Main Menu

The Ideal Wing.

Started by lordmonar, May 15, 2013, 09:18:41 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

QuoteAgain, non-concur.  The world has changed significantly over the past 75 years.  We need to continue to evolve with it.

Exactly what in the world has changed that makes it not possible to support CAP units in towns as small as 10,000 people?  A decent (though not large) percentage of units in my Wing are in towns not much bigger than that, so its certainly possible.  These are are small cadet squadrons, but I don't see anything wrong with that. 

QuoteI got to throw the BS flag on the ES overkill.
Let me expand a bit.  Just as a rough guess I'd say that your plan would result (assuming it was fully implemented and all the kids were recruited) of most CAP Wings being in the multi-thousand people size -- with some Wings being many more than 10,000 people. 

Now, I would agree that CAP probably needs to be at least 2-4 times as large as it is today in order to really provide the depth of bench necessary in order to always be able to field aircrews and ground teams for our typical ES missions.  That assumes that about the same percentage of members would be active in ES as are today.  However, realistically the bottleneck is senior membership and especially pilots -- a few thousand more pilots would dramatically expand our ability to respond but wouldn't change overall membership that much.

QuoteSquadron A in a largish city may have an airplane and be tasked with 9 aircrews, 3 AOBDs, 2 PSC, 10 MRO, an IC and one FSC.
That really doesn't posit the need for many more people than a typical large city squadron might have today.  I actually think that is a good goal for every squadron (maybe 3 more aircrews than I would think is necessary, but ok).  You forgot ground teams, so lets say that we want that big city squadron to have 5 10 person ground teams.  Assuming no qualification repeat, you're only talking about 85 people total. 

Obviously thats outside the range of the average 30 person CAP squadron, but in a large city its not impossible to recruit a squadron capable of that -- certainly more possible than starting dozens of new units with hundreds of new members in that same city. 

Of course, if you want to dramatically change CAP ES taskings that might change. 


Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 04:53:48 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on May 17, 2013, 02:21:46 AM
Span of control issues?  We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.

Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those  like me that are dual rated?
Some squadrons/flights would be really specilaised....i.e. only Aircrew and AOBD or GT/GLT/GBD types.  Larger units might be tasked for both.

One of the points I am trying to make here is that we build CAP based on the needs of our ES OPLAN and we equip/train/man our units based on those needs......not the other way around.

So...to be blunt....if you wanted to be duel rated...you would have to move units or find a unit willing to add you to their training rotation.
Considering that dual air and ground rating is a requirement to move up into PSC, OSC, IC making getting the other half harder could only decrease the pipeline for these ratings which at least in my neck of the woods would be a bad idea.

sarmed1

I think the idea has merit, however like some examples pointed out using political subdivisions as your basis varies greatly from location to location and will not produce consistant results in all areas.  In my local (and a number of my previous residences) they typical "squadron" usually at least in participation and for the most part in reported membership numbers is really more of a flight sized element.  Generally speaking build a squadron at the "county" level- with local flights:  you may be able to "specialize" the flights then within the squadron area of responsibilty.  Then these multiple counties could be combined into a group structure.   Same idea but IMHO a more realistic personnel goal.  As far as schools go, just my school district has 2 middle schools and one high school, in the county are at least 4 or 5 other districts with about the same number of schools.  My guess is based on the population base you would still only be able to generate a "squadron" of 10-12 students per school.  A per district level squadron would be seem more realistic.

mk
Capt.  Mark "K12" Kleibscheidel

A.Member

Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 02:05:25 PM
QuoteAgain, non-concur.  The world has changed significantly over the past 75 years.  We need to continue to evolve with it.

Exactly what in the world has changed that makes it not possible to support CAP units in towns as small as 10,000 people?
Let's see....just about everything.   

Planes aren't falling out of the sky.   Populations have shifted.   Technology has significantly changed how society/communities interact.  Political/social attitudes have changed.  There are many more competing activities/interests.  The list goes on.

Again, can smaller communities support CAP units? Sure, and some certainly do today but most don't/won't (at least not at level to be effective).
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

RiverAux

Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
[ Populations have shifted.   
Exactly -- there are more larger towns today than in the past.  Most of these 10000 person towns probably only had 2000 during WWII and they supported units back then. 

A cadet unit is possible just about anywhere that there is a senior member willing to work their butt off to start and run one.  I'm not quite as confident as lordmonar that every single middle school could support one, but I wouldn't rule it out. 

The limiting factor isn't whether or not there are kids that would join, it is whether there is an adult that wants to run one. 

A.Member

Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it.  A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it. 
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue.  Have you ever served at the Wing level?   I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated.  I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.  Can you imagine how much more time would be spent on such activities in your model?   It'd be more than a full time job for numerous people. 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

#46
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
[ Populations have shifted.   
Exactly -- there are more larger towns today than in the past.  Most of these 10000 person towns probably only had 2000 during WWII and they supported units back then. 

A cadet unit is possible just about anywhere that there is a senior member willing to work their butt off to start and run one.  I'm not quite as confident as lordmonar that every single middle school could support one, but I wouldn't rule it out. 

The limiting factor isn't whether or not there are kids that would join, it is whether there is an adult that wants to run one.
No.  You cannot cherry-pick. It's not just one factor.  It's the collective!  There is not a single successful squadron I've ever heard of that was run by one single person; it takes a lot more than that.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

#47
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it.  A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it. 
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue.  Have you ever served at the Wing level?  I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated.  I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.

If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes. 

They might "have a conversation" (after the 2nd or third failed SUI), and/or move a few empty shirts from 000 to forestall the inevitable, and then when the unit finally lands with the gear up and the tanks empty, they send an email saying "Anyone?  Bueheler?" Bueller... and then call it a day.

Unless there are enough people locally who are interested, there is very little the ubiquitous "wing staff" can do except wring their hands.  You can't fire people who have already
quit, and Mark Twain's quote about annoying people is appropo in trying to get disenfranchised members to increase performance after they have checked out.

Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Can you imagine how much more time would be spent on such activities in your model?   It'd be more than a full time job for numerous people.

Yes, it would - say something like the now defunct "Plans and Programs" staff?  An underlying thread here, which contains a point I make often and I think Lordmonor is reinforcing,
is that if CAP is going to remain viable, or (Heavens!?!) "grow", there's going to need to be >lots< of "time spent" in administrative, planning and logistics tasks to get the rust off the wheels
and have them turning again.

Sadly, the response many of us get when we raise this, is your response.  >Lots< of work, and very little of it involving actual airplanes, which
is why out esteemed and valued core group of members look at us sideways when we bring it up.  However if we want there to >be< a CAP
for our grandkids, we better get started.

"That Others May Zoom"

A.Member

Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it.  A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it. 
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue.  Have you ever served at the Wing level?  I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated.  I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.

If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah 
Sounds like a local issue.  Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

ZigZag911

Several points to ponder:

1) Plans & Programs position still exists, specialty track is gone.

2) We ought to look at something other than state-based structure for our wings, because it clearly is not working in many areas, either geographically (in terms of large distances required for travel by supervisory echelons) or demographically (in terms of smaller populated wings difficulty staffing @ wing level)

3) I think we'd dodge losing funding by "re-flagging" some of these small wings as "XX (name of state) Group"...state legislatures just wants the branding out there, don't really think they give a hoot about our internal organizational structure or nomenclature!

Eclipse

#50
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it.  A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it. 
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue.  Have you ever served at the Wing level?  I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated.  I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.

If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah 
Sounds like a local issue.  Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?

If by "volunteer to serve at wing to change this" you mean "spent the last 8-10 years trying to change attitudes, not allowing it to happen anywhere considered
my AOR while as a commander, and now having served on Wing Staff for about two years, and bringing up these issues at every opportunity I can, to the fatigue of those around me...?

Yes.

"That Others May Zoom"

johnnyb47

Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it.  A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it. 
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue.  Have you ever served at the Wing level?  I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated.  I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.

If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah 
Sounds like a local issue.  Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?

If by "volunteer to serve to serve at wing to change this" you mean "spent the last 8-10 years trying to change attitudes, not allowing it to happen anywhere considered
my AOR while as a commander, and now having served on Wing Staff for about two years, and bringing up these issues at every opportunity I can, to the fatigue of those around me...?

Yes.

So... then... you HAVE?
;D

I like you. You make me laugh while at the same time making me want to learn more about/be a bigger part of the program.
Well played, sir.
Capt
Information Technology Officer
Communications Officer


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

A.Member

#52
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it.  A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it. 
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue.  Have you ever served at the Wing level?  I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated.  I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.

If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah 
Sounds like a local issue.  Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?

If by "volunteer to serve at wing to change this" you mean "spent the last 8-10 years trying to change attitudes, not allowing it to happen anywhere considered
my AOR while as a commander, and now having served on Wing Staff for about two years, and bringing up these issues at every opportunity I can, to the fatigue of those around me...?

Yes.
Yet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist.  Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model? 

As you stated in your previous post, "unless there are enough people locally who are interested" there is not much that can be done.  That actually holds true across the all levels of the organization.   The right people are needed in the right positions at the right time.  Once again, it comes back to the people.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

#53
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 08:05:37 PMYet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist.  Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model? 

Because I've been correct in just about every other assessment and project I've undertaken within CAP.

Just because we don't have the manpower or will to do something doesn't mean it isn't the proper path to follow - it just means the people
we have are unwilling, and those in authority won't take the necessary steps to make it happen.

Give me ten or twenty people with a clue, many of them from this board, and I could "fix" CAP in 6 months, but that fix would involve >lots< of uncomfortable conversations,
and probably 30% attrition (not including the empty shirts who would be taken off the active rosters).  We wouldn't even have to change many regs, just actually read the ones we
have and follow them.

Disruptive change like this is not popular with people who enjoy the status quo, or are too short-sighted to understand that sometimes to save the patient you
have to amputate a limb, or excise the cancer.


"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
[ Populations have shifted.   
Exactly -- there are more larger towns today than in the past.  Most of these 10000 person towns probably only had 2000 during WWII and they supported units back then. 

A cadet unit is possible just about anywhere that there is a senior member willing to work their butt off to start and run one.  I'm not quite as confident as lordmonar that every single middle school could support one, but I wouldn't rule it out. 

The limiting factor isn't whether or not there are kids that would join, it is whether there is an adult that wants to run one.
No.  You cannot cherry-pick. It's not just one factor.  It's the collective!  There is not a single successful squadron I've ever heard of that was run by one single person; it takes a lot more than that.

I didn't say that they only needed one senior member, just one senior member that is willing to work their tail off to get the unit started and going.  For small units, which is what we would have in most schools in this scenario or in most small towns of 10-20K (which I inserted in the conversation), you need that hard charger.  Is a cadet unit in a small town that has 3 senior members and 15 cadets not capable of being "successful"?

A.Member

Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 08:05:37 PMYet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist.  Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model? 

Because I've been correct in just about every other assessment and project I've undertaken within CAP.

Just because we don't have the manpower or will to do something doesn't mean it isn't the proper path to follow - it just means the people
we have are unwilling, and those in authority won't take the necessary steps to make it happen.

Give me ten or twenty people with a clue, many of them from this board, and I could "fix" CAP in 6 months, but that fix would involve >lots< of uncomfortable conversations,
and probably 30% attrition (not including the empty shirts who would be taken off the active rosters).  We wouldn't even have to change many regs, just actually read the ones we
have and follow them.

Disruptive change like this is not popular with people who enjoy the status quo, or are too short-sighted to understand that sometimes to save the patient you
have to amputate a limb, or excise the cancer.
So, are you throwing in your hat in for the next Wing CC?
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 09:17:33 PM
Is a cadet unit in a small town that has 3 senior members and 15 cadets not capable of being "successful"?
Based on my experience, I'd call it a long shot at best.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 10:28:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 08:05:37 PMYet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist.  Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model? 

Because I've been correct in just about every other assessment and project I've undertaken within CAP.

Just because we don't have the manpower or will to do something doesn't mean it isn't the proper path to follow - it just means the people
we have are unwilling, and those in authority won't take the necessary steps to make it happen.

Give me ten or twenty people with a clue, many of them from this board, and I could "fix" CAP in 6 months, but that fix would involve >lots< of uncomfortable conversations,
and probably 30% attrition (not including the empty shirts who would be taken off the active rosters).  We wouldn't even have to change many regs, just actually read the ones we
have and follow them.

Disruptive change like this is not popular with people who enjoy the status quo, or are too short-sighted to understand that sometimes to save the patient you
have to amputate a limb, or excise the cancer.
So, are you throwing in your hat in for the next Wing CC?

Relevance?

"That Others May Zoom"

a2capt

Because I bet the next argument would be along the lines of "because if your not, then keep quiet". Which is in and of itself, a cop out. There's nothing wrong with giving advice, being critical, and backing it up with fact.

lordmonar

Quote from: phirons on May 17, 2013, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 04:53:48 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on May 17, 2013, 02:21:46 AM
Span of control issues?  We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.

Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those  like me that are dual rated?
Some squadrons/flights would be really specilaised....i.e. only Aircrew and AOBD or GT/GLT/GBD types.  Larger units might be tasked for both.

One of the points I am trying to make here is that we build CAP based on the needs of our ES OPLAN and we equip/train/man our units based on those needs......not the other way around.

So...to be blunt....if you wanted to be duel rated...you would have to move units or find a unit willing to add you to their training rotation.
Considering that dual air and ground rating is a requirement to move up into PSC, OSC, IC making getting the other half harder could only decrease the pipeline for these ratings which at least in my neck of the woods would be a bad idea.
Or we can pull the duel rating requirement from PSC.   
The pipeline will be no more onerous then it is currently for Senior squadrons with no Ground Team element or squadrons with no air planes.....and they seem to do okay.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP