CAP Rank structure

[jpravain]

sandman - I am not trying to change anything. I was just expressing my opinion (idea) that could possibly make things better. FYI, I am currently not in CAP. I was thinking about joining again but I am still on the fence right now.

[sandman]

2bLT: Absolutely; we're exchanging ideas and opinions. In fact I thnk you have a good point in doing away with rank structure in CAP. My counterpoint depends solely upon keeping the cadet program or jettisoning it.

It is my opinion that the CG AUX and CAP need to do a role reversal. With CAP structured as an adult program only, it would be able to augment the AF in a better way than we do currently. Considering that the AF is the military, geared to blow up things and kill people, having cadets in the mix does not hold well with many liberal parents.

However, in my fantasy world, the CG AUX has more to offer in a cadet program than one can hope for. Think about it; the missions that the USCG is charged with......water and boating safety for adults and especially for kids......environmental awareness and enforcement....maritime domain awareness....communications....
With the USCG extended out in its new Homeland Security mission, how well can it keep up with it's domestic safety and environmental programs? Why do you think the CG AUX is now more than ever relied upon for some of these missions?

Understand, the CAP is a great program and can use many improvements. But if you're on the fence about CAP then I suggest looking into some other programs for comparison. If it's CAP that wins out on your list, then jump in fully with the program already as it is! Make your way up to a national position, then attempt to implement some of your suggestions.....best of luck!

On the other hand; here's an opportunity for a shameless plug for the CG AUX: There's some great programs you can get into including going underway on a CG vessel on a real mission. Container inspectors are needed, commercial vessel inspectors are needed, communicators are needed....

How about your local firefighter, police, or sheriff's reserve (the explorer cadets need leadership)? What about a local state defense force unit?

[JC004]

...
It is my opinion that the CG AUX and CAP need to do a role reversal. With CAP structured as an adult program only, it would be able to augment the AF in a better way than we do currently. Considering that the AF is the military, geared to blow up things and kill people, having cadets in the mix does not hold well with many liberal parents.
...

How would we best meet our inland SAR missions without the cadets?  We would need some serious recruitment to cover all that they do.

[sandman]

It is my opinion that inland SAR missions can be handled by the prolific numbers of volunteer programs that already exist; the adult only CAP program would do air searches (which still compete with other air search volunteers). Example for ground team usage: SDF's. Why not? They have equipment and training to do the job better than we can while hearding a bunch of cadets around, many of minor age.

Sheriff/police reserves and explorers: they have the equipment and training and the cadets don't wear camoflague uniforms.

CAP= Civil Air Patrol. Regardless of history, we really don't need ground teams in this day and age. Ground teams are best suited for programs that focus on "ground pounding" such as the US Army (i.e. State Defense Force) DF experience can be obtained through the other programs including my newly created "USCG Maritime Cadets" I'll concede that the AF has a pararescue program that is essentially "ground pounding" to search for downed aviators. But what is the focus of the cadet program in CAP? Isn't it essentially a JROTC type program with emphasis on aerospace education and producing youth interested in science and aerospace power? How much emphasis should we place on DF'ing and ground pounding vice airpower?

[arajca]

It is my opinion that inland SAR missions can be handled by the prolific numbers of volunteer programs that already exist; the adult only CAP program would do air searches (which still compete with other air search volunteers). Example for ground team usage: SDF's. Why not? They have equipment and training to do the job better than we can while hearding a bunch of cadets around, many of minor age.

Sheriff/police reserves and explorers: they have the equipment and training and the cadets don't wear camoflague uniforms.

CAP= Civil Air Patrol. Regardless of history, we really don't need ground teams in this day and age. Ground teams are best suited for programs that focus on "ground pounding" such as the US Army (i.e. State Defense Force) DF experience can be obtained through the other programs including my newly created "USCG Maritime Cadets" I'll concede that the AF has a pararescue program that is essentially "ground pounding" to search for downed aviators. But what is the focus of the cadet program in CAP? Isn't it essentially a JROTC type program with emphasis on aerospace education and producing youth interested in science and aerospace power? How much emphasis should we place on DF'ing and ground pounding vice airpower?

SDF's are only active in 23 states. And only effective in a few of those. CO is one that does not have an SDF.

I don't think the AF will let CAP give up the cadet program. CAP is the only air cadet program in the US not based in schools. There are other non-school based cadet programs for the other services and I don't think the AF will want to lose the potential for recruiting. (Yes, I'm aware that only a small percentage of CAP cadets join the AF, but it is still something the AF likes.)

The emphasis we place on ground pounding comes from our Emergency Services mission - which no other military cadet program has. It is the best place we can use cadets in that mission. Besides, have you considered what it would take to create a youth program from scratch? Even stealing borrowing materials from other programs, a serious amount of work would be required.

Aren't all military cadet programs - for the age group our cadets fall into - basically JROTC units with an emphasis in whatever service they are emulating? So why not suggest shutting down the other non-JROTC military cadet programs as well? Those orgs do not have a Congressional mandate to have a youth program as CAP does.

Oops. Forgot about that. Shutting down the CAP cadet program would take an act of Congress to modify the law that established CAP. There's a monkey wrench to throw into the mix.

[sandman]

arajca: All true. My arguements were all academic of course. My point was, in keeping with the thought of this thread, that although the CAP rank structure certainly needs to be tweeked, it shouldn't be tossed out. The use of the military rank terminology in the adult program needs to stay intact even if only for the cadet program.

[RiverAux]

From what I understand the CG has never shown any interest in having any sort of youth program except for maybe 1 or 2 JROTC programs.  They aren't having any trouble meeting recruiting goals so having a youth program to feed the service isn't necessary and would add more problems than its worth. 

There is no other national program that can do even the limited amount of ground SAR stuff that we do and there aren't any state or county-level programs that could come close. 

I like the SDF concept but as pointed out only a few of them are "operational" in any sense of the word, even in those states that have them.  Could they pick up the slack?  Maybe.  But why would the state want to spend their money to send SDFs out on these missions when the AF is willing to pay for CAP to do it. 

[sandman]

From what I understand the CG has never shown any interest in having any sort of youth program except for maybe 1 or 2 JROTC programs.  They aren't having any trouble meeting recruiting goals so having a youth program to feed the service isn't necessary and would add more problems than its worth.

Agreed. Anyway, trying to get the ol' duffers in the CG AUX to change the bylaws to even support an experimental program would be impossible.....just as the CAP flying club types, the CG AUX'ers rather not have any added complications to their "yacht club"

There is no other national program that can do even the limited amount of ground SAR stuff that we do and there aren't any state or county-level programs that could come close. 

No need for a national program. FEMA can be the national oversight for the local programs; after all, many programs look highly upon those who have completed FEMA courses, right? Local volunteers can do the job. Although I would welcome a look at the statistics regarding actual CAP participation vs. local-national (red cross, sheriff, mounted posse, etc.) if the stats existed.

I like the SDF concept but as pointed out only a few of them are "operational" in any sense of the word, even in those states that have them.  Could they pick up the slack?  Maybe.  But why would the state want to spend their money to send SDFs out on these missions when the AF is willing to pay for CAP to do it. 

Could they pick up the slack? Possibly. SDF's in a volunteer status could be effective. The volunteer would not be on state active duty orders so paying volunteers need not be an issue (but could be an incentive, something that CAP does not have). Use of equipment is an issue. FEMA could supply money for equipment use, that could ease the budget for the AF in comparison.

As for lack of SDF's; why is there a lack? With a FEMA initiative for a national volunteer SAR program using SDF's as the spearhead, I would think many governers would be inticed to start a SDF program in their state, especially if FEMA "recommends" it.

Anyway, keep the CAP rank structure. Use a appointment and promotion system that closely mirrors the active duty, and start an enlisted program with promotion capability to E-9 for those without qualifying degrees, but have qualified hearts. That's what I say....

[RiverAux]

Anyway, trying to get the ol' duffers in the CG AUX to change the bylaws to even support an experimental program would be impossible.....just as the CAP flying club types, the CG AUX'ers rather not have any added complications to their "yacht club"

Who said anything about the Aux not wanting the program...you're forgetting that this decision would entirely be in the hands of the Coast Guard itself.  Granted, I doubt many CG Auxies would be interested either, but the CG is your target audience not the Aux. 
The Aux is already trying to absorb all sorts of other new missions while trying to recover from a significant membership loss.  Why would the CG want to strain them even more by trying to start a youth program that they don't really need?

The CG Aux is supposed to be focusing on recreational boating safety and I think we do more good by spending our time giving presentations, demos, etc. to hundreds of kids rather than focusing a large amount of time on a handful who might join a youth program. 

No need for a national program. FEMA can be the national oversight for the local programs; after all, many programs look highly upon those who have completed FEMA courses, right? Local volunteers can do the job. Although I would welcome a look at the statistics regarding actual CAP participation vs. local-national (red cross, sheriff, mounted posse, etc.) if the stats existed.

We already know the statistics about the missions you're talking about turning over to locals...the AFRCC assigns something like 85-95% (depending on what source you're looking at) of the missions they get to CAP.   

As for lack of SDF's; why is there a lack? With a FEMA initiative for a national volunteer SAR program using SDF's as the spearhead, I would think many governers would be inticed to start a SDF program in their state, especially if FEMA "recommends" it.

You're living in a dreamworld.  FEMA barely knows about SDFs.  Why would you ask 20+ separate state organizations, many of whom rarely do actual missions whose total membership is something like 15000 to try to do what an already existing nationwide program does?  Why would FEMA want to start funding SDFs to do CAP's work when the AF is already paying CAP to do it?  What is the advantage to FEMA?  You're dramatically underestimating how efficient it is to the feds to just go to CAP rather than trying to maintain relationships wtih dozens of SDFs.  Don't you realize that about 2/3 of states actual give money to CAP while only half have SDFs at all, and many of those that do give more money to their CAP Wing than they do their SDF. 

Go spend some time on the SDF board at VAJoe and see what the real situation is regarding SDFs.  Don't get me wrong, I would be an SDF member if we had one where I live, but as sickly as our ground program is, it is much better than any SDFs that I'm aware of. 

[ZigZag911]

It was my impression that the Coast Guard had never expressed any interest in sponsoring a cadet program.

[SARMedTech]

How about all the folks who have nothing to do but complain about the deficiencies of CAP get in the boats and drift over to the CGAUX. Im sure they would be glad to have you. All uniform issues squared away, etc. But then what would you have to whine about?  In the squadron Im a part of, the door swings both ways and you are welcome to avail yourself of that nifty bit of technology at any time.. Maybe if we spent as much time saying whats write with CAP or actually offering viable solutions for fixing what doesnt work, we would all be better off.

[sandman]

Who said anything about the Aux not wanting the program...you're forgetting that this decision would entirely be in the hands of the Coast Guard itself.  Granted, I doubt many CG Auxies would be interested either, but the CG is your target audience not the Aux.

True enough.

The Aux is already trying to absorb all sorts of other new missions while trying to recover from a significant membership loss.  Why would the CG want to strain them even more by trying to start a youth program that they don't really need?

I agree. But a youth program might get new members interested in mentoring youth.....maybe.

The CG Aux is supposed to be focusing on recreational boating safety and I think we do more good by spending our time giving presentations, demos, etc. to hundreds of kids rather than focusing a large amount of time on a handful who might join a youth program.

Sure. But teach the kids directly through a youth program and you have kids becoming leaders to their peers regarding safety issues. In other words, instead of just teaching the kids once and hope it sticks, the kids have "ownership" of the safety knowledge and are more willing to pass it on to other kids they see doing unsafe acts at the shoreline.

We already know the statistics about the missions you're talking about turning over to locals...the AFRCC assigns something like 85-95% (depending on what source you're looking at) of the missions they get to CAP.

I agree. Here's how the AF looks at CAP:

  Civil Air Patrol

The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a congressional chartered, nonprofit organization of volunteers devoted to the development of aviation through education, cadet youth programs, and emergency services. As the official auxiliary of the Air Force, CAP willingly and effectively conducts approximately three-fourths of all aerial search activity in the inland area.

The Civil Air Patrol provides SAR mission coordinators, search aircraft, ground teams, personnel on alert status, and an extensive communications network. When these resources are engaged in a SAR mission they are reimbursed by the Air Force for communications expenses, fuel and oil, and a share of aircraft maintenance expenses. In addition, CAP members are covered by the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) in the event of injury while participating in a SAR mission.

The AFRCC maintains an alert roster provided by the CAP wings in each of the states and the AFRCC is the central point of contact for CAP participation in SAR missions. The AFRCC also works closely with CAP national headquarters and directly provides inputs for CAP training in emergency services. The Civil Air Patrol is the AFRCC's prime air and ground resource in the inland area, especially for extended searches.

Without Civil Air Patrol's highly dedicated personnel, the United States Air Force would find it very difficult to fulfill it's mission responsibilities in the 48 Continental United States.

Civil Air Patrol is our 1st resource!

(dons flame retardant suit for next segment)

You're living in a dreamworld.  FEMA barely knows about SDFs.  Why would you ask 20+ separate state organizations, many of whom rarely do actual missions whose total membership is something like 15000 to try to do what an already existing nationwide program does?  Why would FEMA want to start funding SDFs to do CAP's work when the AF is already paying CAP to do it?  What is the advantage to FEMA?  You're dramatically underestimating how efficient it is to the feds to just go to CAP rather than trying to maintain relationships wtih dozens of SDFs.  Don't you realize that about 2/3 of states actual give money to CAP while only half have SDFs at all, and many of those that do give more money to their CAP Wing than they do their SDF.

I already stated it was for an academic exercise, my fantasy version of reality; dreaming of a perfect world.

Go spend some time on the SDF board at VAJoe and see what the real situation is regarding SDFs.  Don't get me wrong, I would be an SDF member if we had one where I live, but as sickly as our ground program is, it is much better than any SDFs that I'm aware of.

The idea was to swap administrative modalities in order to facilitate another dreamers perception of how things should be...CAP without a military rank structure. CAP is not perfect in any way, but keeping the military rank structure is a culture that I wouldn't agree to part with.

(doffs flame retardant suit)

/r
LT

[ddelaney103]

The idea was to swap administrative modalities in order to facilitate another dreamers perception of how things should be...CAP without a military rank structure. CAP is not perfect in any way, but keeping the military rank structure is a culture that I wouldn't agree to part with.

How does the current "military rank structure" help CAP, considering we don't use it the way the military uses it - as a way of determining authority and responsibility?

It would seem to me that having 1st Lt's in charge of sqdn's and giving direction to Lt Col Communication Officers would be confusing to both outsiders and Cadets.  The Code of Conduct says "if I am senior, I will take command," CAP says, "if I am in command, only then will I take command."

Also, if functions can be currently done by either an O or NCO, are we depicting the military structure correctly?

Some will say, "we're CAP, we're different" - that's true enough.  But should we use someone else's symbols and bend them to our will?  Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

CAP does not.

Can someone explain how important is this "rank culture" to CAP, considering we don't use it?

[ZigZag911]

  The Code of Conduct says "if I am senior, I will take command," CAP says, "if I am in command, only then will I take command."

Now I need an explanation, doesn't the Code of Conduct speak here of a POW situation?

CAP is a lot of things, not all pleasant, but it certainly isn't an enemy prison camp.

[sandman]

How does the current "military rank structure" help CAP, considering we don't use it the way the military uses it - as a way of determining authority and responsibility?

It would seem to me that having 1st Lt's in charge of sqdn's and giving direction to Lt Col Communication Officers would be confusing to both outsiders and Cadets.  The Code of Conduct says "if I am senior, I will take command," CAP says, "if I am in command, only then will I take command."

Also, if functions can be currently done by either an O or NCO, are we depicting the military structure correctly?

Some will say, "we're CAP, we're different" - that's true enough.  But should we use someone else's symbols and bend them to our will?  Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

CAP does not.

Can someone explain how important is this "rank culture" to CAP, considering we don't use it?

Maybe the rank structure is not that important after all. Maybe those who have accepted promotions to an advanced grade are just lazy or too tired to take command. Maybe the senior rank structure takes the term "Army of One" and transliterates the meaning to CAP in a more literal term. Maybe there are many explanations and none at the same time.

Why worry about it? Can you fix it? How? Maybe you're right; do away with the rank insignia altogether and everyone just wear a plain blue suit / BBDU with only CAP cutouts on the collar (including the national commander and BOG). All one would need is a card stating their position and qualification. Although I'd bet you would want to keep your flight wings now wouldn't you?

Fortunately, no one here can effectively change the current system, but it's been an interesting academic discussion.....

[sandman]

Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

...Had a moment to think about this comment. For the most part it holds true....however, I am in charge of a couple of O-4's and have had O-4's/O-5's "report" to me because I was the mission OIC. It happens more often than you might think.

[Sgt. Savage]

If I may connect the dots....

Do we have a consensus that either rank is meaningless, an should be done away with or that if used, should be more directly linked to position and responsibility?

[RiverAux]

If I may connect the dots....

Do we have a consensus that either rank is meaningless, an should be done away with or that if used, should be more directly linked to position and responsibility?

No, not at all....read the results of the poll.  Those two options were rejected by about 90% of respondents (less than 10% supported them).   

[ddelaney103]

If I may connect the dots....

Do we have a consensus that either rank is meaningless, an should be done away with or that if used, should be more directly linked to position and responsibility?

Oh, heck no - most respondents love their bling.  They're officers, dang gone it, and don't want it taken away.

Most that want change want to "raise standards:" usually read as "making sure other people can't get or keep rank."  I don't think I've ever seen anyone post, "let's raise standards so I won't be a Lt Col anymore."

(Well, really, I did: I have said before I'd be happy to turn in the oak leaves for FO/WO-4 until such time as I return to a field grade staff position, but I'm part of the "let's redo the whole system" crowd.)

[ddelaney103]

Other org's use military grade names or symbols, but most of them copy the central tenet on grade: in the end, the senior person is in charge.

...Had a moment to think about this comment. For the most part it holds true....however, I am in charge of a couple of O-4's and have had O-4's/O-5's "report" to me because I was the mission OIC. It happens more often than you might think.

Oh, sure, it does happen - especially in operational situations.  But it's not the rule and you're in charge because someone with higher authority put you in charge.  Absent other considerations, the highest ranking person has the ball.