More changes are a comin'

[Spike]

Wow.  We clearly see where our priorities lie as CAP members.  Lets not talk about the changes to policy regarding our jobs or squadrons, but lets talk about uniform issues that have nothing to do with 99% of us.

[RiverAux]

Uh, uniform issues affect 100% of us. 

[heliodoc]

Uh, while uniform issues affect 100% of us, it sure has paralyzed CAP (apparently in this forum) that nothing can be solved or brought UNLESS it turns into a uniform thread...

What to wear, how to wear it, how to D&C, where to D&C, what kind of Mess uni do I wear, Can I wear my Mess uni to fill my gas tank.... on and on

I can see where folks get these ideas.  I wish CAP could visit CERT, Citizen Corps, Red Cross, etc and see how much chirping about uniforms can get going.

I still believe, as some here, there is MORE important work in CAP than impressing your friends and well starched your BDU's ared

[Hawk200]

Back to the original topic then. I don't see too many changes to the 35-5, other than including the content of ICLs or NB decisions. It's a needed update.

As to property management, I wasn't really very familiar with that, since I haven't held a position in the last few years that would require me to sign for anything. I pretty much don't know the differences of this new draft as opposed to ones in the past.

Although it's not intended to bring it back to a uniform discussion, I have to wonder why the information on the Logistics badge is included in 174-1. That info is not relevant to the nature of the pub, and shouldn't have even been mentioned. There is no reason to mention a badge in anything other than 39-1, or the specialty track pamphlet.

[arajca]

Although it's not intended to bring it back to a uniform discussion, I have to wonder why the information on the Logistics badge is included in 174-1. That info is not relevant to the nature of the pub, and shouldn't have even been mentioned. There is no reason to mention a badge in anything other than 39-1, or the specialty track pamphlet.

The new reg replaces CAPR 67-1, which does cover the award of the Logistics badge. FYI, although the new reg replaces CAPR 100-2, award of the Comm badge is not covered there and therefore is not covered in the new reg.

As to property management, I wasn't really very familiar with that, since I haven't held a position in the last few years that would require me to sign for anything. I pretty much don't know the differences of this new draft as opposed to ones in the past.

Probably the biggest change that would affect more than the Log/Comm folks is the mandatory online validation system. The CAPF 37 is changing to a Temporary Receipt of Issue to be used only for 7 days, during which time the signer MUST login and validate the issue. Failure to do so means the equipment is recovered at the end of the 7 day period.

Even the expendable issues are moving to online instead of locally maintained paper.

[Short Field]

There is a wide range of expertise when it comes to writing new regulations.  This spills over into other areas (like the replacement for ECI 13).  It was recommended somewhere that a more open forum be used to vet new regulations.  That would be a great idea!.

[Eclipse]

Even the expendable issues are moving to online instead of locally maintained paper.

Its about time.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Here in Gp 4, we require our new officers to attend a weekend OTS.  They learn drill to the same standards as Curry-level cadets... basic drill, facings, salutes, reporting to an officer, etc..

Again why are you adding more hoops that adult volunteers have to jump through that isn't required
Level 1 training at:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_university/professional_development/afiadl__cap_student_page/level_one.cfm
Module 4, provides appropriate training for senior members on what CAP considers to be the requirements of a CAP senior member -- it does not include marching/drill!

I would think about 1 hour or less of time would be required to help one master these movements   One entire weekend of this, is not what the intention was of re doing the level 1 training for adult members (to save their valuable time to do more important things).   Other advance course such as SLS, & CLC provide what is needed for CAP officers to advance.

Other than basic enlisted/officer training in the AF, and some other PME courses, NO one (unless you are on a ceremonial team) in the AF at the base level  is doing any marching/drilling on a regular basis.  They are too busy doing real mission work that needs to be done (rather than marching around in circles,which seems to me we even have our cadets doing way too much of as it is now).  Most change of command ceremonies have military members standing in place at attention, parade rest, & at ease rather than marching/passing in review, primarily because all the squadrons would have to practice this ahead of time, and mission requirements are more important than "marching in circles"!

Apparently some of you in CAP just haven't figure out yet that the majority of CAP senior members have little or no interest in marching, drill & ceremonies -- that the way it is folks :angel:   

RM

Yes.  We have raised the standard to wear CAP officer rank.

(Pause for shocked gasps)

Yes, we have required that those who wear the uniform of the USAF absorb a small amount of military skills in exchange for the honor of wearing officer rank.

Yes, we have created a situation where the officer must march, just like the cadets.  Maybe they will have some sympathy for those young folks at attention in the hot sun, now that they have walked a mile in their low-quarter oxfords.

No, it is not "Online" it is a face-to-face class in drill to the standards of the Curry award.  It also includes classes in military customs and courtesy, CAP history, our missions, wear of the uniform, and other stuff.

We call it the Auxiliary Officer Training School.  It works. 

Sorry, Radioman, if you don't like it.  Excellence has to start somewhere.

[RiverAux]

I'm with you in spirit here Kach, but I'm not sure I'm with you in implementation.  I think if you were to deny a request for promotion based solely on lack of attendance at this school, it could be successfully appealed.  Perhaps you've got the leadership skills to convince everyone to do it even though you can't really force them to, in which case such an appeal may never be made. 

I'd like to see something like that for new CAP seniors and fully support you in strongly encouraging people to attend such a class, but under the current regs I think it would even fall outside the "wiggleroom" I mentioned earlier regarding exemplary performance.

People forget that back when CAP was formed, the curriculum for new members was something like 180 hours of training.  Volunteers can meet a high standard. 

[Gunner C]

People forget that back when CAP was formed, the curriculum for new members was something like 180 hours of training.  Volunteers can meet a high standard.

Only if the standard is required.  Raise the bar, they'll meet it most of the time.  Lower the bar, and they'll meet it every time.

[PHall]

^^^ Appropriate civilian attire.

I think you missed or ignored my point...

The point you missed is that he is retired from the Air Force.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm with you in spirit here Kach, but I'm not sure I'm with you in implementation.  I think if you were to deny a request for promotion based solely on lack of attendance at this school, it could be successfully appealed.  Perhaps you've got the leadership skills to convince everyone to do it even though you can't really force them to, in which case such an appeal may never be made. 

I'd like to see something like that for new CAP seniors and fully support you in strongly encouraging people to attend such a class, but under the current regs I think it would even fall outside the "wiggleroom" I mentioned earlier regarding exemplary performance.

People forget that back when CAP was formed, the curriculum for new members was something like 180 hours of training.  Volunteers can meet a high standard.

We have had some folks not want to attend the training.  We have not pushed it as a mandatory-for-promotion item yet, although under the provision that the commander has the authority to evaluate duty perfomance and withhold promotion if duty performance is not up to par, we feel that we have adequate authority to do so.

At this point, it is simply strongly enouraged by the leadership staff and commanders.\

But, even without requiring the training, the improved performance and reliability of graduates is apparent.  Some CAP members desire to wallow in mediocrity.  It is good to identify them early so you know not to depend upon them.

[A.Member]

Does anyone else think they should just eliminate the Flight Officer ranks?  When you look at it, they really serve no purpose.

[Cecil DP]

Does anyone else think they should just eliminate the Flight Officer ranks?  When you look at it, they really serve no purpose.

The Flight Officer grades give our under 21 year old Senior Members the opportunity to exercise authority and responsibility in the jobs they are given and  to show that they are progressing within the PD programs. If CAP eliminates the FO grades, they might as well eliminate Senior Membership for those persons under the age of 21 or allow the commission of members under the age limit, which is done by the services (rarely, but it is done).   

[A.Member]

Does anyone else think they should just eliminate the Flight Officer ranks?  When you look at it, they really serve no purpose.

The Flight Officer grades give our under 21 year old Senior Members the opportunity to exercise authority and responsibility in the jobs they are given and  to show that they are progressing within the PD programs. If CAP eliminates the FO grades, they might as well eliminate Senior Membership for those persons under the age of 21 or allow the commission of members under the age limit, which is done by the services (rarely, but it is done).

I understand why they were created but in practicality they're rather pointless. 

If a cadet joins under the age of 18 and they intend to stay in CAP, they will almost without exception remain in cadet status until 21 (at least that's been my experience).   If you're over 18 when you join you're a senior member.  Pretty simple.  I just don't see particular value in the retaining the FO ranks.

[flyguy06]

Instead of using ambiguous terms like NCO - why don't we just say what we mean...if you are an E-5 or above, you can wear your stripes in CAP.  Seriously, do we try to make stuff difficult on purpose?

I seriously think many people in CAP do. They nit pick about about "well, this service says an E4 is an NCO and this service says this" I believe in keeping it simple. The point is if you are an NCO in the military and you want to be an NCO in CAP then CAP should accomidate. Thats the bottom line of what you folks are saying. Stop trying to nit pick every little detail.

[Hawk200]

I seriously think many people in CAP do. They nit pick about about "well, this service says an E4 is an NCO and this service says this" I believe in keeping it simple. The point is if you are an NCO in the military and you want to be an NCO in CAP then CAP should accomidate. Thats the bottom line of what you folks are saying. Stop trying to nit pick every little detail.

But we can't accomodate E-4 NCOs. The Air Force doesn't have any rank insignia for such a thing. For them, an E-4 NCO doesn't exist. There's really no way to create an insignia that would recognize it.

It may be lengthy, but we should clarify that the grade must equivalent to an Air Force NCO. I know people in the Air Force now are getting into the NCO grades a lot faster than when I was in (the Air Force). If they want to be CAP NCO's, they wouldn't have to wait too long.

[SarDragon]

The Flight Officer grades give our under 21 year old Senior Members the opportunity to exercise authority and responsibility in the jobs they are given and  to show that they are progressing within the PD programs. If CAP eliminates the FO grades, they might as well eliminate Senior Membership for those persons under the age of 21 or allow the commission of members under the age limit, which is done by the services (rarely, but it is done).

Is the highlighted portion not clear?

[ZigZag911]

Why not allow E-4 from other services who wish to remain 'enlisted' to serve as & wear Senior Airman?

[SarDragon]

I seriously think many people in CAP do. They nit pick about about "well, this service says an E4 is an NCO and this service says this" I believe in keeping it simple. The point is if you are an NCO in the military and you want to be an NCO in CAP then CAP should accomidate. Thats the bottom line of what you folks are saying. Stop trying to nit pick every little detail.

But we can't accomodate E-4 NCOs. The Air Force doesn't have any rank insignia for such a thing. For them, an E-4 NCO doesn't exist. There's really no way to create an insignia that would recognize it.

Put E-4 insignia on them, and call them Sergeant, just like the reg says (or used to say).

It may be lengthy, but we should clarify that the grade must equivalent to an Air Force NCO. I know people in the Air Force now are getting into the NCO grades a lot faster than when I was in (the Air Force). If they want to be CAP NCO's, they wouldn't have to wait too long.

That's probably the best compromise.