Flight Officer Status

[Papabird]

I suggested much the same thing in another thread.  I won't rehash it here.

If what I could recall, apparently NHQ is pondering the same thing, more-or-less (without the "Warrant Officers" idea), as they're concerned that SMs are being promoted too quickly.  I read it in one of the minutes they posted up in eServices.

EDIT: Found it.  It's in the May 2013 CAP Senior Advisory Group minutes in eServices.  Page 38.

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

[Panache]

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

[arajca]

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

[THRAWN]

Yet another arguement for dumping all SM rank and using the CG Aux style system....or even removing the cadet/SM option for the 18-21 crowd. Make the cadet program from 12-21....KISS....

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

[Storm Chaser]

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

As a former NCO, I understand and agree with you. However, how is that different from "real prior-service" commissioned officers, "who earned their" commissions after 4 years in a service academy, 2-4 years of ROTC or even 9-10 weeks of OTS, which also has a very competitive selection process? We hand out 2d Lt bars after Level 1 completion and six months as a senior member and require no additional qualifications.

[Panache]

As a former NCO, I understand and agree with you. However, how is that different from "real prior-service" commissioned officers, "who earned their" commissions after 4 years in a service academy, 2-4 years of ROTC or even 9-10 weeks of OTS, which also has a very competitive selection process? We hand out 2d Lt bars after Level 1 completion and six months as a senior member and require no additional qualifications.

Oh, no.  Pretty much the same.  That's why I really think all SMs should start out in the Flight Officer / Warrant Officer ranks, and members should only be promoted to 2nd Lieutenant after significant time investment and training.

[SARDOC]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I would gladly trade my railway tracks for CWO-3, or even starting over at WO-1.

[abdsp51]

I agree that NHQ should recognize FO's in Eservices.  But really guys, we don't need to adapt the CGAUX's rank system or uniform system, seperate organizations, seperate culture and a seperate mission. 

[a2capt]

Here's a better idea:

I you like the CGAux system so much. http://www.cgaux.org/units.php

[Storm Chaser]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

And? Only 1% of the total enlisted force can make CMSgt in the U.S. Air Force. I don't have the numbers for Lt Col, but I'm sure they're much higher than 1%.

Actually, I would argue that the overall promotion system in CAP should be more demanding and challenging that what it currently is.

[Mitchell 1969]

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

Maybe - if NHQ has now chosen to view them as "Seniors-lite" or some such. 
NHQ can't have the language both ways in the protection regs and not expect confusion and problems.

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.  (i.e., any non-Spaatz cadet over 18, who does not promote at least once per calendar year, is likely no longer engaged
in a meaningful way).

It is impossible for an 18-year old C/LtCol to remain a "non-Spaatz cadet" and still get promoted "...at least once per calendar year..." But that serves as no measurement whatsoever of engagement "..."in a meaningful way."

[Eclipse]

It is impossible for an 18-year old C/LtCol to remain a "non-Spaatz cadet" and still get promoted

Correct. 

Ergo.

[THRAWN]

There was nothing said about adopting the puddle pirate unis....the ranks system, however, is pretty clear cut. There is none of this "if/then" "refer to chart b" circle talk. All members are "members". If you hold a specific staff of leadership position, that is refected by your badge of rank. Simple. Clean. Too easy. If we went to it, what else would we talk about?   

I agree that NHQ should recognize FO's in Eservices.  But really guys, we don't need to adapt the CGAUX's rank system or uniform system, seperate organizations, seperate culture and a seperate mission.

[abdsp51]

FOs should be recognized at NHQ I don't believe there is any disagreement there.  But really guys we are not any other organization.  We have a PD and promotion system that works.  It is upto the member to track his/her promotion requirements and take the steps needed.  We don't need to adopt anyone elses system, and really alot of this I see as a solution looking for a problem when there is none.  Our promotion system works, our. PD system works, read the regs ask the questions when or or as needed.  Everyone regadlrdless of whether they ade a senior or cadet member will get out of the program what they put into it.

[SARDOC]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

And? Only 1% of the total enlisted force can make CMSgt in the U.S. Air Force. I don't have the numbers for Lt Col, but I'm sure they're much higher than 1%.

Actually, I would argue that the overall promotion system in CAP should be more demanding and challenging that what it currently is.

But we aren't the Air Force.   We have a system where rank doesn't really mean anything substantial just your progress in the Professional Development Program.

Because of staffing numbers although 1% may only make E9....I'm betting since about 1/6th of the Air Force is even an officer, I'm betting the Air Force has more E-9 Billets than they have O-5 Billets.   I'm also betting there are way more O-5's than E-9's with Masters Degrees and more advanced Professional Military Education Program graduates.  While, we the Civil Air Patrol are using the same exact professional development program so both NCO and Officer grades.

So really comparing us to the Air Force has absolutely no real relevance as we are not the Air Force.  It's like comparing Apples and Moon Rocks.

[JoeTomasone]

a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

Correct.  The Cadet Colonel should be leading and mentoring them.   They need someone to look up to.

[Storm Chaser]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

And? Only 1% of the total enlisted force can make CMSgt in the U.S. Air Force. I don't have the numbers for Lt Col, but I'm sure they're much higher than 1%.

Actually, I would argue that the overall promotion system in CAP should be more demanding and challenging that what it currently is.

But we aren't the Air Force.   We have a system where rank doesn't really mean anything substantial just your progress in the Professional Development Program.

Correct, but we want to wear similar uniforms, have similar grade insignias and similar duty titles. I was waiting for someone to bring that up...

Because of staffing numbers although 1% may only make E9....I'm betting since about 1/6th of the Air Force is even an officer, I'm betting the Air Force has more E-9 Billets than they have O-5 Billets.

While I don't have the exact numbers, I would bet your numbers are off. Think about it. At the squadron level, depending on size and mission, you can have two or more Lt Cols (smaller ones may have one or none). But rarely would you see a squadron with more than one CMSgt (some have none). As you move up in echelons, the number of Lt Cols in higher headquarters (group, wing, etc.) starts to increase. The number of CMSgts, not so much. Even if the number of CMSgts (approximately 2,600 based on the total enlisted force) was larger than those of Lt Cols, it would still contrast with the officer side, in which approximately 30% of officers are Col (O-6) or above (over 19,800); that's 6% of the entire active duty force.

I'm also betting there are way more O-5's than E-9's with Masters Degrees and more advanced Professional Military Education Program graduates.  While, we the Civil Air Patrol are using the same exact professional development program so both NCO and Officer grades.

That's probably true, although I don't see the relevance to our discussion.

So really comparing us to the Air Force has absolutely no real relevance as we are not the Air Force.  It's like comparing Apples and Moon Rocks.

Again, you are correct; we're not the Air Force. Unfortunately, many CAP members want to "have the cake and eat it too"; meaning, they want to emphasize the "Civil" part of Civil Air Patrol for some things, and the "Air Force" part of U.S. Air Force Auxiliary for other things. Because we're both, we have to live with the good and the bad that comes from this combination.

[Eclipse]

Lots of stats here:  http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp
(Math is mine)
"The following Air Force active duty demographics information is current as of 31 Dec 2013. These statistics are from the current inventory and does not include the Guard, Reserve or Air Force Academy (approx 4,000 cadets).
.
Snapshot of the Air Force
325,952 Active Duty
64,104 Officers (~19.6%)
261,848 Enlisted (~80.3%)
The Air Force has 14,264 pilots, 3,607 navigators and 1,538 air battle managers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below. The Air Force has 25,377 nonrated line officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below."
(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

I couldn't find any quickly-accessible stats on the breakdown of the enlisted grades or the further detail on the officers.

[RiverAux]

(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

In other words, 40% of the officers are Lt. Col. or higher.  I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about CAP having too many high ranking officers ever again.