we recruit that we expect you to get qualified in at least one pilot specialty. i.e. DR flying, O-Flight Pilot, Glider Tow Pilot. The days of us down at 300 feet AGL on a grid search are mostly behind us. Training requirements need to reflect reality.

True.

In my previous role as a squadron/group AEO/Wing DAE, I always encouraged subordinates to pursue aircrew ratings -- specifically scanners or observers -- I did that not so much because of the operational mission side but because it gave them credibility as AEOs. That also meant that many of them would pursue the rating, get qualified, and then never set foot in an airplane again. I also made it a point for all units to pursue the various aspects of the AE program because I saw value in their member's participation,, which even senior members enjoyed, and the result was a team building exercises -- that sometimes ended in funny stories of senior members flying paper airplanes.

All sorts of people are attracted to CAP. It is so easy to caught up in the "romance" of the organization's history, and the heroism displayed by a limited number of volunteers in truly challenging situations. The reality, however, is just the opposite, where members are focused more on the primary "day-to-day" functions, where an individual's morale may wane because they don't see a value to meetings or training requirements.

The point is that unit leadership needs to monitor those trends and then be open/prepared to develop those programs that will engage the membership. There is so much more to do, such as the UAV program, communications or first aid classes -- or even participating with other units in programs leading to specific qualifications.
92
Forum Support / Re: signing back in
Last post by RiverAux - July 16, 2022, 09:46:09 pm
Okay, I see that now.  Thanks.
93
Forum Support / Re: signing back in
Last post by etodd - July 16, 2022, 08:45:27 pm
Very small area top left of browser window. Some browsers my try and crop it(?)
94
Forum Support / signing back in
Last post by RiverAux - July 16, 2022, 08:05:58 pm
So, I'm switching computers and on the new computer when I go to CAPTalk there doesn't appear to be a spot to sign in, just to complete a new registration.  Am I missing something?
95
Emergency Services & Operations / Re: Saves
Last post by PHall - July 15, 2022, 10:10:18 pm
Quote from: etodd on July 03, 2022, 09:46:02 pm
Quote from: sardak on July 03, 2022, 03:43:27 am88 saves awarded for the Yellowstone flooding in Montana

How did we help the National Guard? The media never gives us credit:

https://www.foxweather.com/watch/play-5b9b1aeb20004f7


According to National Headquarters we flew 21 sorties and were awarded 88 saves for locating people after the flooding.
Saves were awarded by the AFRCC.
96
The Marketplace / Re: ABUs for Grabs
Last post by TheSkyHornet - July 14, 2022, 08:03:52 pm
Dibs.

PM'ing
97
The Marketplace / ABUs for Grabs
Last post by coudano - July 14, 2022, 02:26:41 pm
I was throwing [mess] away (like into a 10 yard dumpster) and I couldn't trash these when I know CAP people somewhere need them...

Tops 42R
Pants 36L
Lightly used.

You want em they are yours for cost of shipping.
You tell me where, zelle/etc me the shipping cost and I drop them in UPS to you.
98
The Lobby / Re: Pandemic Wasn't Cause of M...
Last post by PHall - July 14, 2022, 12:11:39 am
Maybe part of the solution is to not say we do everything ES everywhere but target the stuff we do by wing.
California does very little Ground Team stuff but we still get a couple of ELT's and PRB's a month plus AP stuff including the newest toy, Waldo. We also don't do tornado recovery stuff but we do have earthquakes and fires.
While on the East and Gulf coasts they get a number of Hurricanes and Tornadoes plus Ground Teams are actually used there. We also need to make it clear to the pilots we recruit that we expect you to get qualified in at least one pilot specialty. i.e. DR flying, O-Flight Pilot, Glider Tow Pilot. The days of us down at 300 feet AGL on a grid search are mostly behind us. Training requirements need to reflect reality.
99
The Lobby / Re: Pandemic Wasn't Cause of M...
Last post by etodd - July 13, 2022, 09:31:16 pm
Quote from: Larry Mangum on July 13, 2022, 11:46:29 amEtodd, you state that they only attend a SAREX once or twice a year.

It was a generalized statement.

The point is that we train people ... and then they rarely actually get called into action. All they ever do is just practice. A good example now is that the vast majority of Saves over the last few years is thanks to the Cell Phone Forensics Team, who can get their job done anywhere with a laptop, often in minutes, without taking the time to put on a uniform.  They get the info to the first responders, while the rest of us sleep. No need to put on a uniform and head to the airport.

I had high hopes for the sUAS program. But again, first responders have their own drones, and usually much better equipped gear. They don't need us.

My Wing successfully found an ELT going off in a hangar last week. Members get credit for it. But finding errant ELTs is just hard to fire up a membership drive.

Real Missions .. for Senior members appear to be dwindling for most Wings. Its time for a new purpose and new missions .. to get us fired up again.
100
The Lobby / Re: Pandemic Wasn't Cause of M...
Last post by TheSkyHornet - July 13, 2022, 06:10:19 pm
I think we're back to blanket, very generalized statements about what did or didn't contribute to the loss (or gain) of members.

We're, again, looking at data of member attrition and recruiting, but that data doesn't necessarily come with causation or affirmative statements as to why someone chose to leave (or stay...which is something that isn't collected at renewal).

More so, every unit experience is extremely different from squadron to squadron, and varies significantly not just from one neighborhood to that a few miles away, but across hundreds or thousands of miles throughout the continent. We also really need to look at the variations in local or wing (or statewide) policy and actions. Oftentimes, calling it "toxic" is just another blanket statement when many issues are so much more complex.

I can look at the timeline of what my unit experienced during the pandemic, and there's some ups and downs. We went into shutdown on March 2020 along with everyone else. The very next day, our entire squadron staff (including cadet staff) engaged in a 2-hour virtual meeting to develop a plan of action to go virtual for the next two weeks. We remained constantly engaged and quickly drafted an updated plan to be virtual through 60 days since the start of the shutdown. We continued to extend that. During that time, we had a few senior cadet NCOs who were very active just prior to the shutdown across the United States. They were extremely inactive when we rolled to a virtual format, and they remained relatively inactive even after we resumed in-person activities in the later phases. They didn't want to participate in masked meetings, and they fizzled away after once the mask mandate was rescinded. By 2021, they were pretty much done.

Can we call that a pandemic loss? It's probably not just a pandemic thing. There are other factors: increasing in age and maturing over that time (maybe not always maturing for the better as far as logical thought and appropriate behavior goes), changing interests, changing friends groups at home/school, adapting to a new learning environment outside of CAP...there are many contributing components to someone's loss of interest in CAP. The pandemic could be a very significant part of that, or it could be just another straw to add onto other factors.

In December 2021, we rolled back into another Phase 0 and had yet another round of mandatory virtual activity. This one definitely played out differently than the first Phase 0 experience in that our wing was in a state that no longer had any COVID mandates. So CAP was the extracurricular that required virtual participation, and when we resumed Phase 1 and 2 meetings, masks. In this case, we were just about to run a Great Start class, and we had a very negative response from prospective members (parents especially) who said they didn't want to participate in a virtual organization, and we couldn't promise how long the circumstances and precautions would remain. We also could not share a meeting space at the venue we were using because the employee staff did not adhere to the same protocols (we experienced this in the first round of Phase 1 and 2 in 2020).

I think the second Phase 0 experience, and weeks following, had a pretty reasonable impact on CAP, at least in my own wing and squadron. Now, are those issues solely COVID? Not necessarily. I think it's a stretch to call it "toxic leadership." What we saw here was impactful, but I wouldn't say it was negligent or malicious. I think the decisions were well-intended, but they didn't align with my own personal feelings about how to best approach the matter.

Would we have lost the members we lost anyway because of their own dwindling disinterest in CAP? Probably. It's very much likely that it was only a matter of time. But we do not have definitive data to declare it in either direction.

I think there were actions taken during the pandemic that led to members not wanting to participate or renew because they felt that CAP was failing to adapt to the COVID environment, that CAP was failing to remain consistent with other community organizations, and that CAP was not providing a long-term indication that "normalcy" would return as we knew it pre-pandemic. That said, there were many units that could not adapt to the virtual/hybrid format. There were units that could not produce more educational and enjoyable activities across a wide enough spectrum of members. There were units that did not adapt well to returning to in-person activities and subsequently continued to decrease morale and drive by their members.

That pandemic, actually, still isn't even over. The majority of CAP, as I understand it today, is "back to normal." Let's be mindful that we have actually not formally declared that, and we still have guidance regarding Phase 3 protocols. The last document was updated in February 2022. It actually points to CAP guidance issued in May 2021 which speaks to overnight activity criteria, COVID mitigation planning, etc. Activities are still supposed to have temperature screens upon entry while in Phase 3, and we have yet to officially implement Routine Operations. Our dear friend, Eclipse, has been updating us on this recently and has pointed out issues in the COVID-19 interface within CAP.

For most of us, we're moving along much like it was pre-COVID with some new tools and best practices that we learned over the last couple of years. But we also have a very new member corps in many regards, and we're still working to regain a lot of experience and training with our newer members. It'll take time to adjust. These might be considered long-lasting effects from COVID-19 and decisions made in response to the pandemic.

What simply don't have the data to tell us why exactly x-number of members left from March 2020 through July 2022. And the majority of our "displeased" members are either silent, or they're griping through unofficial means that can't be collected as any actual data (CAP Talk, in-person complaining, social media, etc.).



Pages 1 ... 8 9 10