Should senior members within squadrons be organized into Flights?

[RiverAux]

One of the problems in CAP is that while we have about 2 dozen senior member staff positions that can be filled within each unit it is still possible for individual members to get lost in the shuffle because no one is really looking out for them in particular.  The squadron commander, and maybe the Deputy Commander for Seniors are the only people in their actual chain of command within the squadron and they generally can't really focus on serving each individual member.  This is based on the assumption that we're talking about a composite squadron with a very strong senior side or an all-senior squadron.  If you're a cadet squadron with just a few seniors this doesn't really apply. 

One idea that is regularly proposed is the idea of having some form of mentor system for members, but I've never really seen it work. 

So, what do you think of actually organizing senior members into flights of 5-10 persons?  The flight commander would primarily be responsible for making sure their folks are treated right in terms of being oriented to the program, progressing in their specialty track, ES training, etc.  The flight commander would also have direct responsibility over making sure members wear their uniforms properly. 

While this would be good for the members by making sure they get more individual attention, it would also help develop new leaders within the squadron.  Right now you don't get any real authority until you get the big job and if you don't want to do that you're limited to a staff position or doing nothing.  Having the opportunity of being a flight commander would be a middle ground.  Flight Commanders would also be a great cadre from which to choose new squadron commanders when the time comes. 

It could help with our chronic uniform problems by actually giving people some responsibility and authority to correct people within their flight who are not in proper uniforms.  Right now most CAP members are reluctant to correct someone else because it isn't really their place -- they're not the guy in charge after all.  But, flight commanders would be able to do this without seeming to be a uniform jerk, after all its part of their job. 

These positions wouldn't have a lot of administrative work associated with them, so could focus on working with the members.  This system works pretty well for developing cadet leadership and could help with seniors too. 

What do you think?

[Capt Rivera]

I think it sounds good. How do you propose such a thing to people who have the flying club mentality?

[ZigZag911]

I like it!

Two ways to go (I'm sure there are many others):

1) have an 'Operations' flight (pilots, aircrew, GT types) and an 'Administration' flight  (the folks with the support jobs), to ensure that there is oversight of training in the CAP 'career fields'

2) flights with mixed specialties, to deliberately try to spark some exchange of ideas and experiences

[DNall]

I think they pretty much are, it's just symantics on the terms. It should be pretty straight forward.

You should have a Deputy Cdr for Cdts (CDC) with a couple/three adults on his staff & cadet structure underneath. Then you should have a seperate but equal directorate with a Dep for Srs (CDS) overseeing each of those sub-depts. Each of those deputies should report to what is really a Sq Deputy CC, call it XO if you want. He is in charge of everything internally. There should be monthly/quarterly progress reports to this person & they shoudl be driving the agenda in real-time. They report to the CC, who then is in charge of external relations (external agencies & up chain, not community PR) & ensuring everyoine els eis doing their job. Really you want to lift as much off the actual commander as possibel so they can think/plan/act strategically while everyone else executes the orders & supports up/down chain.

That's how it's supposed to be now, if you want to call the adult side a flight (which we do) then go for it, or don't, it doesn't matter administratively.

[davedove]

I agree completely with you DNall, except that in Composite Squadrons there is no position for Sq Dep CC, at least not in the standard organization per CAPR 20-1.  There is a Dep for Seniors and a Dep for Cadets, who are theoretically equal in the squadron.

[BillB]

The position of Squadron Deputy Commander or Executive Officer was dropped in the last edition of 20-1. Back in the 1990's DCC or XO (one but not both) was authorized. The change to Dep for Cadets and Dep for Seniors replaced the earlier positions.

[jimmydeanno]

My old squadron we did this, had the seniors fall-in and everything...uniform inspections, etc.  None of them had a problem with it because when they joined we told them how we do things and they agreed.

I think it's funny that a lot of seniors see it as necessary for the cadets to be in assigned flights and all because it improves chain of command visibility, promotes teamwork, communication, etc.  but when they are asked to do the same thing, you get a resounding...NO!

[mikeylikey]

I think it sounds good. How do you propose such a thing to people who have the flying club mentality?

Tell them it's NOT a FLYING CLUB!  CAP is more than just airplanes and flying.  If we loose pilots because they are asked to do more than just fly, then we never needed them to begin with.  I have taken to seeking out these "I fly thats it" types and setting them straight.  They make me sick!

[Sgt. Savage]

We do it for inspections but that's about it. It could be beneficial to actually organize the staff into operational sections just so that someone is lokking out for the membership at large.

[RiverAux]

Face it, the "squadron staff" concept is a failure in most places.  Sure, theoretically the squadron ES officer is looking out for everybody's ES advancement and same with professional development.  But, they rarely do. 

I think these flights should be totally separate from any staff positions since most squadrons only have a fraction of their staff positions filled in any case.   Everybody should be assigned to a flight and should report to a flight commander.  If they also hold a staff position, thats a separate issue. 

[Eagle400]

I think it sounds good. How do you propose such a thing to people who have the flying club mentality?

Tell them it's NOT a FLYING CLUB!  CAP is more than just airplanes and flying.  If we loose pilots because they are asked to do more than just fly, then we never needed them to begin with.  I have taken to seeking out these "I fly thats it" types and setting them straight.  They make me sick!

[Eagle400]

I say divide the squadron into three flights: the Operations Flight, the Mission Support Flight, and the Maintenance Flight.

Operations Flight

Squadron Commander
Deputy Commander
Pilots
GT Members, GTL's
Flight Release Officer
Operations Officer
STAN/EVAL Officer
Emergency Services Officer/ES Training Officer
Search and Rescue Officer
Disaster Relief Officer

Maintenance Flight 

Maintenance Officer
Logistics Officer
Supply Officer
Physical Fitness Officer
Transportation Officer
Administrative Officer
Personnel Officer

Mission Support Flight

Communications Officer
Recruiting Officer
Drug Demand Reduction Officer
Senior/Cadet/Composite Squadron AE Officer
Professional Development Officer
Leadership Officer
Activities Officer
Tesing Officer
Plans and Programs Officer
Public Affairs Officer
Finance Officer
Chaplain
Moral Leadership Officer
Legal Officer
Medical Officer
Safety Officer
Historian
Deputy Commander for Cadets
Deputy Commander for Seniors


In addition, I would put Safety and STAN/EVAL Officers directly under the IG.  I would also put the Activities and AE Officers under the Plans and Programs Officer.

[Hoser]

[/Tell them it's NOT a FLYING CLUB!  CAP is more than just airplanes and flying.  If we loose pilots because they are asked to do more than just fly, then we never needed them to begin with.  I have taken to seeking out these "I fly thats it" types and setting them straight.  They make me sick!]
Dude you just don't get it do you?  CAP is a volunteer organization and there is no way you can make anyone do anything, period. People contribute to the level they are comfortable with and that's that. I'd like to know who made you the arbiter of what is an acceptable level of commitment and participation in CAP in the first place


Hoser

[mikeylikey]

[/Tell them it's NOT a FLYING CLUB!  CAP is more than just airplanes and flying.  If we loose pilots because they are asked to do more than just fly, then we never needed them to begin with.  I have taken to seeking out these "I fly thats it" types and setting them straight.  They make me sick!]
Dude you just don't get it do you?  CAP is a volunteer organization and there is no way you can make anyone do anything, period. People contribute to the level they are comfortable with and that's that. I'd like to know who made you the arbiter of what is an acceptable level of commitment and participation in CAP in the first place


Hoser

Hoser, you must be one of those "pilot" types that fly only when you need to maintain proficiency and never offer your services for Cadet-O-Flights.

I strongly believe that being a Pilot is awesome, but those that don't give to the organization is a HUGE waste of everyone's time.  I have run down lists of pilots (20 or so) for a mission before and only got one "maybe I will be there".  However, you will find them ALL out at the airports flying on a SAT or SUN by themselves at CAP expense.  I don't know where you are from (perhaps perfect world) but this is a problem in CAP.

[RiverAux]

121 that may be a way to organize the staff officers, but I'm proposing organizing the members.  There is a difference.  Not every member is a staff officer, nor should they be. 

[SJFedor]

122blahblah whatever...

You don't organize your command staff into a subordinate organization, like putting your squadron commander in a flight. He oversees the people in charge of the flight, not participates inside of it.

For your operations flight, your unit operations officer becomes the flight commander. For Maintenance, your LO needs to be the flight commander. As for mission support, again, you need to remove your DCC and DCS out of the mix, they're part of the command staff. You'd probably want to further organize the Mission Support flight into a smaller subunit of senior programs (legal, medical, PAO, etc) and cadet programs (leadership, activities, etc) for more effective span of control. Communications needs to be under operations. You could, I guess, make anyone who wanted the job in addition to their duties the Mission Support flight commander. The other ones get the job by default because they're the ones that all the other positions branch off of.

[Pylon]

I think I'd rather organize the flights along the lines of functional area.  I wouldn't have a maintenance flight because, although my squadron may occassionally take the van in to a shop or request repairs on the plane via Group HQ, we don't perform any of our own maintenance.  Doesn't make functional sense.

For a composite squadron, I'd rather see the Commander, and two deputies with three flights under them:  Operations, Mission Support, and Cadet Programs.   The former two flight commanders report to the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  The latter, either the Deputy Commander for Cadets could be the flight commander for them or have a Flight CC who reports to him or her.

I like it.

[Hoser]

Actually I am a squadron commander, and yes I am a pilot, and no I don't fly only when proficiency time rolls around. In fact I only fly the CAP airplane when there is an exercise or mission. Almost all my flying is done at the local FBO, at my expense. I understand that people have lives and can't always go at the drop of a hat. I don't do O-rides as our group has 8-9 O-Ride pilots who love doing them. A lot of our O-ride pilots don't do much more than that, but I am glad they do because there have been numerous cadets who have gone on to get their tickets because of these "I fly that's it" types who took the time to introduce them to powered flight. Maybe one day I will do O-rides, who knows? But I do know this, it is wrong and IMO, divisive to hammer somebody because they don't fit your perception of what an acceptable level of contribution is, when they give just a small amount to the overall picture.

Hoser

[ZigZag911]

There are individuals who make limited contributions to CAP.

We should appreciate their contributions -- in a limited way!

Mission related/professional officer appointments are contingent on the recipient actively participating in a relevant was (i.e., a CFI should be instructing, or a check pilot, or hold an operations staff job; a teacher should be an AE, and so forth).

If someone only chooses  -- or is only able -- to do an occasional class, or occasional O flight, great, we should appreciate that -- but we shouldn't be handing these people advanced grades simply because their credentials fit eligibility -- because their participation/performance does not.

[DNall]

Dude you just don't get it do you?  CAP is a volunteer organization and there is no way you can make anyone do anything, period. People contribute to the level they are comfortable with and that's that. I'd like to know who made you the arbiter of what is an acceptable level of commitment and participation in CAP in the first place

The military is a volunteer organization, I volunteered to be a RLO & I can resign, I volunteered for my civilian job, everything we do is voluntary. That doesn't remotely mean it's your way right away, or ever for that matter. You choose to join CAP & can choose to leave, otherwise it can & should operate in a military manner, which is to tell you what to do and every now & then ask for volunteers for extra duty.


Anyway... river, the DCS/CDS whatever we're calling it, that is functionally a flight commander, but if you want to put them in a flight seperate from their staff duties, okay I got them there, now what's the function this new unit is supposed to perform? You can't just create structure with no mission, and you REALLY can't tack on extra management structure when you're talking about 3-8 people.