This is a link to an AF historical study entitled The U.S. Air Force Response to Hurricane Katrina, published in 2006 by the AF Historical Research Agency http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/short_studies/TheUSAFResponseToHurricaneKatrina.pdf
Don't we even rate a mention? The study says the AF, evidently not including CAP, flew almost 4,100 fixed-wing sorties on Katrina-related missions. Well, CAP flew almost 900. Seems like this is a pretty significant part of the response.
Just what are the CAP national historians doing to make sure the AF doesn't forget about us? Do we at least send them copies of the Volunteer for their files on the off chance they might read them every now and again and use them?
For heavens sake, they're part of the Air University, just like us.
They even downplayed the Coast Guard role. Face it, they don't respect CAP enough to include us as part of the "total force". That's OK. I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.
Eh, I wouldnt get too worked up about it. It's really a paper on what USAF units played and what they did. It is kinda weak that we were left out though.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 20, 2008, 04:30:25 AM
I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.
That wouldn't be too bad. That's where the big funding is.
Quote from: SJFedor on January 20, 2008, 05:35:38 AM
Eh, I wouldnt get too worked up about it. It's really a paper on what USAF units played and what they did. It is kinda weak that we were left out though.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 20, 2008, 04:30:25 AM
I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.
That wouldn't be too bad. That's where the big funding is.
Except.......ya know........there goes all of the guys who join for the military aspect........and..........those twenty thousand or so cadets we have around.........
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 20, 2008, 04:30:25 AM
That's OK. I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.
The only thing worse, in my view, than an unappreciative bureaucracy, is an
inexperienced unappreciative bureaucracy!
I'm not so sure DHS would be loads and loads of fun....
As for the DHS....I just got down reading a report on how the Federal Protective Service has been hurt by the move to DHS. Seems most officers would like to return to the GSA. We all know how FEMA has suffered under DHS.
I for one would not want to see us go to DHS. In fact as a tax payer I question the need for a DHS. Secret Service was fine in the Dept of Treasury, USCG was fine in DOT, FPS was fine in GSA....I think it was a knee jerk reaction.
Anyway.....back to the issue if we were ever to leave the USAF the only other federal agency which would make a good parent for CAP would be the US DOT. Our education missions (AE & CP) are transportation focused and most of our ES is aviation focused. Outside DOD, DOT is one of the few federal departments that has had a history with a uniform service.
BUT.....I don't think it is that broke....so why fix it. There is no need to look for a new parent or step-parent.....USAF is the best fit.
As for why we were left out of the publication...we are not the AIR FORCE we are the CAP.....maybe we should write our own book ;D
Quote from: John Bryan on March 15, 2008, 03:08:13 PM
BUT.....I don't think it is that broke....so why fix it. There is no need to look for a new parent or step-parent.....USAF is the best fit.
As for why we were left out of the publication...we are not the AIR FORCE we are the CAP.....maybe we should write our own book ;D
Agreed 100%!
since we are on the topic
fyi. the coast guard aux was not only recognised by their parent entity, but a presidential unit citation was awarded
Well, actually the entire Coast Guard, including the Aux, was given this award. It wasn't really a CG decision. That being said, the CG never loses a chance to recognize its Auxiliary while the AF never takes advantage of one.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 15, 2008, 09:20:34 PM
Well, actually the entire Coast Guard, including the Aux, was given this award. It wasn't really a CG decision. That being said, the CG never loses a chance to recognize its Auxiliary while the AF never takes advantage of one.
And that my fellows is why the two of us are dual hatters !
We hashed out this issue a while back, and I don't think we came to any co nsensus. There are adavantages and disadvantages to placing CAP under DHS as sort of a "Flying Coast Guard," and I don't really know if we decided what outweighs which.
Two thoughts:
1. USCG Auxiliary is a direct reporting unit to USCG. They are simply a part of it.
2. Although I can see why USAF wanted to write a book about what they did (they did do a good job) and I can see why they may not have included us into it (gives the reader a clearer picture of what USAF itself did) and I am all for CAP writing its own book, I must ask... where was CAP-USAF on this? Isn't that exactly what they're there for?
Quote from: afgeo4 on March 23, 2008, 06:07:55 AM
I must ask... where was CAP-USAF on this? Isn't that exactly what they're there for?
That is a good question. Actually......where the crap is CAP-USAF on a lot of things is a better question. Or how long does an AF Colonel actually let his career die at CAP-USAF?
My favorite of course......
CAP-USAF, whats that??
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 23, 2008, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on March 23, 2008, 06:07:55 AM
I must ask... where was CAP-USAF on this? Isn't that exactly what they're there for?
That is a good question. Actually......where the crap is CAP-USAF on a lot of things is a better question. Or how long does an AF Colonel actually let his career die at CAP-USAF?
My favorite of course......CAP-USAF, whats that??
Hey... I don't support CAP-USAF bashing in general. I'm sure their HQ are working hard on the VSAF program and many others. I also know that their NYWG liaison works very hard on many programs here, so I don't want to go saying they do nothing. I'm just wondering where they stand on this particular mission. However, I'm sure that they don't have much pull to fight their own superiors on this.
To be fair to CAP-USAF, I would have been surprised if an AF historian had contacted them for info on CAP operations during Katrina and they blew him off. More likely, the AF historians contacted the major "operational" commands and reviewed their records and since CAP (and CAP-USAF) is hidden within AETC, the historians probably never thought to solicit info from them and CAP-USAF was just as surprised as us at being ignored.
CAP-USAF was also very involved in actual operations they were "hurt" just as much as CAP by this oversight.
We SHOULD have developed our own historical statements in the same format as the USAF major commands, and simply submitted it for inclusion in the overall USAF report.
But... "Hindsight is always 20/20."
An organization that doesn't even recommend writing after action reports, even on major missions, is not very likely to be well covered in the history books.
QuoteWe SHOULD have developed our own historical statements in the same format as the USAF major commands, and simply submitted it for inclusion in the overall USAF report.
And this is pretty sad for an organization that does at least have a smattering of official unit historians around the country and supposedly has a national historian or two. Maybe if we had developed a Katrina patch they would put it on display -- that should be enough, right?
Still not too late to make a Katrina anniversary patch.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 20, 2008, 04:30:25 AM
They even downplayed the Coast Guard role. Face it, they don't respect CAP enough to include us as part of the "total force". That's OK. I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.
Yeah, If CAP went to the DHS, I would not renew
Why the dislike for after action reports as an organization? I seem to recall part of SLS being dedicated to writing military documents and such...
I don't think it is a dislike of writing after action reports so much as it is an unfortunately high level of disintrest in learning from our mistakes. Writing after action reports probably should be a responsibility of the IC, but more of them might actually get done if assigned to our historians. Unfortunately, there aren't many active historians either, but maybe the ones out there really doing the work might produce enough to be of use.
I do this kind of thing for a living (HSEEP certified). AAR's are the product of a well planned and staffed evaluation. The exercise evaluators are supposed to have Exercise Evaluation Guidelines (e.g. stuff to look for and grade) and turn it in to a the lead evaluator, along with collected notes and thoughts from controllers and participants. This is condensed into a discussion as to what goals were or not met and why. It also has a subsection for exercise specific issues. Then the evaluation team builds an improvement plan with the appropriate planning committee members (in CAP's case, Wing/Group/Squadron commanders, ES officers at the appropriate level, etc.) that addresses the discoveries of the previous exercise. The improvement plan outlines goals for the next cycle which are, in turn, produced into the Exercise Evaluation Guidelines for the next set of exercises.
CAP doesn't follow the HSEEP system. Even large scale exercises seem more like functional drills with appropriate interplay between the Incident Command staff, aircrews, and ground teams. When the exercise is over, everyone loads up there vans and planes and goes home, usually too exhausted to consider writing things down. I know it's off topic, but if anyone's interested in details about how it's supposed to work, feel free to PM me and I'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know. Probably by phone... I don't want to type that all out!
A lot of CAP exercises are so cookie cutter that doing an AAR of one of them is almost pointless as the same things happen over and over. I'm not opposed to it. Really, we need to focus on the major real world missions that we get. I'd say my wing probably only has 3-4 actual missions a year where an AAR would really be helpful. Other states may have more or less. Doing some intense looking at that few missions should be within our capabilities.
That may not be all bad, River.
SAR missions tend to be repetitive drills. But such repetition is good. Everybody knows what to do, and does it on a real-world search because we have practiced it so many times.
"Their drills were bloodless battles, their battles bloody drills."
3 or 4 missions each year that are non-SAR and require special coordination is not too shabby. That's really about all that a Guard or Reserve unit gets in over the course of a year.
There is certainly merit to the system we use. I just want people to understand that in the continuum of exercises (drills, table top exercises, functional exercise, full scale exercises) that we seem to hit the drill on most missions and functional on a few. Since our operations are rather straight forward, members are getting what they need and evaluation occurs at the individual level through the process of getting aircrew/ground team certified. However, moving to a cycle that's more in line with DHS and FEMA will get us more recognition that may come with better recruiting and more money.
Well, its even worse that I had originally thought. The Air Education Training Command has written a massive history of its operations during Katrina and the only mention CAP got was at the end of the book where they explained what the acronym CAP meant (why they did this when it wasn't actually used in the report is another question).
And to add insult to injury -- they spent about a half a page talking about the impact of the hurricane on JROTC units.
The AETC history is available here: http://www.aetc.af.mil/library/history/index.asp
(http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Rodney-Dangerfield-Photograph-C10046064.jpeg)
NO RESPECT!
Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2008, 04:25:59 AM
Well, its even worse that I had originally thought. The Air Education Training Command has written a massive history of its operations during Katrina and the only mention CAP got was at the end of the book where they explained what the acronym CAP meant (why they did this when it wasn't actually used in the report is another question).
And to add insult to injury -- they spent about a half a page talking about the impact of the hurricane on JROTC units.
The AETC history is available here: http://www.aetc.af.mil/library/history/index.asp
And why exactly does this matter?
Quote from: John Bryan on March 15, 2008, 03:08:13 PMI for one would not want to see us go to DHS. In fact as a tax payer I question the need for a DHS. Secret Service was fine in the Dept of Treasury, USCG was fine in DOT, FPS was fine in GSA....I think it was a knee jerk reaction. Anyway.....back to the issue if we were ever to leave the USAF the only other federal agency which would make a good parent for CAP would be the US DOT. Our education missions (AE & CP) are transportation focused and most of our ES is aviation focused. Outside DOD, DOT is one of the few federal departments that has had a history with a uniform service.
I am sorry, I have to disagree with this, but the best thing that happened to the Coast Guard since 1967 was when they moved us to DHS. I don't think you guys know how poorly funded we where under Transportation, it was so bad that ships couldn't get underway for patrols because there was no money for it. I know plenty of Coasties that would be looking to go elsewhere or retire as soon as possible if we went back to Transportation. Personally I would love to see the CG go back to Treasury, which we where from 1790 till 1967. As for CAP, it started as its own agency we could stand to move somewhere else without the USAF, maybe to Justice being we can do the aerial reconnaissance mission. As for the USAF ignoring the CAP presence and contribution in Hurricane Katrina, it stinks but its not surprising. It seems the USAF is only worried about being a state of the art fighting force, its AUX (CAP) with their state of the art for the 1960's 172s doesn't support that case. I have a bit of an experienced view on this coming from the USCG that half the USA doesn't know about and the other half think we are not the military. We know what our organization did, and therefore we can hold our head high and sleep well at night knowning we helped to do our part.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2008, 04:25:59 AM
Well, its even worse that I had originally thought. The Air Education Training Command has written a massive history of its operations during Katrina and the only mention CAP got was at the end of the book where they explained what the acronym CAP meant (why they did this when it wasn't actually used in the report is another question).
And to add insult to injury -- they spent about a half a page talking about the impact of the hurricane on JROTC units.
The AETC history is available here: http://www.aetc.af.mil/library/history/index.asp
With our "parent command" being the same as AETC's, I'd think that they'd want as much of their folks up in lights as possible. As I've stated before, we need a higher headquarters that's looking out for our interests. If you don't have someone at the table, you don't get mentioned. I don't think that CAP-USAF is filling that requirement, unfortunately.
Gunner
CAP-USAF is a holding command for Senior Officers and Enlisted folks along with the "twice passed over" types waiting to retire. I wouldn't expect much from CAP-USAF. The real players in CAP-USAF are the civilian State Directors.
It is often the case that CAP numbers are incorporated inside Air Force (Army Air Corps) numbers. I've always thought that instead of thinking this a sign of disrespect... it was more a sign that we are them and they are us. I can't speak to every mind in all cases but Air Force money paid for the mission and Air Force deserves some of our credit too. The same is true if your daddy paid for your college... so don't forget to thank him.
Credit and criteria are slippery through time and missions. I've talked to a couple of AF Generals that see us as them... they say thing like us, we, as in, "we did great work", etc. We historians tease what we can from what we've got.
Regarding after action reports. I write those, although I don't think anyone reads them much. BUT, I need to have the numbers and services provided. So I punch them out. That said, I've asked (and this includes the squadron histories due out next month for the previous year -- which I'm working on today) Anyway, if it is longer than 3 pages... chances are it won't be reviewed much at all. The Wing Historian is supposed to consolidate these reports for the Wing CC. Sometimes that happens and sometimes not.
I don't know many full time CAP historians, anyway. Most of us are teaching, researching, writing, giving speeches, and trying to keep up with our own ES and Staff quals, while handling families, our business, and regular activities too. SO, I've suggested that we be PAOs in addition.
That the primary duty be to chronicle our significant activities from our past... to package these for coverage in the press... to create documents that can be part of a future research project... and that we NOT do so much of the "stuff" that nobody reads, cares about, uses, or is insignificant to our History. That the make work projects are for teaching people who have no significant history work in the field in their background... and that these elements can be forgiven for those of us that have done this work professionally. That the BIG stories, the most compelling stories, the "tent-poles" of drama and sacrifice be our main function.
The same problem exists in companies and other institutions where the PA people are used to justify small goals like making their boss look good -- If we serve better stories, a rising tide will raise all boats. It is a better angle for our better angels. We are not men of a lesser light, often we are light. It is up to us -- Historians, PAOs, AEOs to light it up!
Fortunately, we have a very progressive Wing CC in Colorado who has let me do this under the title of Wing Heritage Project Officer. Hopefully, with the General Curry material and Flight 217 Rescue packages we can go back and get some better, bigger, bolder stories told. We can tell the stories of brave deeds and dedication without doing tree killing make work projects. We can forge a cadre of well told stories that will march into the future leading CAP to climb upon the tall shoulders of our predecessors. Every group of WING PAOs, AEO, and Historians should pool their time and resources and go get the 10 biggest stories in the 67 year history of your state's Wing! Make it a project, spend three years, assign 4 people the duty to research one big story per year.
Get the first person accounts, do the research, find the wrecks, make the time, build the heroes, serve the Patrol... get respect for CAP by giving respect to the greatest of our stories and kind.
Quit bi$c#in and start researchin...
QuoteIt is often the case that CAP numbers are incorporated inside Air Force (Army Air Corps) numbers. I've always thought that instead of thinking this a sign of disrespect... it was more a sign that we are them and they are us. I can't speak to every mind in all cases but Air Force money paid for the mission and Air Force deserves some of our credit too. The same is true if your daddy paid for your college... so don't forget to thank him.
Unfortunately, in neither of these histories were we mentioned separately or were any of our statistics included in the AF numbers. We were just left out. Whether this was done intentionally or unintentionally it shows the level of respect that the AF has for CAP and our activities.
If this was 10 years ago, I could understand it, but as is much hyped by the CAP leadership, CAP sorties are all over the daily briefings for 1AF or Northcom (I forget which), so it wasn't like the AF didn't know what we were doing during Katrina.
I'm not so much interested in "credit" but at the very least CAP deserve acknowledgement as being a significant part of the AF response to this disaster.
I have always been on the side of those wanting us to get close to the Air Force through programs such as VSAF and in other ways. But, it is because of snubs such as this, that I've stopped considering the AF as anything more to CAP than a funding source no different than the state government. They very obviously don't care about us, so I'm not going to care about them.
Most of you probably don't really notice this lack of respect, but every time a very senior Coast Guard officer comes to a meeting of my Aux flotilla and personally thanks us for our assistantce the contrast becomes even more starker.
Now, I suppose I can live with the AF ignoring us most of the time, but when we are ignored in their own histories that hurts -- because that is an insult that will last for the ages.
Didn't we have this conversations a couple years ago? Who cares, drive on. It'd be nice to get a prominant mention, but we didn't. If you feel gilted by that, maybe you're a little too worried about credit and not worried enough about doing things bigger and better. If you really want credit, maybe you can work to expand our capability & drastically expand the number of personnel & traning standards (so quantity & quality) to respond to these situations.
Who needs a prominent mention? Any mention would be just fine.
I am doing my part on the other items you mention, but they have absolutely no relevance to this topic. We did some outstanding work during Katrina and that in and of itself justifies our inclusion in the AF history of this operation. Its not like I'm complaing about us being left out of a history of the Iraq War because maybe some of our guys waved flags at a parade.
River, I am going to use the USCG example again. You work with us in the AUX, know what we do, do we get recognized for even half of what we do? No, but like DNall said, I am proud of my service, I am proud of what I have done and I sleep at night knowing I have done right. Is it a jerk move on the USAF part, yeah, but oh well, they can't take away the lives assisted or saved by CAP doing their job in Katrina and before and after that. The right people know the impact made by CAP volunteering.
Here's an idea. Does anybody know where the Air Force Historian Group (main officer and office) is? Somebody get a phone number or address and make an appointment... he/she is probably in the Washington DC Area. But I don't actually know. Anyway, we need to make this person (Officer) a file, every year. We need the reporting deadlines and we need a title of the file to address it to.
Get that information and a letter from Col. Blascovich/Gen. Courter permitting this duty, and make a call, get a meeting, make a pitch, do your best to not be ignored. Give them a positive pitch to love CAP too. The object we want will not be served if we go in and complain about Katrina. It will be achieved if we go in and ask... how can we help you? What can we do to make your life perfect, as regards CAP? Treat the AF Historian like the editor of a newspaper. Go the extra mile. That's always the mile that pays-off.
I'll bet you this officer gets no respect outside his primary duties and personnel. I'll bet you that will be his/her favorite meeting that month. I'll bet you if we do this twice and follow through with material ready to go and on time... we'll get mentioned more than once. I'll bet you that you will become CAP National Historian of the Year.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2008, 07:11:10 PM
Unfortunately, in neither of these histories were we mentioned separately or were any of our statistics included in the AF numbers. We were just left out. Whether this was done intentionally or unintentionally it shows the level of respect that the AF has for CAP and our activities.
If this was 10 years ago, I could understand it, but as is much hyped by the CAP leadership, CAP sorties are all over the daily briefings for 1AF or Northcom (I forget which), so it wasn't like the AF didn't know what we were doing during Katrina.
I'm not so much interested in "credit" but at the very least CAP deserve acknowledgement as being a significant part of the AF response to this disaster.
I have always been on the side of those wanting us to get close to the Air Force through programs such as VSAF and in other ways. But, it is because of snubs such as this, that I've stopped considering the AF as anything more to CAP than a funding source no different than the state government. They very obviously don't care about us, so I'm not going to care about them.
Most of you probably don't really notice this lack of respect, but every time a very senior Coast Guard officer comes to a meeting of my Aux flotilla and personally thanks us for our assistance the contrast becomes even more stark.
Now, I suppose I can live with the AF ignoring us most of the time, but when we are ignored in their own histories that hurts -- because that is an insult that will last for the ages.
Maybe if CAP stopped being the prodigal child, the parent service would be more willing to spend some quality time with us, and not just pay child support.
Don't get me wrong -- I love being in CAP, and it's been a part of my life for about two-thirds of it -- but the more the organization strays from the Air Force, the less likely the Air Force is going to be welcoming to, or supportive of, us.
Alabama/Georgia Wing Historians;
The Air Force Historical Research Office information is below. These folks are at Maxwell AFB. If you make occasional runs to CAP NHQ, ask for the duty that I have described in my blog above. Here are the various branches inside the association. I trust we are talking to them. If not, we should. I talked to the Historian for Maxwell several weeks ago and he did NOT know John F. Curry was CAPs first commander, only that he had been Commander of Maxwell. So don't assume that these guys "Get Us", so to speak. Let me know if I can be of help.
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/
AFHRA News: (334) 953-2395
Research Division: (334) 953-2241
Customer Service: (334) 953-5834
Archives Branch: (334) 953-2395
Organizational Histories Branch: (334) 953-2296
Information Technology Division: (334) 953-3150
Computer Operations Branch: (334) 953-3150
Accessions Branch: (334) 953-3157
Microfilm Section: (334) 953-4603
Command Section: (334) 953-5342
AFHRA Webmaster: (334) 953-3151
Mailing Address: 600 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6424
Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2008, 07:21:25 PM
Who needs a prominent mention? Any mention would be just fine.
I am doing my part on the other items you mention, but they have absolutely no relevance to this topic. We did some outstanding work during Katrina and that in and of itself justifies our inclusion in the AF history of this operation. Its not like I'm complaing about us being left out of a history of the Iraq War because maybe some of our guys waved flags at a parade.
Military Truism:
- If you're not on the briefing slides, you don't exist.
- If you don't exist, you don't get funded.
Gunner
If you're not on the resource slides you don't exist & don't get tasked. If you're not on the AAR slides then it never happened. ;)
QuoteIf you're not on the AAR slides then it never happened. Wink
BINGOAnd it sounds like we weren't.
I am unaware of any official history of CAP operations in Katrina, but we certainly could at least have sent them a couple of issues of the Volunteer which had pages and pages of stuff. That would have been sufficient to cover the basics and were produced very quickly after the event - well before anyone started writing any official history.
I don't mean to point out the obvious but complaining about history, changes nothing... The Air Force will not recall the report to de-bunch your panties... but doing something today will change things tomorrow.
So before anyone feels another crying jag coming on ... why doesn't someone sign up to take the AF Historian out to lunch once a year and ask a few questions? Who does the report to Congress? When should we get our material to you? In what form would you like it? Things like that.
I know we do our own report very year... but I guess you guys want to get into the AF version... so make it happen and quit complaining. This is one of those things that can be fixed with a little research and follow through.
Actually, I would argue this is one of those things where we need a full-time staff historian (with a staff of volunteers) that works in conjunction with the PA shop, and across the table with 1AF & AETC to ensure we're correctly included. The best way to do that is a formal historical report of CAP operations in a given event or period that's sent to those AF offices for inclusion in their reports & well before the deadlines for those.
Quote from: DNall on December 23, 2008, 03:52:52 AM
Actually, I would argue this is one of those things where we need a full-time staff historian (with a staff of volunteers) that works in conjunction with the PA shop, and across the table with 1AF & AETC to ensure we're correctly included. The best way to do that is a formal historical report of CAP operations in a given event or period that's sent to those AF offices for inclusion in their reports & well before the deadlines for those.
It also points to the transient nature of CAP ops - when the mission is over, the IC goes home and back to regular work. In the RM, the commander and staff stay on-site and conduct an after action review. Since this was a joint mission, this was probably conducted by LTG Honore or his designate, most likely his G-3. When this AAR was held, was there a CAP representative to brief the meeting? If so, was the rep authoritative - an IC or high ranking Ops type from NHQ?
If I had to guess, the answer would be no. That's not a criticism, it's just the way we're put together.
I'd hate to see one of our folks, dedicated and qualified as they are, get up in front of a joint gathering and try to brief amongst those who brief for a living and have been schooled in its finer arts. I've seen the briefings at the National Boards and they make me cringe. We don't have the skills or background to make an effective presentation. THe AF might have seen this coming and said "Don't worry, we've got it covered." The AF probably rolled us up in their stats and then highlighted their own wizzo stuff. That's the way things are done in the military and in the government in general.
Gunner
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 23, 2008, 12:16:45 AM
I don't mean to point out the obvious but complaining about history, changes nothing... The Air Force will not recall the report to de-bunch your panties... but doing something today will change things tomorrow.
Hmm, I don't know about that. By bringing up this topic I have stimulated several folks to propose several different ways that the problem might be prevented in the future. If someone doesn't point out an issue, it definetely won't ever get solved.
RiverAux;
My point is to make the change not entertain redundant griping about this one. About this you and I are actually on the same side. I am trying to provoke a duty/decision/mission, not more complaints. You and I debate enough on other threads, no reason to here. You have done good pointing out the problem. Further griping is worthless. Making a plan is good. Making a duty is good. Simple stuff... really.
If it bothers you (or anyone else) change it. Again, simple stuff.