Lifesaving Award Scenario

[Eclipse]

Disasters don't just happen on weekends, and if you bare flying there are issues of duty day to deal with.

[Storm Chaser]

That is true, but there's so much you can ask of volunteers. I'm fortunate enough with my job that I have some flexibility to take time off if needed, but not everyone is so fortunate. And even I have limitations at times. I already spend a big chunk of vacation, weekends and evenings doing CAP work and training. My family, while very understanding and supportive of CAP, do question from time to time how much time I spend away from home. And we're not even talking major emergencies or disasters here, which I would do my best to support as well.

[Майор Хаткевич]

IL is 16 hour drive away from NYC...

[Eclipse]

First, everyone needs to deal with their own life circumstance, obviously.  But within that paradigm, you have to be realistic in your
expectations.  Saying that you have the ability to attend 2-weeks of NESA, but then because of that you can't respond to real
emergencies kind of misses the point.

This brings us again, back to the "need more people". If we were fully staffed and manned, the need for cross-country, or even
intra-state drive would be limited to all but the very largest of incidents.  Perhaps key personnel or assets might need to be moved,
but the majority of localized flooding, missing persons, and similar missions could be handled from one or two units without having to drag
people 1/2 way across the state.

The opportunities to serve for a few hours would greatly increase, since we'd have the depth at position to allow people to rotate out in the same
way the professionals do.

The other factor, and a BIG one, is NHQ's continued and ongoing conservative nature in deploying members to large missions.  We don't go soon
enough, and we don't send enough people or assets, and rarely to we send logistics in ahead or with the people going in.  Everything is
last minute, with shoestring budgets and few support assets, and at the most bare-bones level of manpower.  We work the few who go to the
level of exhaustion and just expect they will stay for the duration, with no real plan for rotating personnel over long distances. 

The same vehicles used for in/out transport (especially the planes), are used for mission sorties, which in itself cause more problems.

Meanwhile, in far too many cases, since key players are gone from home squadrons, those ops grind to a halt as well, as if nothing else is going on
in CAP except for "x" (be it NESA, HMRS, encampments, missions, etc.).

Rinse, repeat.

[Devil Doc]

Yes, getting off your job a Using Vacation Time is a Big Deal to most of us. I do understand that some mission we cannot go on, But, Thats why we get involved in our Local DR, that was its close you can spend a few days, and still go back to work.

[Storm Chaser]

Saying that you have the ability to attend 2-weeks of NESA, but then because of that you can't respond to real
emergencies kind of misses the point.

Where did you get that? I never said that because I was attending 2 weeks of NESA I couldn't respond to real emergencies. I'm sacrificing 2 weeks of vacation and family time to get training that is not currently available in my area so that I can fill a need in my squadron and group and be able to better respond to real emergencies.

[Eclipse]

It's not specific to you - I just hear that a lot.

[Storm Chaser]

It's not specific to you - I just hear that a lot.

Funny you say "it's not specific to [me]" since you used me as an example. As you well know, you can't perform certain ES tasks or duties if you're not trained and qualified and training takes a fair amount of time and resources. People train now so that they can be of service later.

You always talk about the "need for more people". But how do you attract these people? And better yet, how do you retain them? CAP can be a big commitment of both time and money. You've said in the past that their incentive is (or should be) "service", but everyone's expectation of service is different.

If someone has a week to dedicate to an "encampment", as you mentioned on a previous post, and then can't take time off for an unforeseeable disaster, how is that on the member? He or she volunteered to support one of CAP's three missions. The member did his or her "service". Let's now use your "NESA" example. If a person is not available to participate in a disaster response now because he or she spent two weeks at NESA, why should that be held negatively against that member? That same member, now trained and qualified in new skills, may be of value in a future incident. That's why we train; so that we can serve and apply those new skills in the future. That is part of our volunteer service.

[Eclipse]

Who said it was negative on the member - it's a negative on the organization.

Members should not be made to feel that their choices negatively impact the organization's ability to perform its mission.  The USAF, ARC, or even your local PD/FD
don't call off activities or take the phone off the hook because "Jim went to ICS 400 class so he can't IC the mission." But this is not unheard of in CAP.

If you joined CAP to support the CP, only, OK, fair enough, but then don't count yourself in the ES group, take personal street-cred for that involvement, and
more critically, don't stand in the way of others when they tell you they want "more" or "different".   Just because "you" don't do it, doesn't mean the "unit" doesn't
do it, and I will continue to make the argument that, while individual members have the right to make choices about which mission to pick from the menu, Unit CCs
don't, and they are failing their mandate when they pick and choose one area of emphasis of others.

More people means more opportunity for everyone, but more importantly, less stress about viability.  As it stands today, in most wings, the same couple hundred people
do everything, they may wander into and out of activities here and there, but mostly it's the same core group running, planning, and doing everything. 

Why? Because they know if they don't show up, it's possible no one will.  To these people who give hundreds of hours each year, and haven't had a "vacation" in a decade,
it's hard to feel sympathy for members who show up once in a while, and then complain when "CAP doesn't do anything..."

How do we fix that?  More people.  Period.

A concerted, national-level, sustained recruiting drive with real expectations of performance and growth in every unit, while at the same time pressing on commanders
to start "getting bothered" to do their jobs and perform our missions properly.  It needs to be more then a brochure and a suggestion to drop a table at a random airshow.
It needs to be treated with the same mission-critical attitude that the safety, finance, and other administrivial mandates are handled.  "Do it, do it now, or expect to be replaced."

Seriously, the fix is literally YOU, whether that means more effort, more delegation, or better management of your particular job, the next time something isn't done,
instead of looking around and up and falling back on "X" isn't doing their job, take the initiative and make it happen instead of resting on "That's wing's, group's, national's job."

75-90% of all that can and does happen in CAP has to be initiated and wrench-turned at the unit level, because that's where the people, the resources, and the missions are.

The problem is that the very commanders who are failing to accept the need to grow their units, quickly, are also the ones not really interested in doing much of anything,
so it's a somewhat circular problem. 

[Storm Chaser]

Who said it was negative on the member - it's a negative on the organization.

This is what you actually said:

Saying that you have the ability to attend 2-weeks of NESA, but then because of that you can't respond to real emergencies kind of misses the point.

It sounds to me that you were talking about the member, not the organization. But if that's not what you meant, then I appreciate the clarification.

Members should not be made to feel that their choices negatively impact the organization's ability to perform its mission.  The USAF, ARC, or even your local PD/FD  don't call off activities or take the phone off the hook because "Jim went to ICS 400 class so he can't IC the mission." But this is not unheard of in CAP.

The other organizations that you mentioned are not made up of unpaid volunteers. Keep that in mind.

If you joined CAP to support the CP, only, OK, fair enough, but then don't count yourself in the ES group, take personal street-cred for that involvement, and more critically, don't stand in the way of others when they tell you they want "more" or "different".   Just because "you" don't do it, doesn't mean the "unit" doesn't do it, and I will continue to make the argument that, while individual members have the right to make choices about which mission to pick from the menu, Unit CCs don't, and they are failing their mandate when they pick and choose one area of emphasis of others.

I assume that you are talking about things you've experienced with commanders. I'm not sure I'm following when you talk about members who only want to do one thing, such as CP. It seems to me that you're mixing apples and oranges here. Members can participate in as little or as much of CAP missions and programs as they want. They certainly CAN do both CP and ES if they have the availability and disposition. What's your point here?

More people means more opportunity for everyone, but more importantly, less stress about viability.  As it stands today, in most wings, the same couple hundred people do everything, they may wander into and out of activities here and there, but mostly it's the same core group running, planning, and doing everything.

Why? Because they know if they don't show up, it's possible no one will.  To these people who give hundreds of hours each year, and haven't had a "vacation" in a decade, it's hard to feel sympathy for members who show up once in a while, and then complain when "CAP doesn't do anything..."

How do we fix that?  More people.  Period.

Having more people may help, but I'm not entirely sure it would solve all problems as you're always saying. These additional volunteers will most likely have jobs too or school or other commitments. I have about 90 people in my squadron. Active participation varies from time to time. But there's always a core of people that seems to do the bulk of the work. This has been true of every organization I've ever belonged to.

Seriously, the fix is literally YOU, whether that means more effort, more delegation, or better management of your particular job, the next time something isn't done, instead of looking around and up and falling back on "X" isn't doing their job, take the initiative and make it happen instead of resting on "That's wing's, group's, national's job."

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm the fix for what? Getting more people? I have almost 90 members. How many more do I need?

75-90% of all that can and does happen in CAP has to be initiated and wrench-turned at the unit level, because that's where the people, the resources, and the missions are.

The problem is that the very commanders who are failing to accept the need to grow their units, quickly, are also the ones not really interested in doing much of anything, so it's a somewhat circular problem. 

Ok, so the fix is the unit commander then. I'm a bit confused with what you're trying to say.

We can definitely use more people in CAP. We can also use more and better training. Heck, I'll even agree with you that some commanders could do a better job of growing and improving their units. But the problems in CAP are more complex that you make them to be; and so are the fixes. Getting more people may be a turn in the right direction, but in and of itself will solve no problems.

[Eclipse]

Members can participate in as little or as much of CAP missions and programs as they want. They certainly CAN do both CP and ES if they have the availability and disposition. What's your point here?

Yes, members can, the organization cannot, and commanders should not have the option.
As a commander you have a mandate to accomplish the whole mission, not just the parts you personally like or think are important. So to that end, you
find the people within your unit to fill as much of the mandate as possible, and then you lead others to working on things which aren't as much "fun",
or recruit new members to fill those roles.

"No one wants to do it." Is not an acceptable answer for why a unit isn't doing "x".

Having more people may help, but I'm not entirely sure it would solve all problems as you're always saying. These additional volunteers will most likely have jobs too or school or other commitments. I have about 90 people in my squadron. Active participation varies from time to time. But there's always a core of people that seems to do the bulk of the work. This has been true of every organization I've ever belonged to.

The reason a lot of people get jammed up and defensive when you start calling them out on participation is that far too many are doing far too much.  We should be able to allow our members the ability to pick and choose the areas they like, but
we don't have the manpower for it.  Any time a member has more then one staff job, that's a 100% fail for CAP, because
it means that either someone else is being denied the opportunity, or, more likely, there simply aren't enough people in
the unit to get things done.

If your unit has 90 members, there should be no issue with fully staffing it with single-threaded members. 
You take a unit with only 15 members, 2/3rds tha are cadets (which is common), there's very little they can do but tread water.
And as soon as someone is sick (or sick of it), the whole thing collapses. 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm the fix for what? Getting more people? I have almost 90 members. How many more do I need?

I meant "you" in the broader sense of the word.  Is your unit hitting on all missions, and all cylinders? If so, it
may be one of the small number that is.  Do you have a bunch of people who are content to sit quietly while a small number
do all the real work?  Then you're here with the majority.

Ok, so the fix is the unit commander then. I'm a bit confused with what you're trying to say.

Sure, but now we're back to the "more people" again.  In my experience, the unit that have wek commanders
are in that situation because of a legacy of low numbers and little choice for leadership.  In far too many cases,
the choice is "you, or we close".  There's no transition plane, no progressive leadership, sometimes the handover
is an email.  Hardly the way to run a paramilitary organization.  Generally the only way to fix these units
is by breaking the internal cycle and bringing in someone from the outside with the knowledge and experience to
make the choices needed for success and growth, without being bound by emotional ties to those who failed before.

Likewise, the units I've seen that are successful, have more then one person who could legitimately stand up for
commander, probably working in transition and concert with the current CC for a fair amount of time, and when
Jack gets the job, he's not so bent that he quits and tries to form his own unit, etc., etc.

[lordmonar]

Yes, members can, the organization cannot, and commanders should not have the option.

Then establish the numbers!  You say that the "organization" cannot....but our organization has a national level, regional level, wing, group, squadron and even flight level.............at which point are we "the organization"

You can expect a minimum squadron (3 SM and 7 cadets) to do CP, AE and ES......it is just impossible.
Nor should you be impling that squadrons who choose to specialize are NOT doing their part.

As a commander you have a mandate to accomplish the whole mission, not just the parts you personally like or think are important. So to that end, you find the people within your unit to fill as much of the mandate as possible, and then you lead others to working on things which aren't as much "fun", or recruit new members to fill those roles.

I would like to see that "mandate".....I have to call BS on it.....if so....why are there three types of squadrons.   CAP accepts that there are squadrons that will just do ES and squadrons that will just do CP and some that will do a little both......and of course we always just play lip service to AE.

"No one wants to do it." Is not an acceptable answer for why a unit isn't doing "x".

Really?    So.....what are my squadrons ES responsibilities?   I need actual numbers here....because "you have to do ES" is no specific enough for me to man, train and equip my squadron to perform assigned missions.

This is a cart and horse issue again.   I agree no squadron should be able to opt out of assigned missions.....but we have to be ASSIGNED those missions in the first place with production goals up front!

The rest of your post is more of the same........Yes in an idea world what you suppose is true......but CAP at the national/region/wing/group level is where this needs to come from.  And attacking individuals or individual squadrons for opting out or not doing enough is not the issue.  Just saying we need more people is not enough.     How many more?  Doing What?

When CAP produces a UMD (Unit Manning Document) for a CAP squadron with specific position numbers.....then we would be cooking with gas.   Until then you complaining that squadrons are dropping the ball is not just bouncing off our "well we are doing the best we can".

[Eclipse]

You can expect a minimum squadron (3 SM and 7 cadets) to do CP, AE and ES......it is just impossible.

I agree, they can't.  Therefore, more people.

Nor should you be impling that squadrons who choose to specialize are NOT doing their part.

Since no "part" has been defined, then mandate is the full mission.  Allowing units to self-actualize is the reason we're in the straight we are.

I would like to see that "mandate".....I have to call BS on it.....if so....why are there three types of squadrons.   CAP accepts that there are squadrons that will just do ES and squadrons that will just do CP and some that will do a little both......and of course we always just play lip service to AE.

Per CAPR 20-1, Jan 2013
They shall:

Establish plans, policies, and procedures necessary to the fulfillment of the CAP mission[/u],

Note, there is no distinction that some of the mission is "optional".  The mission is all three props.

I agree 100% AE is lip service, and needs to be absorbed into the CP, as the vast majority of it is aimed at, or for cadets.
The amount of external we do approaches zero and could be accomplished without it being a separate "mission".

I also agree the numbers and mandates should be part of a framework that comes from national, through region.  The lack of
that is a serious lack of leadership.

With that said, I fail to see how a new CC walking in the door feels comfortable saying "we don't do that", except, again, for the
lack of leadership all the way down.

Absent the direction of higher HQ, you always fallback to the regs, and the reg says "the" mission, not "a" mission.

[Storm Chaser]

I think lordmonar makes an excellent point. My current unit is a composite squadron with strong manning. We have a building with classroom, offices, telephones, computers, wifi, etc. We also have a corporate van and aircraft. We have qualified aircrews, ground teams and mission base personnel. We also have a strong cadet and AE program. With our current numbers, there's a lot we can do in all CAP missions.

I know of another unit in my group that doesn't have the infrastructure that we have. They don't have a plane or van. They are active, but can't do everything we can. Furthermore, I've been in units that had even less resources. I was in a cadet squadron once where we only had 3-4 senior members. We had a strong CP, and tried to participate in ES as much as possible, but we just didn't have the resources, including qualified personnel, to do more.

[Eclipse]

I know of another unit in my group that doesn't have the infrastructure that we have. They don't have a plane or van. They are active, but can't do everything we can. Furthermore, I've been in units that had even less resources. I was in a cadet squadron once where we only had 3-4 senior members. We had a strong CP, and tried to participate in ES as much as possible, but we just didn't have the resources, including qualified personnel, to do more.

Right, and that is all fixed with more people.

Saying "we can't do it because we don't have the people" simply isn't acceptable, because there are plenty out there, and if
there really aren't, then the unit is in the wrong place. 

[Storm Chaser]

I know of another unit in my group that doesn't have the infrastructure that we have. They don't have a plane or van. They are active, but can't do everything we can. Furthermore, I've been in units that had even less resources. I was in a cadet squadron once where we only had 3-4 senior members. We had a strong CP, and tried to participate in ES as much as possible, but we just didn't have the resources, including qualified personnel, to do more.

Right, and that is all fixed with more people.

Saying "we can't do it because we don't have the people" simply isn't acceptable, because there are plenty out there, and if
there really aren't, then the unit is in the wrong place.

Not that I disagree that we need more people, but how is more people going to get you an aircraft, van, building, etc.? Even if you recruit more people, how are you going to train them without the necessary resources? I would argue that more than more people, we need more money.

[Eclipse]

Not that I disagree that we need more people, but how is more people going to get you an aircraft, van, building, etc.? Even if you recruit more people, how are you going to train them without the necessary resources? I would argue that more than more people, we need more money.

More people = more time to perform the mission, make relationships, and do all the things that need to be done, including fundraising, to support
the additional needs.  It gives you time to think outside the boc, be creative in your activities and other tasks, and generally not feel put-upon to do "everything".
It means SUI's are a matter of course, not final exams, it means press releases about the Pancake Breakfast and Open House actually get sent, it means
the websites are updated ad aren't still announcing "Y2K preparations".

It means occasionally the members can actually do something fun , without thinking they are leaving some drudgery undone.

Airplanes are pretty easy to get if you have pilots who will fly them and cadets who need O-Rides, so are vans and other resources, which go where
the activity is, and which aren't in as short a supply as people think.

The trick is that you don't ask for the plane in anticipation of new people, you get the new people, make the effort to get them flying and otherwise
active, and then you use those numbers to justify the requests.  The problem is the first-year hump, which is a brute-force effort.

You'll have to work harder at getting people in the air, trained, and otherwise engaged, because your resources will be farther then you'd like.
Once you're past that first year, things get considerably easier, and tend to grow geometrically.

An active, engaged unit, firing on all cylinders (or at least trying to), is never going to have issues with resources or people, because they will be seen as a benefit to their
community and will not be a secret, internally or externally.

Resources scale, people and the calendar do not, so the only way to do more, is get more people.

[Walkman]

I think lordmonar makes an excellent point. My current unit is a composite squadron with strong manning. We have a building with classroom, offices, telephones, computers, wifi, etc. We also have a corporate van and aircraft. We have qualified aircrews, ground teams and mission base personnel. We also have a strong cadet and AE program. With our current numbers, there's a lot we can do in all CAP missions.

Question for you (and no attitude intended with this): have you ever been in a small squadron yourself? I've only been in units that are more like Eclipse mentions: smaller with people wearing several hats doing lots of work. My experience in CAP has been vastly different from what you describe, and frankly, I'm jealous. I'd really love to be part of a unit where I only have one DA instead of the 3+1 Group assignments I have now.

Kinda' funny and typical for CT, I had to go back and re-read the previous 5 pages on this thread to remember how we got from donating blood and the lifesaving ribbon all the way to recruiting and unit manning.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse, I'm with you......but I am talking about specific mission tasking.

By invoking 20-1 you are talking about every squadron being 100+/- members.

Each squadron would have to be able to:

Man a full mission base.....but for how long?  (let's use 72 hours as a base line)
That's a minimum of:

2 IC's
2 OSC
2 PSC
2 FSC
2 LSC
2 CULs
2 AOBD
2 GBD
2 Mission Chaplains
2 Mission Safety Officers
2 Mission PAO
2 GTLs
6-10 GTMs
2-4 MPs
2-4 MOs
2-4 MSs
4 MRO's
10-20 MSAs
4 FLM
2 FLS

That's 76 people just do the actual ES mission.....and that assumes you get everyone to respond to the mission......to ensure that your squadron could fulfill this mission you would need to have three or four times that many people.   This only allows you to sortie two aircraft and two ground teams.

Now add the squadron infrastructure......
Commander
Safety
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Deputy Commander for Cadets
Chaplain
PAO
Logistics
Transport
Communications
Operations
ES
ES-training
Professional Development
Administration
Personnel
Aerospace education

There are 16 positions listed in 20-1.....and some of them have second layers and most should have at least one assistant.

According to the member ship vs unit numbers listed in Wikipedia the average number of seniors per squadron is only 21.

Now.....yes "more members" is a solution to the problem.....but it must be done intelligently.

Wings should be telling their squadrons what specialties they should be producing for their ES requirements.
Squadrons should be told how much AE they need to be doing....how many cadets they should be servicing.
Roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined (ES officers should be coordinating with county, local and state EMS services....does that mean each squadron in a county should be calling the county EMS office?...they state EMS office?)

So.....I'm all for metrics and for squadrons being bigger....and using metrics to manage them...but we have to do it top down.

[Eclipse]

20-1 is primarily a suggestion, not a prescription, and saying that by accepting the first sentence you have to accept your laundry list is
a mischaracterizaiton at best.

I would further this conversation that it is not a requirement that every commander be able to man every position for a sustained period,
that isn't reasonable, but I would say that every commander is mandated to work towards his unit participating in a meaningful way
in all three missions, and certainly isn't empowered to simply say "we don't do that" because they aren't interested.

What the term "meaningful" entails then comes from higher HQ.  I've been pounding the table in my wing for 10 years that we need
more formalized frameworks and expectations.

Define the mission (beyond the pamphlet)
Define the capabilities.
Define the customers.
Define the scope.
Divide the resource requirements needed to fulfill the scope among the units.
Adjust as necessary and continue the process as you grow.

As you have pointed out, that simply doesn't happen, so everyone, from the top-down, self initiates and self actualizes, then we all wonder
why nothing gets done.  "Because I felt like it..." is no way to run a national organization, especially one which aspires to save lives and build leaders.

What we have today is a culture of status quo.  Inconsistently trained leaders doing their best just to keep the doors open, with no
mandate to do anything more.  The occasional, coincidental or random success and isolated activities keep people's batteries charged enough to maintain,
but nothing will change until something disruptive is force on the organization as a whole, or at least on the scale of a region.