November 2012 CSAG Meeting Draft Agenda

[AirDX]

I'm surprised I haven't seen more discussion of of the draft agenda for the November CSAG meeting, especially considering the CAP Talk hot button issues that are in it.  The Agenda is here:

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CSAG_2012_11_Agenda_5444F58D94A96.pdf

It includes revamping the grade progression criteria in CAP (and references the soon to be approved NCO Corps in that item), and unit commander term limits.  I'm interested to see what the collective mind thinks of the grade progression proposal in particular.

I think it's a good idea, but needs some tweaking, particularly since it does not address the mission-related skill grade assignments.  If we tighten up the one, we need to tighten up all. 

[jimmydeanno]

I suppose that it's interesting that the guy that's recommending that non-priors should take longer to promote is a non-prior himself who, IIRC, skipped a few CAP grades as well.  Who also hadn't completed Level V before assuming command of MEWG, but wants people to have it to be a Lt Col.

I also hope that any agenda item pertaining to the standing up of an NCO corps doesn't go forward.  Our current structure works fine, and it is just adding something that doesn't have a defined need or direct benefit to the organization.

[RiverAux]

Gee, you would think that CAP would want to be setting a good example for the general public by keeping a small first aid kit and fire extinguishers in our ground vehicles (item 3 & 4).   Since we're not a service station maybe we should get rid of the spare tires also. 

item 6 - unit commander term limits.  States that the average unit commander term is 10-13 years.  How can anyone think that is a good idea?  I like the idea of a three year term with an optional 4th year.  Maybe a tad longer than I would like, but good enough. 

Item 7 -- drastic revision of CAP officer promotion criteria -- making all non-prior service seniors start as flight officers.  I agree that the initial promotions are too easy to get, but I don't see this proposal making a big difference.  We already have a rank structure that is just as pyramid shaped as the real military. 

[Garibaldi]

Gee, you would think that CAP would want to be setting a good example for the general public by keeping a small first aid kit and fire extinguishers in our ground vehicles (item 3 & 4).   Since we're not a service station maybe we should get rid of the spare tires also. 

item 6 - unit commander term limits.  States that the average unit commander term is 10-13 years.  How can anyone think that is a good idea?  I like the idea of a three year term with an optional 4th year.  Maybe a tad longer than I would like, but good enough. 

Item 7 -- drastic revision of CAP officer promotion criteria -- making all non-prior service seniors start as flight officers.  I agree that the initial promotions are too easy to get, but I don't see this proposal making a big difference.  We already have a rank structure that is just as pyramid shaped as the real military.

I can see where there would be trouble with having a unit CC for more than 5 years in command. Things stagnate, ideas don't happen, etc etc etc. Too easy to keep the OBN (old boy network) going, you know?

I have issues with our rank/grade structure but I can't articulate it well enough to make a cogent argument. It mainly has to do with age and professional/life experience.

As far as the fire extinguisher/first aid kits go, I have a feeling it's gonna be one of those things where we get rid of them because we don't need them, then need them, and a new reg will be issued mandating their use. I don't know. As far as I know, we aren't authorized to change a tire on a CAP van, either. I could be wrong.

[Private Investigator]

Item #6. The good old boys will not like term limits. Being in a Wing that has already imposed term limits what happens is you get the classic CAP couple. He has termed out so he puts his wife in as CC and he is the CD. Or you get the career Deputy Commander and he puts a puppet in as Squadron Commander.

Item #7. Now you have to get the GRW for Lt Col? That is a bit much. What I would do is increase the T-I-G. Basically you pushing the possibility of making Lt Col in 10 years to 12 years (not including the special pronotions) I am thinking time in service should be for Lt Col 20 years, Major 15 yrs and Captain 10 years. Of course special skills and Group and Squadron Commanders should be promoted according to their assignments.

[SarDragon]

Item #6. The good old boys will not like term limits. Being in a Wing that has already imposed term limits what happens is you get the classic CAP couple. He has termed out so he puts his wife in as CC and he is the CD. Or you get the career Deputy Commander and he puts a puppet in as Squadron Commander.

Item #7. Now you have to get the GRW for Lt Col? That is a bit much. What I would do is increase the T-I-G. Basically you pushing the possibility of making Lt Col in 10 years to 12 years (not including the special pronotions) I am thinking time in service should be for Lt Col 20 years, Major 15 yrs and Captain 10 years. Of course special skills and Group and Squadron Commanders should be promoted according to their assignments.

That would make the CAP TIG numbers higher than AD AF.

[NIN]

So, wait, 27 months to become a 2nd Lt from walking in off the street.

I'm all for raising the level of training and standards, but that just seems a little ... excessive.

[RiverAux]

The funny thing is that they somehow assume that increasing the time-in-grade for non-prior service members will somehow imbue them with more military knowledge and abilities that they wouldn't get if we put butter bars on them in 6 months. 

I'm just not sure what they see as the problem. 

If the problem is new CAP members not acting military enough due to a lack of knowledge, increase the training requirements so that they have the knowledge they need.

[JeffDG]

The funny thing is that they somehow assume that increasing the time-in-grade for non-prior service members will somehow imbue them with more military knowledge and abilities that they wouldn't get if we put butter bars on them in 6 months. 

I'm just not sure what they see as the problem. 

If the problem is new CAP members not acting military enough due to a lack of knowledge, increase the training requirements so that they have the knowledge they need.

And if the problem is people simply being promoted for showing up, then make maximum grade dependent upon duty assignment.

Region/CC. Region/CV, Wing/CC-Col
Region Sr. Staff (DCS/Director of)/Wing/CV/Wing/CS-Lt. Col
Jr. Region Staff/Sr. Wing Staff (Director of), Group/CC - Major
Jr. Wing Staff/Sr. Group Staff/Group/CD/Squadron/CC - Capt
Jr. Group Staff/Sr. Squadron Staff - 1st Lt
Jr. Squadron Staff - 2nd Lt.

Grade is temporary for x amount of time, then can be made permanent. 

Grade would then denote level of responsibility within the organization.  Want to be the Asst. Squadron Admin Officer and Chief Donut Purchaser, that's fantastic.  But the Squadron DCC is going to outrank you!

[jimmydeanno]

I have issues with our rank/grade structure but I can't articulate it well enough to make a cogent argument. It mainly has to do with age and professional/life experience.

If that's all there is, then there really isn't an issue on the age portion.  The average age of our SMs is well over 50.  Most active duty folks hit Lt Col well before that point.  If you are arguing against the 29 year old Lt Col, I can't say that I've ever met any that I'm disappointed in.  If it's the 25 year old Captains, then we are on par with AD folks again.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I thought there were already limits on squadron CC's term of service.  Maybe it's a Wing thing?

I wouldn't be against the Flight Officer grades for new NPS members, but rename them Warrant Officers and give them the choice to progress in a speciality track from W1 to CWO5 if they don't want to be in a command position.  Yes, yes, I know the AF doesn't have WO's, but they don't have FO's either!  Also, it would have to be determined just how much service is "prior service."  Would it mean a full term of enlistment?  What about a member who has been given a medical discharge through no fault of their own?  Or someone who didn't make it through basic and got an ELS for failure to adapt?

27 months to 2nd Lt is a bit excessive.  I think the NSCC has a good idea as to how they do theirs, which we could use as a model:

http://resources.seacadets.org/nscc_regulations/nsccregs7.html

Letter of justification?  I already had to provide one of those.

The "non-renewal" bit could really be open to abuse.  Commander doesn't like you, s/he non-renews you for "failure to meet core values."

I'm one of the few who doesn't see anything wrong with an NCO corps.  We used to have them, but it's silly to start considering them "NCO's" at E-4, given that the AF is the only service that doesn't consider an E-4 (SrA) an NCO, except for the Army Specialist, which is a misnomer anyway.  If the USAF still had buck sergeants that would be another issue.  Perhaps a way to serve for those who, for whatever reason, haven't got a high school diploma?  Start them at E-1 and let them progress from there.

But please, and I know I'm in the vast minority here, get rid of the "Senior Member" and "Senior Member Without Grade" designations.  There are several things they can be replaced with ("Airman" in the enlisted side if that is adopted, and "Officer Cadet" on the officer side).

[NIN]

Call 'em "officer candidates" and give them a year. A "Level 1"-like training at the outset, some lessons in the middle, and an SLS type weekend at the end prior to 2Lt.

I swear, I got RSC as a Major and there was stuff in that course that I could have well used before I was a Captain.

[Garibaldi]

I have issues with our rank/grade structure but I can't articulate it well enough to make a cogent argument. It mainly has to do with age and professional/life experience.

If that's all there is, then there really isn't an issue on the age portion.  The average age of our SMs is well over 50.  Most active duty folks hit Lt Col well before that point.  If you are arguing against the 29 year old Lt Col, I can't say that I've ever met any that I'm disappointed in.  If it's the 25 year old Captains, then we are on par with AD folks again.

No, mainly it's something personal I guess. Although I've never served in the military, I guess I've always been rankled by 21 year old captains "in charge" of 50 year old 2nd Lts. I understand that we're a volunteer organization, and we come from all ages and all walks of life, but I guess it's just that I've been accustomed to seeing an age progression with grade. I don't know if that makes sense. I've never really met a CAP officer who can't back up his grade with experience, either in CAP or military life or personal experience.

We had a new senior member about 10 years ago who came to us as a former Navy commander, airline pilot for a Saudi prince, and umpteen thousands of hours of PIC time. He insisted on starting at 2LT instead of being jumped to the CAP equivalent. That changed, against his will, when he became squadron commander. We still call him Commander. Never met a more humble man in my life.

I guess when I look at it, the grade really doesn't mean much, it's just a progression scale. I've known people who clamor for their next promotion as soon as they are able, without really doing much more than they absolutely have to, and others who just don't give a hoot if they stay at 2LT for the rest of their career, but choose to do every thing they can to help the program along.

[NIN]

Well, rank among senior members is like... well, I got my butt in a crack last time I said that.

[RiverAux]

In regards to senior member promotions, I do like having the Officer Basic Course be the pre-requisite to becoming a 2nd Lt. and having later promotions match levels 2-5.  However, that could be done without coming up with an entire flight officer course.  Just keep them as senior members until they finish level 1 and OBC with maybe a minimum of a year TIG as a SMWOG. 

As we've talked about many times there is no incentive for seniors to complete level 5 now.  Would many do level 5 just to become a lt col?  Probably not a lot, but probably a lot more than finish level 5 now. 

One odd thing -- they're proposing requiring a letter of justification for field grade promotions --- but have Captain listed as a field grade.  I've always heard that it is Majors and above that are considered "field" grade. 

[jimmydeanno]

In regards to senior member promotions, I do like having the Officer Basic Course be the pre-requisite to becoming a 2nd Lt. and having later promotions match levels 2-5.  However, that could be done without coming up with an entire flight officer course.  Just keep them as senior members until they finish level 1 and OBC with maybe a minimum of a year TIG as a SMWOG. 

As we've talked about many times there is no incentive for seniors to complete level 5 now.  Would many do level 5 just to become a lt col?  Probably not a lot, but probably a lot more than finish level 5 now. 

One odd thing -- they're proposing requiring a letter of justification for field grade promotions --- but have Captain listed as a field grade.  I've always heard that it is Majors and above that are considered "field" grade.

Captains are Company Grade Officers (2d Lt, 1st Lt, Capt).  The Field Grade Officers are the ones that get the nifty little stripe at the end of their epaulet sleeve (Maj, Lt Col, Col).  General Officers are the ones that have a nifty stripe at each end of their epaulet sleeve (Brig Gen, Maj Gen, Lt Gen, Gen).

[coudano]

There are a lot of units where the same guy commands for 10+ years because there is nobody else around willing to take the job.

What are you going to do to those units, when you throw out the one guy willing to do the job at the end of 4 years?

[jimmydeanno]

I can understand the sentiment behind the "what if nobody else will do it" scenario, but I think that signifies larger issues than people not taking command.  If a unit gets to that point, where there is nobody to fill the commander's spot, then the current commander has not effectively run the unit.  Sure, they can squadron of merit and wing cadet competitions, etc. but all that is created is an organization that is dependent on a single person to succeed.  To me, that is a failure of command.

A commander needs to be concerned with continuity and progress.  Progress is not having the same commander for 10 years.  A unit should be active in recruiting, the commander needs to be active in building their seniors, creating a network of people who can not only assist the unit in reaching its goals, but also joining the organization.  It really is something that needs to be on their mind from day 1.

Honestly, all the units that I've been a member of that had commanders that had been such for more than 3 years were stagnant and on the brink of closure anyway.

[coudano]

I can understand the sentiment behind the "what if nobody else will do it" scenario, but I think that signifies larger issues than people not taking command.  If a unit gets to that point, where there is nobody to fill the commander's spot, then the current commander has not effectively run the unit.  Sure, they can squadron of merit and wing cadet competitions, etc. but all that is created is an organization that is dependent on a single person to succeed.  To me, that is a failure of command.

A commander needs to be concerned with continuity and progress.  Progress is not having the same commander for 10 years.  A unit should be active in recruiting, the commander needs to be active in building their seniors, creating a network of people who can not only assist the unit in reaching its goals, but also joining the organization.  It really is something that needs to be on their mind from day 1.

I agree with you, however having nobody in the commander's chair,
or someone who is wholly unqualified and uninterested in doing the job is also going to lead to a failure of command.

[Майор Хаткевич]

That's the commander's failure for not training his replacement...

[SamFranklin]

I can understand the sentiment behind the "what if nobody else will do it" scenario, but I think that signifies larger issues than people not taking command.  If a unit gets to that point, where there is nobody to fill the commander's spot, then the current commander has not effectively run the unit.  Sure, they can squadron of merit and wing cadet competitions, etc. but all that is created is an organization that is dependent on a single person to succeed.  To me, that is a failure of command.

There's truth in what you're saying, but I think you're taking too firm a stand here and not recognizing the human side of the leadership equation.

Sometimes you identify and begin mentoring your successor, only to have "life" get in the way of that successor's plans. That new guy has to leave and so the existing CC can't step aside. (Cf: "It's a Wonderful Life" when George Bailey can't go to college because his brother-successor is at war.)

When people are paid salaries (for-profit, government, non-profit, whatever), the problem of recruiting a replacement is reasonably easy to solve in a liquid labor market. Just put an ad in the paper and "buy" your solution. In volunteer settings like ours, that's not the case. Leadership is much, much harder in our setting. We don't give ourselves enough credit for that, but that's another story.

In recognition of these dynamics, I would not choose to point my finger at any commander for his not finding a successor.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The Field Grade Officers are the ones that get the nifty little stripe at the end of their epaulet sleeve (Maj, Lt Col, Col).

Which has sometimes caused some headscratching on my part about how the Army does it...all commissioned and warrant officers have that nifty little stripe.





Note also that the Army Lt. Gen. doesn't get a second nifty little stripe.

Also, once you cross that field grade threshold, you get scrambled eggs/farts and darts...except in the Navy/CG, which make you wait until O-5.

[jimmydeanno]

No, mainly it's something personal I guess. Although I've never served in the military, I guess I've always been rankled by 21 year old captains "in charge" of 50 year old 2nd Lts. I understand that we're a volunteer organization, and we come from all ages and all walks of life, but I guess it's just that I've been accustomed to seeing an age progression with grade. I don't know if that makes sense. I've never really met a CAP officer who can't back up his grade with experience, either in CAP or military life or personal experience.

From the opposite side of that, it drives me crazy when people assume that they should be in a position over somebody else simply because of their age or their perceived life experience.  In the military, you won't find a 50 year old 2d Lt.  The promotion structure, TIG requirements, etc., will dictate that people of the same grade will be generally the same age, and have roughly the same experiences. 

I've seen the 22 year old Captain run circles around the 60 year old Lt Col in terms of unit success.  I've also seen a few younger guys fail to make the transition from being a cadet.  I think that in the last few years, at least in the circles that I've been in, I've seen a slight shift in the idea of what the grade actually means.  Instead of people just promoting and staying put, they've actively tried to move up, etc. 

All I know is that despite what our grade structure is, the majority of our members are hard working individuals who want to see our program succeed. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^Following JimmyDeanno's note about age/life experience...

I had a supervisor who was a "mustang" with Vietnam combat service.

He went as far as MSgt, got a commission and retired as a Captain.

I don't know how old he was when he got his commission, but he was probably 15 years older minimum than other 2nd Lts out of OTS.  He told me he got some weird looks being a 2nd Lt with greying hair and a massive ribbon rack.

[Майор Хаткевич]

^ +1.

I have my lvl2 complete, and have about 1 1/2 months to go in TIG for minimum time to Captain, but it's really not a big deal. I want to knock out the requirements because things like SLS, CLC, TLC, etc are beneficial to my CAP education. Nothing is cooler than the LtCol who was in my SLS class (military equivalent grade appointment) because he wants to learn the CAP program and not just rock around as a LtCol from day one and forever.

On the other hand, outside of the special appointments, the grade should also reflect the fact that I HAVE done the things that are needed, and in theory, would have more CAP knowledge than a new member (Not that a SMWOG can't get all those things done before any grade appointments).

Grade is nice and all, but lets face it, if I get my Captain bars, that just makes me one of the dozen or so plus in my unit. Same thing with being a Lt or a Major.

Right now what the grade in CAP on the SM tells me is that someone has been in the program for atleast X years based on grade Y. Nothing beyond that.

[Eclipse]

AGENDA ITEM – 3 LG Action SUBJECT:  First Aid Kits – Change from required to optional.

AGENDA ITEM – 4 LG Action SUBJECT:  Removal of Fire Extinguishers from Ground Vehicles.

AGENDA ITEM – 5 SE Action SUBJECT:  Cadets Seeking Orientation Flights Requirement to take Aircraft Ground Handling Course

AGENDA ITEM – 6 DP Action SUBJECT:  Unit Commander Term Limits

AGENDA ITEM – 7 DP Action SUBJECT:  Revision of Promotion Requirements

AGENDA ITEM – 8 DP Action SUBJECT:  Award Consolidation

AGENDA ITEM – 9 DP Action SUBJECT:  Cadet Safety Officer of the Year

AGENDA ITEM – 10 COO Action SUBJECT:  BoG Member-At-Large Selection

AGENDA ITEM – 11 HC Action SUBJECT:  Revision of CAPR 265-1 (Inactive Chaplains)

B.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 12 Booster Clubs

C.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 14 Flight of Non-Member Spouses in Corporate Aircraft

D.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 15 Information Technology (IT) Mission Qualification

E.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 19 Non-Renewal of CAP Members

[Eclipse]

AGENDA ITEM – 3 LG Action SUBJECT:  First Aid Kits – Change from required to optional.

AGENDA ITEM – 4 LG Action SUBJECT:  Removal of Fire Extinguishers from Ground Vehicles.

No opinion.

AGENDA ITEM – 5 SE Action SUBJECT:  Cadets Seeking Orientation Flights Requirement to take Aircraft Ground Handling Course

Non-concur.  This will become another gateway that blocks cadets from flying O-rides.   

AGENDA ITEM – 6 DP Action SUBJECT:  Unit Commander Term Limits

STRONGLY CONCUR. My wing has enforced this for nearly ten years, yet the sky has not fallen.  3 years no more than 4, I would add a minimum
1-calendar year before being allowed to come back as a commander at the same unit, and perhaps language to negate the family-based trading.

AGENDA ITEM – 7 DP Action SUBJECT:  Revision of Promotion Requirements

STRONGLY CONCUR.  I would further add that all existing Lt Cols be required to "level-up" within say, 3-5 years or be demoted to Major.
The caveat being that NSC could not handle the volume, so that class would have to be increased. 

Lt Cols are supposed to be prepared and able to serve as staff and command at the Wing or higher.  There is no shame in not being interested in doing that, but there should be recognition for those who go the extra mile in both training and effort.

AGENDA ITEM – 8 DP Action SUBJECT:  Award Consolidation

Concur.

AGENDA ITEM – 9 DP Action SUBJECT:  Cadet Safety Officer of the Year

Non-concur.  We should be eliminating the "OTYs" not adding to them.

AGENDA ITEM – 10 COO Action SUBJECT:  BoG Member-At-Large Selection

No opinion

AGENDA ITEM – 11 HC Action SUBJECT:  Revision of CAPR 265-1 (Inactive Chaplains)

Inactive chaplains should be dropped from the roles.  There is no value whatsoever to CAP
in maintaining members as chaplains who are not serving CAP in that role.

B.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 12 Booster Clubs

Concur, though I would just as soon simply eliminate them.

C.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 14 Flight of Non-Member Spouses in Corporate Aircraft

Non-Concur.  If you want to fly, join.  Further, CAP conferences (etc) are no vacation time, so
why are people dragging their spouses along, anyway?

D.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 15 Information Technology (IT) Mission Qualification

Concur / non-concur.  The need is there, but this is not likely to change who is actually turning the IT wrenchs
during a mission, rating or not.

E.  August 2012 National Board Agenda Item 19 Non-Renewal of CAP Members

Non-Concur.  The regs already allow for actions which will terminate members.  If someone is enough of a problem to
"non-renew", the CC should step up and terminate them formally.

[wuzafuzz]

During my initial CAP years I pursued various grades because I felt it gave me a little street cred within CAP.  Call it the "been there done that" factor.  Over time I realized even that isn't a reliable indicator of worth, whether the grade is CAP-grown or obtained in military service. 

Now I find the constant obsessing about grade and what other people think of it to be amusing.  An NCO corps will confuse matters even more.  There's nothing wrong with making CAP grade reasonably meaningful, but we don't need to go crazy with it.  CAP grade is never going to be the equivalent of military grade, we need to get over it. 

I wear a polo shirt most of the time; my oak leaves spend a lot of time impressing the other clothes in my closet.

[Eclipse]

During my initial CAP years I pursued various grades because I felt it gave me a little street cred within CAP.  Call it the "been there done that" factor.  Over time I realized even that isn't a reliable indicator of worth, whether the grade is CAP-grown or obtained in military service. 

Now I find the constant obsessing about grade and what other people think of it to be amusing.  An NCO corps will confuse matters even more.  There's nothing wrong with making CAP grade reasonably meaningful, but we don't need to go crazy with it.  CAP grade is never going to be the equivalent of military grade, we need to get over it. 

I wear a polo shirt most of the time; my oak leaves spend a lot of time impressing the other clothes in my closet.

+1, especially the bold.

[Private Investigator]

There are a lot of units where the same guy commands for 10+ years because there is nobody else around willing to take the job.

What are you going to do to those units, when you throw out the one guy willing to do the job at the end of 4 years?

How about the guy who gets in and then does not want to step down?

Would you be on my Staff or be my Deputy Commander if I was the Commander since 1981 and told you up front, "I am not stepping down, EVER." What would you do? Suck it up and be a good volunteer? Not judging, just asking ...

[Private Investigator]

I've seen the 22 year old Captain run circles around the 60 year old Lt Col in terms of unit success.  I've also seen a few younger guys fail to make the transition from being a cadet.  I think that in the last few years, at least in the circles that I've been in, I've seen a slight shift in the idea of what the grade actually means.  Instead of people just promoting and staying put, they've actively tried to move up, etc. 

All I know is that despite what our grade structure is, the majority of our members are hard working individuals who want to see our program succeed.

I look at people like the ocean, sometimes its up and sometimes down. Others run on auto-pilot. 1st meeting of month, get safety and AE done, 2nd meeting, OPS, etc, etc. They just come in do 1 1/2 hours and go home. Every now and then do a membership application for a new member. A procedure changes and eventually they ask when did that happen? I answer, "THREE YEARS AGO."

But I have seen 60 year old Lt Col just as sharp as a Cadet and 22 year old Captains who think they are high speed low drag because now that they been a Squadron Commander for three months and they changed from brown t-shirts and BDU caps to black t-shirts and black ball caps. "ooh, we accented in black, we are so bad ass like a PJ!" They think making changes puts them on the cutting edge, but I remember when they were a silly Cadet and now they are a silly Senior Member, IMHO.

98% of the people mean well but that 2% have their own agenda, i.e. Tony somebody, but you know who I mean.   

[JeffDG]

AGENDA ITEM – 3 LG Action SUBJECT:  First Aid Kits – Change from required to optional.

AGENDA ITEM – 4 LG Action SUBJECT:  Removal of Fire Extinguishers from Ground Vehicles.

Non-concur.  I don't see what problem they're trying to solve.  Both items are cheap insurance for almost no cost

AGENDA ITEM – 5 SE Action SUBJECT:  Cadets Seeking Orientation Flights Requirement to take Aircraft Ground Handling Course

No opinion

AGENDA ITEM – 6 DP Action SUBJECT:  Unit Commander Term Limits

Strongly non-concur.  Solution in desperate search of a problem.  Wing and Region commanders can implement this if they see a need in their AOR, see no reason to force it on areas where there is no identified need.

AGENDA ITEM – 7 DP Action SUBJECT:  Revision of Promotion Requirements

See prior comments on tying maximum grade to duty positions.

[RiverAux]

AGENDA ITEM – 6 DP Action SUBJECT:  Unit Commander Term Limits

Strongly non-concur.  Solution in desperate search of a problem.  Wing and Region commanders can implement this if they see a need in their AOR, see no reason to force it on areas where there is no identified need.

So, you're ok with Wing or Region Commanders implementing the same policy but not if its done at the national level?  Are you saying that there are wings or regions out there chock full of 15-year termed squadron commanders and other wings and regions that magically have regular command changeovers that happen naturally? 

Not sure how that makes sense.  If it makes sense for one wing or region it makes just as much sense nationally. 

[JeffDG]

AGENDA ITEM – 6 DP Action SUBJECT:  Unit Commander Term Limits

Strongly non-concur.  Solution in desperate search of a problem.  Wing and Region commanders can implement this if they see a need in their AOR, see no reason to force it on areas where there is no identified need.

So, you're ok with Wing or Region Commanders implementing the same policy but not if its done at the national level?  Are you saying that there are wings or regions out there chock full of 15-year termed squadron commanders and other wings and regions that magically have regular command changeovers that happen naturally? 

Not sure how that makes sense.  If it makes sense for one wing or region it makes just as much sense nationally.

Why do we have Region and Wing Commanders if you're going to mandate every single thing nationally?

Why not let them run their regions/wings as they deem appropriate, and let them choose the commanders they want to have.

[Cool Mace]

AGENDA ITEM – 6 DP Action SUBJECT:  Unit Commander Term Limits

Strongly non-concur.  Solution in desperate search of a problem.  Wing and Region commanders can implement this if they see a need in their AOR, see no reason to force it on areas where there is no identified need.

So, you're ok with Wing or Region Commanders implementing the same policy but not if its done at the national level?  Are you saying that there are wings or regions out there chock full of 15-year termed squadron commanders and other wings and regions that magically have regular command changeovers that happen naturally? 

Not sure how that makes sense.  If it makes sense for one wing or region it makes just as much sense nationally.

I see the point you're trying to make here. But you also have to look at some of the smaller wings, and smaller squadrons. Some just don't have the man power to do that. No matter how bad squadrons would love to have enough people for this to not be a problem, it is.

[JeffDG]

The idea of "it's good for one Wing, it should be good nationally" is a myth.

Why must people squash all originality and individual thinking and impose national solutions.

As an example:  Having mountain flying courses is an excellent idea in COWG, not so much in FLWG.  Similarly, if FLWG were to mandate Water Survival training because they have such a long coastline, should we mandate the same for AZWG?

Wing Commanders know, or by God should know, the circumstances within their commands, and they have the right today to relieve commanders who are not performing well.  Why do we need to tie their hands and say "Hey, this guy who's doing a helluva job, you have to replace him because he's been doing it for too long.  No matter that he has a great staff and has new ideas constantly being generated, get rid of him, it works in another wing, so you shall do it!"

[RogueLeader]

Not sure how that makes sense.  If it makes sense for one wing or region it makes just as much sense nationally.

It makes the same sense as only allowing the exact same uniforms nationally.  It doesn't.  Climates are different, so you need to allow for that and let the Commanders do their jobs.

You don't need heavy duty cold weather gear in FL or PR, but you do in the northern tier of the US.  Same for Unit Commanders, some places you can have term limits, other places squadrons WILL fold. 
I definitely see where there are problems, but let the Commanders do their job.

[Eclipse]

Some just don't have the man power to do that. No matter how bad squadrons would love to have enough people for this to not be a problem, it is.

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.
In my time in CAP there's never been anything close to a legitimate national recruiting campaign, and most wings do literally nothing, ever.
The vast majority of recruiting is random coincidence coupled with the occasional 1/2-hearted table at an airshow, maybe once a year
for 30-40% of the units.

The rest just hope for new people and complain they can't get anything done because they are so short staffed.

A significant number of CAP's baseline issues, including those around legitimacy as an organization and response capabilities will never be solved until
we pay attention to recruiting at the same level that we do everything else, and that includes having coherent programs ready for the FNGs when they show up to the first meeting.

[JeffDG]

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.

So, then in the spirit of One-Size-Fits-All, all squadrons should be required to grow by 50% next year.  Doesn't matter if they have a healthy number of members right now or not, a Mandate It Shall Be.

[Eclipse]

Why must people squash all originality and individual thinking and impose national solutions.

CC term limits are not the same as whether or not one wing needs mountain flying or winter coats.  And on the majority, there's a lot of stagnation
out there that has outlived multiple Wing CC's.

Some things simply need a reg to implement.  Do you think anyone would involve themselves in the root-canal of an SUI or CI if it wasn't required?
Etc., etc.

Anyone in a CAP volunteer job for 5+ years N-E-1 is stagnating, and stifling the progression of others as well.

[Cool Mace]

Some just don't have the man power to do that. No matter how bad squadrons would love to have enough people for this to not be a problem, it is.

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.
In my time in CAP there's never been anything close to a legitimate national recruiting campaign, and most wings do literally nothing, ever.
The vast majority of recruiting is random coincidence coupled with the occasional 1/2-hearted table at an airshow, maybe once a year
for 30-40% of the units.

The rest just hope for new people and complain they can't get anything done because they are so short staffed.

A significant number of CAP's baseline issues, including those around legitimacy as an organization and response capabilities will never be solved until
we pay attention to recruiting at the same level that we do everything else, and that includes having coherent programs ready for the FNGs when they show up to the first meeting.

You may say that squadrons only do a half hearted effort all you want. Though, it may be true is some cases. But  many squadron who do full on recruiting still might only get one new member from any given recruiting event. We all wish it wasn't this way, but that's how life is.

[Eclipse]

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.

So, then in the spirit of One-Size-Fits-All, all squadrons should be required to grow by 50% next year.  Doesn't matter if they have a healthy number of members right now or not, a Mandate It Shall Be.

Define "healthy numbers", and then we can talk about the mandates.  The number of units in this country that would be considered "healthy", by any reasonable definition, would be very small.

And any unit not growing, is shrinking.

[NIN]

During my initial CAP years I pursued various grades because I felt it gave me a little street cred within CAP.  Call it the "been there done that" factor.  Over time I realized even that isn't a reliable indicator of worth, whether the grade is CAP-grown or obtained in military service. 

Now I find the constant obsessing about grade and what other people think of it to be amusing.  An NCO corps will confuse matters even more.  There's nothing wrong with making CAP grade reasonably meaningful, but we don't need to go crazy with it.  CAP grade is never going to be the equivalent of military grade, we need to get over it. 

I wear a polo shirt most of the time; my oak leaves spend a lot of time impressing the other clothes in my closet.

+1, especially the bold.

I think the implementation of an NCO corps (on a broader, more formal basis than CAP presently has, of course) would require a pretty substantial culture shift among the "officer corps".  Let me explain:

Right now, in CAP, tasks and functions that are really "junior enlisted"-level activities are accomplished by company grade officers (2nd Lts, 1st Lts & Captains). 

Let me use "Personnel" for an example: Processing a member's award is the job for an A1C personnel clerk, not a 1st Lt, but here we have the "Personnel Officer" in a CAP unit who is the "personnel clerk" (creates paperwork, acts as the processor), "personnel NCO" (supervisor of the task, since there are seldom multiple "personnel clerk"-types in the unit ) and "Personnel Officer" (the "legal authority" for signatures and "for the commander" actions). (ETA: "Holy cradle-to-grave tasking, Batman!")

CAP has been, pretty much throughout its "modern" history (the period that comprises the bulk of the "Time in CAP" for most of its current members, say back thru the 1980s) nearly 100% "officer oriented."  Your average CAP officer (NPS, 2nd Lt thru Capt) really does not have a body of experience of working with NCOs/enlisted troops in a CAP context.  Its going to take a lot of doing to create & build any kind of a "professional NCO corps" that does not consist almost universally of prior-service NCOs who have the training and NCO experience to operate as legit NCOs, especially when the bulk of your "officers" won't have a lot of experience with how their duties, roles & responsibilities will change when there are "enlisted troops".

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of "CAP NCOs" that I've met, and all were of course prior-service NCOs.  There is a somewhat lesser number of that who were actually able to be effective, and not because they were bad NCOs, but because CAP just had no clue how to use an NCO effectively.  I've seen CAP 1st Lts with no prior service treat a CAP-RAP TSgt like their personal coffee boys.

I'm as guilty of this as the next guy, and I'm a prior service guy, too. 

The USAC/ACA's culture was one of "Cadet Enlisted, Adult Officer" (more or less).  Pretty much ALL of the NCOs in the USAC/ACA, with the exception of the "senior enlisted" (usually a SGM/CSM) were Cadet NCOs.  Sure, they filled NCO roles like Squad Leader, Platoon Sergeant & First Sergeant, but they were still cadets, so the officers did a lot of the "NCO business".   

In 2008, we had our Annual Training at Fort A.P. Hill and had a number of USAR drill sergeants come and help out with BCT duties.  Notably, we had 2-3 SSGs who were fairly experienced NCOs and had no problems stepping into the NCO / Drill Sergeant role with the recruits & cadets.

However, since our officers had previously filled a lot of "NCO Business" roles, or at least picked up the slack between the Cadet NCO's capabilities & the officer corps, there was some overlap that took us a little bit to sort out.  We had officers stumbling into NCO's lane, so to speak, and there was a little friction for the first few days as the NCOs were like "What the hell are these @#$% officers doing executing our business?" and we all sort of had to adjust to our stations in life.

We also had to make the NCOs aware, since they were "RealArmy™," of some of the cultural norms and expectations of our officer corps. It wasn't that our officers didn't trust the NCOs (quite to the contrary), but since we'd always had to sort of "over-supervise" the cadets in that role, we just kept right on going when there was someone else in that role.

I had a situation one day where two or three Cadet NCOs (corporals thru SFCs) were horsing around in their end of the barracks, which happened to be on the opposite end of the same floor that my Officer Candidates were on.  I heard this, walked down to that end and performed an "on the spot correction."  This was a potential safety issue and something that could, if allowed to continue, constitute hazing (it was "locker room-level horseplay".. nothing serious or systemic, but something that needed to be corrected).   I basically smoked these cadets for a couple minutes until I had their undivided attention, made sure they knew that what they were doing was not permissible, and drove on.   I saw the SSG drill sergeant who was riding herd on their program of instruction later on in the orderly room, and I said "Hey, drill sergeant, just wanted to let you know that I saw this situation up in the barracks and performed an on-the-spot correction."  He got all bent out of shape that I would perform an on-the-spot correction on his troops and that I was in the middle of "NCO business."  I had to tell him "I appreciate your concern, I really do, and I am not here to step on your toes. If it had been something more benign, I probably would have just noted it and let you know later so you can do your thing.  But this was a safety & cadet protection issue that needed to be addressed immediately. I won't have 3-4 cadets playing nut-tap in the barracks, and I definitely don't want them horsing around on a hard concrete barracks floor like that.  I've worked with cadets for the better part of 25 years, and I'm going to tell you that you don't want to have the conversation with mom & dad about why you let their little angel get hurt, so stuff like this you nip in the bud."  He persisted that I was out of my lane, and I finally had to say "Look, if this is such a big deal about 'NCO business,' then explain to me why your cadets were goofing off in the barracks, without NCO supervision, to the point where an officer had to correct them."  He changed his tune quick. 

 
The tl:dr version is basically "CAP officers need to make a serious culture shift as to how they do their business to allow an NCO corps to exist and flourish."

[Eclipse]

But  many squadron who do full on recruiting still might only get one new member from any given recruiting event. We all wish it wasn't this way, but that's how life is.

Then you do one a month instead of one a year.

[Cool Mace]

But  many squadron who do full on recruiting still might only get one new member from any given recruiting event. We all wish it wasn't this way, but that's how life is.

Then you do one a month instead of one a year.

I might add that the new member could be a cadet, not a senior.

Also? And I'm just using my squadron as an example. We have a strong four or so seniors in our squadron that participate actively (they give all the time they can to the program). Now when we have at least one wing activity per month, and one to two CP activities, that leaves us with one weekend a month to focus on senior recruiting. Yes, we may drop one of the CP activities to focus on this, but why should the cadets suffer because we want two weekends to ourselves instead of helping them progress?

Your logic would work in a perfect world, and we all wish that could happen. But when you already have small numbers of active seniors, and two to three weekends already taken by CAP, it doesn't leave much time to get things done in your own life. I stress time management more than you might believe, but that doesn't mean I have time to give every weekend to CAP. (Although, most times I would really care  ).

[Eclipse]

why should the cadets suffer because we want two weekends to ourselves instead of helping them progress?

Why should those members who could benefit from CAP suffer because you chose not to recruit them?
This is, if not purely geometric, certainly a scale issue.
More people on the roster = less things for each to do collectively and more time to do the less "immediately urgent" things, like recruiting.

2-3 hours every weekend in front of the big-box store, Starbucks, or the local FBO might do more for your operations long-term then
the same amount of time drilling and launching rockets, which could be done by all those FNGs. 

For a lot of units, "recruiting" means a 2-year old flyer on a bulletin board at the village hall with bad contact info on it.  You simply can't get around the fact that we need more people, probably by 30-40%, or that any unit running at charter minimums can be in any way "successful", except in the most micro-personal way for a couple of individual members, which breaks the economies of scale CAP is supposed to present.

[RiverAux]

There is a big difference between adapting CAP regulations regarding flying and uniforms to different geographical situations and squadron commander term limits.  There are going to be very small squadrons with small pools of potential commanders in every wing in the country.  If it is bad for a squadron commander to serve 10 years in one wing it is going to be just as bad for another squadron commander to serve 10 years in another wing.

And speaking as a CG Auxie, we have term limits much more severe than what was proposed here and it works quite well even though we have the same small unit "problem" as folks are griping about here. 

The fact that your term IS limited makes people more willing to volunteer to take command in the Aux.  You know that you're committing to a maximum of two years and not potentially getting yourself stuck for a 10-15 years. 

[Eclipse]

The fact that your term IS limited makes people more willing to volunteer to take command in the Aux.  You know that you're committing to a maximum of two years and not potentially getting yourself stuck for a 10-15 years.

+1, not to mention lighting a fire knowing you have a finite amount of time to accomplish whatever yo want your name on.

An infinite amount of time to accomplish an undefined list of goals which are ultimately self-actualizing is how we got where we are today. 
Human nature, especially for volunteers, is to find a groove and ride in it.  CAP has a lot of people riding a circular groove worn 10-feet into
the ground, and then wondering why nothing ever changes.

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a long-tenured unit CC with a roster of empty shirts complaining about how group / wing / NHQ, etc., never does anything for them, I could fund the entire program. Add another dime for the ones who wax poetic about the Spaatz they generated 10-years ago while trying to justify their continued existence with one senior and three cadets.

[Cool Mace]

No matter how bad we want something, it doesn't mean it will work.

Just because you have ten+ seniors that are active in a squadron, that doesn't mean they will or want to take over as CC. Some enjoy doing their job, and doing it well.

Granted, most CC's I know have stepped down within five years and we have had one member step up to the plate every time.

[JeffDG]

Eclipse,

Why do you have so little faith in Wing commanders that you don't think they have any ability to sort out what will work for their wings?  That your opinion of how to run the WYWG is better suited to the situation in Wyoming than the officer entrusted with running the Wing?  That's kind of arrogant of you.

[Eclipse]

Just because you have ten+ seniors that are active in a squadron, that doesn't mean they will or want to take over as CC. Some enjoy doing their job, and doing it well.

Great, but you've still got .......10 members, instead of 3 or 4.

Having less in the potential pool doesn't make it easier.

There's also this assumption that the new CC always has to come from the unit, which is not always the best idea, either.

[Eclipse]

Why do you have so little faith in Wing commanders that you don't think they have any ability to sort out what will work for their wings?  That your opinion of how to run the WYWG is better suited to the situation in Wyoming than the officer entrusted with running the Wing?  That's kind of arrogant of you.

First, historical precedent, at least nationally, would say differently.

Second, you can't view a macro-problem on the micro level of "my wing's awesome, so there's no issue".

[JeffDG]

Why do you have so little faith in Wing commanders that you don't think they have any ability to sort out what will work for their wings?  That your opinion of how to run the WYWG is better suited to the situation in Wyoming than the officer entrusted with running the Wing?  That's kind of arrogant of you.

First, historical precedent, at least nationally, would say differently.

Second, you can't view a macro-problem on the micro level of "my wing's awesome, so there's no issue".

I can say "My wing is fine, so keep your nose out of it.  If you have a problem with your wing, fix your wing, but don't tell me how to run mine."

[Eclipse]

The idea that wings are islands and can "do their own thing" is regularly identified as a significant problem for CAP.

[Cool Mace]

But in the end, it was a non concur. No reason for any of us to get worked up over it. Yes, I know I'm on CAPTalk. 

To each his own. I shall bow out of this for the time being, and go back to lurking.

[JeffDG]

The idea that wings are islands and can "do their own thing" is regularly identified as a significant problem for CAP.

So why then do we have Wing/CCs?

I mean, we can just run the whole organization as a single book of regulations promulgated by NHQ.  No need for local flexibility at all then, is there?

[RiverAux]

The idea that wings are islands and can "do their own thing" is regularly identified as a significant problem for CAP.

So why then do we have Wing/CCs?

I mean, we can just run the whole organization as a single book of regulations promulgated by NHQ.  No need for local flexibility at all then, is there?

Just how much flexibility do you think wing commanders have?   Sure, there are a a few local situations where they need the ability to do things different than the organization as a whole, but in general they are there to implement the program as designed by national.   

In regards to squadron commanders the wing commanders would still have the ability to appoint who they want and remove anyone they want for any reason that they can come up with. 

[a2capt]

I just hope that whatever change they make, isn't retroactive. Those of us who have worked within the system, and met the requirements that were given to us, should be able to apply for what we're eligible for.

Not everyone can be the Wing level position of X, and even less can be the Region position.

Our rank structure is similar to the Air Force, but we are CAP. We are NOT the Air Force. Every time someone cites, "But the Air Force does it this way".. Yes, but the Air Force also has people that are supposed to move up, -OR- -OUT- ..

Does CAP want people to out if they don't move up? 

What if I'm perfectly happy working on the unit level with Color Guards, Cadets, AE related activities, Testing, Mentoring, IT topics in the unit, group and even wing level participation, etc. What if I'm just not interested in a command position past my unit commander's assistance?

Our program is our program. It's not the Air Force. In just a bit less than 8 months I can apply for Lt. Col. Personally, I've met more than the minimum. Already got Level V done as of a year ago, took them a while to process it, but I knew it was done last October the day I got the certificate from Gen. Carr at Maxwell.

Am I finished? No. Who knows what the future will hold.  I can go for Master Rating in AE, at least Senior Rating in CP, who knows? But in 10.5 years, I've climbed the ladder to couple steps below the top. They say don't step on the top step, you might fall off. ;-) But there's still one more to go.

... but I can oversee another ladder construction project from that high up, and continue on ...

[Eclipse]

What if I'm perfectly happy working on the unit level with Color Guards, Cadets, AE related activities, Testing, Mentoring, IT topics in the unit, group and even wing level participation, etc. What if I'm just not interested in a command position past my unit commander's assistance?

Then you should be a Captain or Major, no harm in that, and it emulates similar services.

There's no harm or shame in that, and it would encourage those interested in striving for higher HQ jobs.

The PD ratings are far more important then grade for people doing the real work in CAP.

[jimmydeanno]

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.

So, then in the spirit of One-Size-Fits-All, all squadrons should be required to grow by 50% next year.  Doesn't matter if they have a healthy number of members right now or not, a Mandate It Shall Be.

For the average CAP unit, that would only require recruiting about 3 people.  I did that by accident last weekend.

[Eclipse]

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.

So, then in the spirit of One-Size-Fits-All, all squadrons should be required to grow by 50% next year.  Doesn't matter if they have a healthy number of members right now or not, a Mandate It Shall Be.

For the average CAP unit, that would only require recruiting about 3 people.  I did that by accident last weekend.

There is also no such thing as a "healthy number of members" - no matter how many you have, you can always use more, and
when the number exceeds the capability of the meeting place, light up a new charter and find another place to meet.

You can't have it both ways, if you're not growing, you're stagnating, and if you run out of chairs, then you either buy more or find a
different place to sit.

"What if we can't."

Address that when it's an issue.

[jimmydeanno]

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.

So, then in the spirit of One-Size-Fits-All, all squadrons should be required to grow by 50% next year.  Doesn't matter if they have a healthy number of members right now or not, a Mandate It Shall Be.

For the average CAP unit, that would only require recruiting about 3 people.  I did that by accident last weekend.

There is also no such thing as a "healthy number of members" - no matter how many you have, you can always use more, and
when the number exceeds the capability of the meeting place, light up a new charter and find another place to meet.

You can't have it both ways, if you're not growing, you're stagnating, and if you run out of chairs, then you either buy more or find a
different place to sit.

Completely agree.  Growth is a necessity for our organization to survive.  Too little emphasis is put on it.  Every mission improves with more people.

If you don't have time to recruit because you're too busy running the unit, then you are more than likely in a unit that needs to recruit desperately.  Drop something off the calendar, recruit some people and you'll find more time to recruit.  Eventually wearing 9 hats disappears, too, the unit improves because people can focus on their jobs, and more people come.

It works.  I promise.

[peter rabbit]

Why do you have so little faith in Wing commanders that you don't think they have any ability to sort out what will work for their wings?  That your opinion of how to run the WYWG is better suited to the situation in Wyoming than the officer entrusted with running the Wing?  That's kind of arrogant of you.

First, historical precedent, at least nationally, would say differently.

Second, you can't view a macro-problem on the micro level of "my wing's awesome, so there's no issue".

I can say "My wing is fine, so keep your nose out of it.  If you have a problem with your wing, fix your wing, but don't tell me how to run mine."

The idea that wings are islands and can "do their own thing" is regularly identified as a significant problem for CAP.

I concur with Eclipse.

[SarDragon]

Oh, boy, I get to do my second favorite statement regarding CAP.

The problem with membership numbers isn't recruiting, it's retention.

CAP has enough people joining every year. What it doesn't have is enough people staying in.

Here's an ongoing statistic for you, which I've heard at every CAWG Conference I've attended: Half of our cadet population has been in the organization less than a year. We churn 50% of our cadet membership every year! 50%!

[jimmydeanno]

Oh, boy, I get to do my second favorite statement regarding CAP.

The problem with membership numbers isn't recruiting, it's retention.

CAP has enough people joining every year. What it doesn't have is enough people staying in.

Here's an ongoing statistic for you, which I've heard at every CAWG Conference I've attended: Half of our cadet population has been in the organization less than a year. We churn 50% of our cadet membership every year! 50%!

Retention is an issue, and I've seen how it goes down.

1) Someone sells CAP, and gets the person to join.
2) The unit sucks and doesn't live up to the hype.
3) The person leaves after a few weeks or months to not renew their membership.
4) Unit scratches their head wondering what went wrong, or determines it was an issue with the member, not the way they run their unit.

In the end, it comes down to leadership.  But organizationally, we don't do well recruiting.  The average unit is miniscule and couldn't possibly be running the program as designed, despite what their unit self-assessments say.  Organizationally, our wings don't ensure that there is a CAP presence at EVERY airshow within their AOR.  We don't setup at homeschool conferences, educational conferences, etc.  Recruiting is more than just having a cadet hand another kid a brochure.

There are no standards for Wing Commander's performance in recruiting or retention.  A wing could go to crap membership size wise and the guy will get a DSM at the end of his tour.

[Private Investigator]

Oh, boy, I get to do my second favorite statement regarding CAP.

The problem with membership numbers isn't recruiting, it's retention.

CAP has enough people joining every year. What it doesn't have is enough people staying in.

Here's an ongoing statistic for you, which I've heard at every CAWG Conference I've attended: Half of our cadet population has been in the organization less than a year. We churn 50% of our cadet membership every year! 50%!

Nationally I heard it is 80% for Cadets you guys are doing great in comparision.

[JK657]

The Field Grade Officers are the ones that get the nifty little stripe at the end of their epaulet sleeve (Maj, Lt Col, Col).

Which has sometimes caused some headscratching on my part about how the Army does it...all commissioned and warrant officers have that nifty little stripe.





Note also that the Army Lt. Gen. doesn't get a second nifty little stripe.

Also, once you cross that field grade threshold, you get scrambled eggs/farts and darts...except in the Navy/CG, which make you wait until O-5.

The reason that all Commissioned Officers in the Army have the stripe is because NCOs wear epaulette rank as well. The NCOs do not have the stripe.

[SarDragon]

Oh, boy, I get to do my second favorite statement regarding CAP.

The problem with membership numbers isn't recruiting, it's retention.

CAP has enough people joining every year. What it doesn't have is enough people staying in.

Here's an ongoing statistic for you, which I've heard at every CAWG Conference I've attended: Half of our cadet population has been in the organization less than a year. We churn 50% of our cadet membership every year! 50%!

Nationally I heard it is 80% for Cadets you guys are doing great in comparision.

These are national numbers.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What is the stat, 27% of cadets get to WBA? Minimum time 8 months, so if we expand it to a year, we loose 3/4 of our cadets before they get to that point.

[bflynn]

In the end, it comes down to leadership. 

I think it's a bit of a cop out to say that it comes down to leadership.  Everything comes down to leadership.

When I look at CAP and say why would I leave, it would have nothing to do with any particular leaders or how they lead.  It comes down to culture.  CAP is just not a very welcoming place.  There are an enormous number of hoops to jump through to make what should be simple things happen.  It's like eating a crab - there is a lot of hassle for not much meat. 

When we have a volunteer walk in the door and say "I want to fly", our response should not be "well hold on there tex, you have to start with your level 1 and some other administrivia.  Then you have to pay for an instructional flight or two to learn how CAP does it, take another checkride and then you can start flying the airplane...but not with any purpose.  You have to do two or three more qualifications before you can actually do anything."  I'm disappointed but not surprised at the number of pilots - everything from 100 hour privates to CFIIs - who come in and walk right back out again after learning what they have to do just to sit in an airplane. 

Honestly, between dealing with CAP or dealing with the FAA, I'd rather deal with the FAA.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Then you should be a Captain or Major, no harm in that, and it emulates similar services.

There's no harm or shame in that, and it would encourage those interested in striving for higher HQ jobs.

The PD ratings are far more important then grade for people doing the real work in CAP.

Which is why I encourage a return to warrant officer grades for those who don't have command aspirations.

[SarDragon]

In the end, it comes down to leadership. 

I think it's a bit of a cop out to say that it comes down to leadership.  Everything comes down to leadership.

When I look at CAP and say why would I leave, it would have nothing to do with any particular leaders or how they lead.  It comes down to culture.  CAP is just not a very welcoming place.  There are an enormous number of hoops to jump through to make what should be simple things happen.  It's like eating a crab - there is a lot of hassle for not much meat. 

When we have a volunteer walk in the door and say "I want to fly", our response should not be "well hold on there tex, you have to start with your level 1 and some other administrivia.  Then you have to pay for an instructional flight or two to learn how CAP does it, take another checkride and then you can start flying the airplane...but not with any purpose.  You have to do two or three more qualifications before you can actually do anything."  I'm disappointed but not surprised at the number of pilots - everything from 100 hour privates to CFIIs - who come in and walk right back out again after learning what they have to do just to sit in an airplane. 

Honestly, between dealing with CAP or dealing with the FAA, I'd rather deal with the FAA.

Most of the people I've seen leave for those reasons are the ones who come in the door expecting to fly for free, right out of the gate, and get their panties in a bunch when they find out what's really involved. Frankly, we don't need pilots who are more focused on what they can get out of CAP, like free flying, than they are on what they can do for CAP.

[bflynn]

Frankly, we don't need pilots who are more focused on what they can get out of CAP, like free flying, than they are on what they can do for CAP.

Nobody said anything about pilots that want free flying and I'm confused why you would inject it.

When a CFI comes in and says "I'd like to help out by teaching", what is the answer they get?  Great, it will be months before we can get you qualified and signed off to teach.

Really?  Because he can also just go to the FBO at the next building over, tell them that he wants to teach and they'll take his social security number down and put him on the schedule...and even pay him.

We put extraordinary burdens on our members in order to do simple things.  I often wonder how much of our volunteer energy we spend on non-useful things. 

[PHall]

Frankly, we don't need pilots who are more focused on what they can get out of CAP, like free flying, than they are on what they can do for CAP.

Nobody said anything about pilots that want free flying and I'm confused why you would inject it.

When a CFI comes in and says "I'd like to help out by teaching", what is the answer they get?  Great, it will be months before we can get you qualified and signed off to teach.

Really?  Because he can also just go to the FBO at the next building over, tell them that he wants to teach and they'll take his social security number down and put him on the schedule...and even pay him.

We put extraordinary burdens on our members in order to do simple things.  I often wonder how much of our volunteer energy we spend on non-useful things.

Hate to tell you this Mr Flynn, but the flying CAP does is very different then what John Q Public, private pilot does.
A CFI from off the street knows nothing about search flying, mainly because he doesn't need to know.
So is it a problem that we insist that a CFI has to know what he's teaching? And the only way for them to know what to teach is for them to go through the qualification course themselves.

[SarDragon]

Frankly, we don't need pilots who are more focused on what they can get out of CAP, like free flying, than they are on what they can do for CAP.

Nobody said anything about pilots that want free flying and I'm confused why you would inject it.

You lamented that pilots have to jump through hoops to fly CAP airplanes. Here's my response, isolated to bring it into focus:

"Most of the people I've seen leave for those reasons are the ones who come in the door expecting to fly for free, right out of the gate, and get their panties in a bunch when they find out what's really involved."

As for the CFI thing you mentioned, our primary flying focus is not teaching, it's ES. A CFI can certainly contribute in the ES arena, but there is a defined amount of training that EVERY pilot goes through to fly CAP airplanes. Being a CFI doesn't exempt a pilot from any of that training.