Main Menu

The CAP Culture

Started by flyguy06, March 09, 2009, 03:53:12 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DG

#80
Quote from: flyguy06 on March 11, 2009, 04:48:00 AM
I just want to go on record to say that I NEVER suggesyed getting rid of our overweight members. What I said was we should two service uniforms.The Air Force one for those that meet the ht and wt and the White shirt/bkue pants one for those that do not meet the ht and wt standard. I think that if you do meet ht and wt you should be required toonly wear the AF uniform and if you do not then you should only be required to waer the other one. Its just a suggestion.



Better idea would be for CAP to get rid of the Air Force uniform entirely.

That would eliminate all this acrimony.

And we would all be uniform in uniform.

RRLE

QuoteBut it also says "initiate, or return" which implies the same thing... Otherwise it would say: initiate a hand salute to commissioned officers.

It doesn't. The 'return' portion is there only to cover the bases if a Real Military Officer should salute an Auxie first. The language about 'more senior' has been put into draft AuxMans for the last several revisions of the AuxMan. And every time the USCG has removed it. I know since on the last go-around (leading to the current manual) I was on the final editing team. I found the 'more senior' language and brought it to the USCG's attention - who then promptly removed it.

I'm sure the Aux will try and sneak it in the next edition and hope the USCG doesn't catch it.

LtCol Hooligan

I think that a CAP (or coast guard aux) member who is wearing higher rank initiating a salute to a rm officer is a bad thing and really confuses things.  The CAP officer should simply not expect a salute from the RM officer and the two should offer a cordial greeting.  Talk about confusing and adding a reason why CAP is notaccepted by some members of the military.
ERIK C. LUDLOW, Lt Col, CAP
Director of IT; Director of Cadet Programs
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.ndcap.us

Eclipse

Quote from: LtCol Hooligan on March 11, 2009, 01:47:22 PM
I think that a CAP (or coast guard aux) member who is wearing higher rank initiating a salute to a rm officer is a bad thing and really confuses things.  The CAP officer should simply not expect a salute from the RM officer and the two should offer a cordial greeting.  Talk about confusing and adding a reason why CAP is not accepted by some members of the military.

When I'm in uniform on base, I return any salute thrown my way, but I don't initiate a salute to anyone with a lower grade.

Every once in a while I have to have a conversation with a misguided new member walking around with a slot-machine arm saluting slick-sleeve recruits because "they are in the 'real' military" - you're right, it confuses everyone. 

Just follow the same rules and traditions as the rest of the world and everyone is happy.   ::)


"That Others May Zoom"

wuzafuzz

#84
Quote from: flyguy06 on March 09, 2009, 03:53:12 PM
So, my question to this body is why arent we like the SDF in terms of military protocal and procedures? I know we all go through Level I and learn what to do, but how many of us actually apply that in our CAP lives?

Here's the deal as I see it:  We have few expectations and little accountability.  

There are plenty of things we are supposed to do as members, but the chances of being taken to task for ignoring those rules are almost nonexistent.  That member won't get a comment on a performance review, they won't lose money, and they probably won't be "fired."  There are few external motivations to perform.  Some people need external motivators to avoid a slide into ignoring the rules they don't care about.

Some people are high performers without external motivations.  Those are the folks that keep the wheels on the typical squadron.

Low expectations affect our image and therefore our acceptance by other organizations.  Until we see some leadership courage to enforce established standards and protect our brand, we will slowly slide downhill.
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

RiverAux

Quote from: flyguy06 on March 09, 2009, 03:53:12 PM
So, my question to this body is why arent we like the SDF in terms of military protocal and procedures?
I think your question assumes that all State Defense Forces are better at following military C&C than CAP and I don't think that is a safe assumption at all.  Yes, they are all actual military forces, but that doesn't automatically mean that all of them take this seriously.  Unfortunately, there are still some SDFs out there that are equivalent to some CAP flying club units that don't take this stuff seriously at all.  Some SDF members do seem to have a "we're only volunteers" mentality. 

I strongly suspect that you get almost as much variation on this issue between different SDFs (each of which have their own rules, regulations, and protocols) and even within the same SDF as you do between different CAP units. 

All that being said, the military culture in SDFs is reviving in many states due to developing new standards, higher expectations, better training, and the getting rid of the "thanks for joining, here's your officer rank insignia" mentality. 

Nathan

I think there must be at least as many posts of me saying this as there are these types of threads on both CadetStuff and CAPTalk.

CAP was formed FOR THE REASON of keeping people who couldn't join the military in the air. Those who were handicapped, overweight, women, medically unable, or whatever were still able to assist their country while in uniform, while doing something that was actually important.

When I see people arguing that we should increase our height and weight standard in order to "protect our image", it makes me think that we really have lost sight of why we were even formed in the first place. We REALLY want to talk tradition? We were here before the USAF was.

It reminds me of a debate I had with a senior member DCC of a squadron once. He wanted to "make the unit more professional" by removing "bad influences" from the cadet program. In his eyes, we were not a juvenile delinquent center, and anyone who actually caused problems should be tossed out for the sake of our "image." I completely disagreed, and told him that having a high standard means NOTHING if we got to that high standard by tossing out everyone who didn't already meet it. It means far more to have a high standard, even if it's lower than what it could be by tossing everyone out, if we were able to take what we have and bring it UP to the standard we want.

This is the same case for CAP, I think. I am certainly not saying that professional wear of the uniform isn't important. I do think that when we have the corporate uniform available that the golf shirt is an unnecessary luxury. But in the same vein, I really wouldn't have a problem if we abandoned the USAF uniform altogether in favor of the corporate uniform. After all, if our goal, as many of the "image" pushers will say, is to end up as a uniform organization, then there is no faster or more efficient way of doing so than simply assigning EVERYONE to the corporate uniform. Now we have our OWN identity, and EVERYONE is in the same uniform, and at the same time, we haven't had to cast out a SINGLE MEMBER of CAP.

Obviously, this will likely never happen, but keep in mind that if we take the logic of "image and uniformity" too far, we will likely lose the USAF uniform long before we try to kick out 2/3rds of our membership for the sake of "professionalism." We were created to give those who couldn't join the military a chance to serve in uniform, and I don't think that ideal is going to be given up more easily than the uniform itself.

Be careful what you wish for.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Grumpy

Quote from: Nathan on March 14, 2009, 03:50:14 PM
I think there must be at least as many posts of me saying this as there are these types of threads on both CadetStuff and CAPTalk.

CAP was formed FOR THE REASON of keeping people who couldn't join the military in the air. Those who were handicapped, overweight, women, medically unable, or whatever were still able to assist their country while in uniform, while doing something that was actually important.

When I see people arguing that we should increase our height and weight standard in order to "protect our image", it makes me think that we really have lost sight of why we were even formed in the first place. We REALLY want to talk tradition? We were here before the USAF was.

It reminds me of a debate I had with a senior member DCC of a squadron once. He wanted to "make the unit more professional" by removing "bad influences" from the cadet program. In his eyes, we were not a juvenile delinquent center, and anyone who actually caused problems should be tossed out for the sake of our "image." I completely disagreed, and told him that having a high standard means NOTHING if we got to that high standard by tossing out everyone who didn't already meet it. It means far more to have a high standard, even if it's lower than what it could be by tossing everyone out, if we were able to take what we have and bring it UP to the standard we want.

This is the same case for CAP, I think. I am certainly not saying that professional wear of the uniform isn't important. I do think that when we have the corporate uniform available that the golf shirt is an unnecessary luxury. But in the same vein, I really wouldn't have a problem if we abandoned the USAF uniform altogether in favor of the corporate uniform. After all, if our goal, as many of the "image" pushers will say, is to end up as a uniform organization, then there is no faster or more efficient way of doing so than simply assigning EVERYONE to the corporate uniform. Now we have our OWN identity, and EVERYONE is in the same uniform, and at the same time, we haven't had to cast out a SINGLE MEMBER of CAP.

Obviously, this will likely never happen, but keep in mind that if we take the logic of "image and uniformity" too far, we will likely lose the USAF uniform long before we try to kick out 2/3rds of our membership for the sake of "professionalism." We were created to give those who couldn't join the military a chance to serve in uniform, and I don't think that ideal is going to be given up more easily than the uniform itself.

Be careful what you wish for.

Amen Nathan !

aveighter

Quote from: Nathan on March 14, 2009, 03:50:14 PM
CAP was formed FOR THE REASON of keeping people who couldn't join the military in the air. Those who were handicapped, overweight, women, medically unable, or whatever were still able to assist their country while in uniform, while doing something that was actually important.

Not really. 

We were not formed as the CAOLHF. The Civil Air Organization of the Lame, Halt and Fat.

From AFI 10-2701

A1.1.1. Creation as a Temporary Civilian Auxiliary. CAP was established by order of the Director
of Civilian Defense on 1 December 1941 as an organization under the Office of Civilian Defense
under the command of Army Air Force personnel. The purpose of CAP was to enable the use of general
aviation pilots and aircraft in support of the nation's civilian defense program. It was created
under authority for the use of civilian auxiliaries to meet the state of national emergency declared by
Congress following the outbreak of World War II and was authorized for the period of the national
emergency.


Now, it is true that many of the CAP Founding Fathers didn't meet the guidelines for military service at the time for various reasons but they certainly weren't the leg-dragging porkers you seem to imply.  As a point of interest, young Capt. Son-Of-aveighter, master of the flight levels and many-motors jet pilot, would not have made the cut for pilot training in 1941.  He is neither fat nor drags a leg.


Nathan

Quote from: aveighter on March 14, 2009, 08:10:20 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 14, 2009, 03:50:14 PM
CAP was formed FOR THE REASON of keeping people who couldn't join the military in the air. Those who were handicapped, overweight, women, medically unable, or whatever were still able to assist their country while in uniform, while doing something that was actually important.

Not really. 

We were not formed as the CAOLHF. The Civil Air Organization of the Lame, Halt and Fat.

From AFI 10-2701

A1.1.1. Creation as a Temporary Civilian Auxiliary. CAP was established by order of the Director
of Civilian Defense on 1 December 1941 as an organization under the Office of Civilian Defense
under the command of Army Air Force personnel. The purpose of CAP was to enable the use of general
aviation pilots and aircraft in support of the nation's civilian defense program. It was created
under authority for the use of civilian auxiliaries to meet the state of national emergency declared by
Congress following the outbreak of World War II and was authorized for the period of the national
emergency.


Now, it is true that many of the CAP Founding Fathers didn't meet the guidelines for military service at the time for various reasons but they certainly weren't the leg-dragging porkers you seem to imply.  As a point of interest, young Capt. Son-Of-aveighter, master of the flight levels and many-motors jet pilot, would not have made the cut for pilot training in 1941.  He is neither fat nor drags a leg.

Straw-man argument. I did not imply anything of the sort. I simply said that CAP provided an opportunity for those types of people to serve their country. I did not imply that even the majority of those members were unfit for military service, but considering that we, at the time, were performing military missions, it would follow that if people WANTED to do military missions, they would likely have just joined the military.

Regardless, was there a point you were trying to make in your post, or did you just want to argue nearly irrelevant details?
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

aveighter

Sorry.  Now that I understand you consider historical facts to be nearly irrelevant details and are therefore unable to comprehend the clear and straight forward language of the recorded events of yore, your post makes perfect sense.

There weren't any straw men in the early days either.  Fire hazard.

JayT

Quote from: aveighter on March 15, 2009, 12:10:40 AM
Sorry.  Now that I understand you consider historical facts to be nearly irrelevant details and are therefore unable to comprehend the clear and straight forward language of the recorded events of yore, your post makes perfect sense.

There weren't any straw men in the early days either.  Fire hazard.

It's irrelevant in that it still doesn't change the fact that CAP was founded to allow people unable to serve in the regular forces a chance to serve at home.

"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

Hawk200

Quote from: DG on March 11, 2009, 12:38:39 PMBetter idea would be for CAP to get rid of the Air Force uniform entirely.

That would eliminate all this acrimony.

And we would all be uniform in uniform.

How exactly would we be more uniform? Eliminate the blue uniform, and you still have a CSU, blazer, polo/grey, blue BDU's, blue jumpsuit, and now the VSAF button down blue (with a different emblem than polo) with khakis. What's more uniform?

More uniform would be eliminating extras and standardizing insignia for both. Would go a lot further.

The biggest thing I get a kick out of is a fellow squadron member that told me, "We shouldn't be wearing these..." referencing the blue uniform he was wearing. I asked him, "If you don't think we should have it, why are you wearing it?". He hasn't spoken about uniforms to me since.

Blues are a big draw to the cadet crowd. If we allowed cadets to wear it, but eliminated it for seniors, it would create problems. Eliminate it for cadets, and we may as close up shop as far as the cadet programs goes.

aveighter

#93
Quote from: JThemann on March 15, 2009, 12:48:52 AMIt's irrelevant in that it still doesn't change the fact that CAP was founded to allow people unable to serve in the regular forces a chance to serve at home.

Young Joseph, I hope you are a better student of pre-hospital emergency care than you are of our organizations history.  Where in the world did you get that particular idea?


JayT

#94
Quote from: aveighter on March 15, 2009, 01:18:19 AM
Quote from: JThemann on March 15, 2009, 12:48:52 AM
It's irrelevant in that it still doesn't change the fact that CAP was founded to allow people unable to serve in the regular forces a chance to serve at home.

Young Joseph, I hope you are a better student of pre-hospital emergency care than you are of our organizations history.  Where in the world did you get that particular idea?

*shrugs* some presentation I got a few years ago. If I'm wrong, please elighten me.

I'm am an exceptional student of pre hospital emergency care by the way. :-p
"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

Hawk200

Quote from: JThemann on March 15, 2009, 02:09:35 AM*shrugs* some presentation I got a few years ago. If I'm wrong, please elighten me.

The presentaion was incorrect. The primary purpose is exactly as the AFI documents. It was founded for the purpose of allowing civilian pilots to utilize their aircraft during the period. Basically, it was a simple excuse for general aviation to get around fuel rationing.

Now, it was open to everyone, and as a byline it was presented that it did not have the samre requirements as the active duty military to join, and that being a pilot was not required. Yes, those who couldn't join the military were actively recruited, but it was not intentionally designed in that manner.

"Flying Minute Men", if you can get a hold of it, is an excellent historical resource. In general, it's a pretty good read.

ZigZag911

#96
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 15, 2009, 02:36:35 AM
Basically, it was a simple excuse for general aviation to get around fuel rationing.

Now I wasn't around back then myself, but I suspect Gill Robb Wilson and Fiorello La Guardia would both find this statement surprising and rather cynical.

aveighter

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 15, 2009, 02:36:35 AM
It was founded for the purpose of allowing civilian pilots to utilize their aircraft during the period. Basically, it was a simple excuse for general aviation to get around fuel rationing.

There is an element of truth to that although the real story is far richer.  It actually starts in the late 1930s.

I would recommend some time with the CAP Historical Foundation.  It is a tremendous resource and there are many photos of the time.  You get to see what some of those folks actually looked like and the equipment they operated.  Helps to gain an appreciation of the proud heritage we carry and may provide motivation to make the current organization a worthy heir.

Major Carrales

#98
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 15, 2009, 05:11:33 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 15, 2009, 02:36:35 AM
Basically, it was a simple excuse for general aviation to get around fuel rationing.

Now I wasn't around back then myself, but I suspect Gill Robb Wilson and Fiorello La Guardia would both find this statement surprising and rather cynical.

What everyone of modern presepective fails to see is that the build up to WWII was a time were everyone "did their part."  It was total war.  People joined Civil Defense because they had a sense of purpose.

That sense is, today, seen as "corney" or "hokey."  I believe that kind of idealism is met today with "Oh...please" and "Grow up."

I like to think I have that sense of purpose and that is why I joined CAP.  Because I believe in it.

Frankly, the original CAP Officers and enlisted men (followed by the Cadets later in the war) did not do it because they were "unfit" or any reason the modern mind might arrive at by modern reason...but rather, they did it because it had to be done.

The "cynical" nature of our times works against volunteerism.  Sad really...very sad. 

As an aside, it would seem that the sort of people that would have been dismissed as "crackpots" and "nuts" in the 1940s for their bizzare approaches are given creedence and University professorships in our times.  Thus, our children see "pimps" and "drug dealers" as heros, and true heroes as "nerds" and "dorks."  Thus, volunteerism is for "geeks" and going to prison "builds" character.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

ZigZag911

Realistically speaking, a fair percentage of CAP personnel were too young, too old, or medically unfit for military service -- but, as Sparky says, still sought to serve their country.

Might be good to remember that this applies equally today.