A Song of Work and Time

[raivo]

The following are some random thoughts and I haven't bothered to organize them too terribly well (it's my day off - I reserve the right to be lazy.) Read at your own peril.

Anyhow. I got an e-mail from back home earlier today. Apparently my old squadron is on the verge of closing down because the commander is leaving and nobody wants to take the reins. At my current squadron, we've had two DCCs step down in the last eight months or so due to the time commitment required. (I was asked if I was interested in being the assistant DCC - my internal thought process was two words long, and the second one was "no." I'll leave the first one up to the imagination of the reader.)

In my opinion, CAP has a problem: specifically, that pretty much any leadership position in the organization is just way too much work. It's practically a second job that you're not getting paid for. (I got to witness this firsthand when my dad was a squadron commander.) I've observed, in about 14 years of membership, that people who get put in CAP leadership positions fall into three categories:

• The givers. They're people who contribute positively to the program, and somehow manage to balance CAP with the rest of their lives. I don't know how they do it, but somehow they do. Unfortunately, they're in the minority - and additionally, because they aren't in it for the politics (I'll address this in a second), oftentimes they don't end up in command positions.
• The politicians. CAP tends to attract a lot of these. They like power, they like rank, and they like status - to the point that they don't mind the "second job" because it allows them their own little empire. (I might sound excessively cynical... but I was in FLWG for the entirety of Tony Pineda's rise to power. 'Nuff said.) And because of this, they often end up in command positions.
• The overwhelmed. They take the job because they want to contribute to the program. But they get overwhelmed by the stress of working 40+ hours a week, having an actual life, and doing CAP things at the same time.

One of the root causes, I think, is the fact that that CAP tries really hard to be a military organization, to the point of creating CAPRs for everything... I went and checked, there's just under 80 CAPRs that commanders are responsible for complying with. That's more regulations than I have to know for my AF job, and I spend 60+ hours a week getting paid for that. Now, admittedly, not all of these are relevant to every unit (e.g., the reg on Overseas Cadet Squadrons), but that's still a lot of rules to know - and if you have a small senior staff, then that increases the amount of "jobs" that each person has to do and the number of CAPRs they're required to know. Also, to quote an AF squadron commander I knew: "I'm responsible for AFIs I don't even know exist. It's not possible to be in compliance with everything all the time - you just have to be very careful about what you're not in compliance with."

I don't have a solution, I'm just looking to hear other peoples' thoughts. I feel like CAP loses a lot of good people because it demands way too much from them.

[SunDog]

Not so random; pretty spot on. Does every sqdn need a PD officer? A PAO? I can be a MP. Or I can do another job. I can't do both. And I feel bad when I see the load my CC carries. Just too much SAS, with us trying to emulate  the organization of AD sqdns. SUIs of ridiculous granularity,  other mandates, just too many black holes sucking up the time available.

Being the maintenance officer for a sqdn with an airplane can approach full time job status.

I'm organizing the goat rope required for a Form 5. The paper chase for the douments, multiple sortie entries, multiple FRO contacts, man, it just wears you out. . .

[Panache]

Agreed.  This is dead-on accurate.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Not so random; pretty spot on. Does every sqdn need a PD officer? A PAO? I can be a MP. Or I can do another job. I can't do both. And I feel bad when I see the load my CC carries. Just too much SAS, with us trying to emulate  the organization of AD sqdns. SUIs of ridiculous granularity,  other mandates, just too many black holes sucking up the time available.

Being the maintenance officer for a sqdn with an airplane can approach full time job status.

I'm organizing the goat rope required for a Form 5. The paper chase for the douments, multiple sortie entries, multiple FRO contacts, man, it just wears you out. . .

No comment on the Form 5 and the 'bird' as I have no experience there BUT your first paragraph is spot on. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

We've been over this before, and I really don't feel like rehashing this...but being an MP is all about YOU, not the squadron. Sure, mission critical, but you're all about the toy (and even that, complaining about the process), but I'm not hearing where you carry your weight in the unit. Feel bad for the CC? Help him out...take on SOME small staff job.

[Al Sayre]

Not so random; pretty spot on. Does every sqdn need a PD officer? A PAO? I can be a MP. Or I can do another job. I can't do both. And I feel bad when I see the load my CC carries. Just too much SAS, with us trying to emulate  the organization of AD sqdns. SUIs of ridiculous granularity,  other mandates, just too many black holes sucking up the time available.

Being the maintenance officer for a sqdn with an airplane can approach full time job status.

I'm organizing the goat rope required for a Form 5. The paper chase for the douments, multiple sortie entries, multiple FRO contacts, man, it just wears you out. . .

If it takes you more than half an hour to set up a CAPF 5 ride, something is radically wrong.

[SunDog]

We've been over this before, and I really don't feel like rehashing this...but being an MP is all about YOU, not the squadron. Sure, mission critical, but you're all about the toy (and even that, complaining about the process), but I'm not hearing where you carry your weight in the unit. Feel bad for the CC? Help him out...take on SOME small staff job.

Same here, no rehash; we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one; I fly O rides, missions, MP proficeincy; I'm SETS for MP, MO, MS, and I fly training sorties for folks working on those quals.  This "all about me" doesn't ring true in my mind, not at all.  I don't see why the time contributed as a pilot is less significant than other hours donated. . 

Hey, I gave CAP 4 1/2 days in April, one of them using leave.  Doesn't include the prep hours at home, just the out-the-door time.  I got nothing left to help him with some small job.  And to be square with you, and fess up, some of thoses things are truly pointless, and I admit that makes them harder to embrace.

[SunDog]

Not so random; pretty spot on. Does every sqdn need a PD officer? A PAO? I can be a MP. Or I can do another job. I can't do both. And I feel bad when I see the load my CC carries. Just too much SAS, with us trying to emulate  the organization of AD sqdns. SUIs of ridiculous granularity,  other mandates, just too many black holes sucking up the time available.

Being the maintenance officer for a sqdn with an airplane can approach full time job status.

I'm organizing the goat rope required for a Form 5. The paper chase for the douments, multiple sortie entries, multiple FRO contacts, man, it just wears you out. . .

If it takes you more than half an hour to set up a CAPF 5 ride, something is radically wrong.

I agree. . .tests/questionaires, copies of documents to make and email, WMIRS goat-rope for multiple sorties, two FROs to deal with, track down the money guy to get the ride itself approved as a funded "A" mission, schedule the check pilot (toughest part!), get the airplane (not so tough).

I think a well organized guy could knock that out in 30 minutes. I think I'll spend maybe an hour or two on this stuff. Another two on the study/refresher (which is just part of flying, no problem with that).  The ride will take the better part of a day.

But it's my last one, so I'll make the flying part fun. . .

[JeffDG]

We've been over this before, and I really don't feel like rehashing this...but being an MP is all about YOU, not the squadron. Sure, mission critical, but you're all about the toy (and even that, complaining about the process), but I'm not hearing where you carry your weight in the unit. Feel bad for the CC? Help him out...take on SOME small staff job.

MP is an ES Qualification, it's not a duty position.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

We've been over this before, and I really don't feel like rehashing this...but being an MP is all about YOU, not the squadron. Sure, mission critical, but you're all about the toy (and even that, complaining about the process), but I'm not hearing where you carry your weight in the unit. Feel bad for the CC? Help him out...take on SOME small staff job.

Same here, no rehash; we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one; I fly O rides, missions, MP proficeincy; I'm SETS for MP, MO, MS, and I fly training sorties for folks working on those quals.  This "all about me" doesn't ring true in my mind, not at all.  I don't see why the time contributed as a pilot is less significant than other hours donated. . 

Hey, I gave CAP 4 1/2 days in April, one of them using leave.  Doesn't include the prep hours at home, just the out-the-door time.  I got nothing left to help him with some small job.  And to be square with you, and fess up, some of thoses things are truly pointless, and I admit that makes them harder to embrace.

There are similar time commitments for other ES positions. And yet I've never encountered the I'm a UDF, GTM, MS/MO (non-pilot), (AO or G)BD, PSC, OPS or IC, I don't have time to do a staff job.

[Майор Хаткевич]

We've been over this before, and I really don't feel like rehashing this...but being an MP is all about YOU, not the squadron. Sure, mission critical, but you're all about the toy (and even that, complaining about the process), but I'm not hearing where you carry your weight in the unit. Feel bad for the CC? Help him out...take on SOME small staff job.

MP is an ES Qualification, it's not a duty position.

That's my point. Sounds like he likes getting flight time. But complains about the process. He says he feels bad for the CC who has to deal with "all that other stuff", but he's part of the reason the CC IS dealing with it. Give the man a hand.

[SunDog]

Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I can make it, or why you think time spent flying missions/training is somehow "playing", while counting the widgets is "real" work?

Look, I have just so many hours to contribute; "X" amount of work has to be done in a sqdn or wing; it just doesn't matter whether the work is lumped under some aribitary category like "ES", or "Staff'.  Sitting in a cockpit, or laboring over a spreadsheet, it needs to be done.

You guys have this weird (to me) optic that "free" flying time makes  MP's work somehow sleazy, or low rent, like we're getting a free ride.  Like some kind of twisted Puritan ethic that any work that's enjoyable can't be worthy  - it's gotta hurt to count. If it helps any, I'm occasionally scared spitless?

Where I can best contribute is via my ES quals.  I can't speak for GT, but I wager the amount of time required to stay proficient as a MP exceeds that of quite a few "Staff" jobs, and several ES quals.  I'm pretty sure I'm more useful to my sqdn/wing as a competent MP, rather than as a marginally competent MP who also can certify the widget count.

IRT the OP - it was kinda about inefficiency, wasn't it? My CC is squished because he's loaded with some fairly useless nonsense to deal with. maybe keep the attention on the OP, talk it out a bit. . .

If you gave up 40 or 50 hours to CAP in April, good on ya, you know? That's probably about what I did, too.  If you did more, thank you for your service, and I truly wish I could match your contribution. But I can't. . .

[THRAWN]

Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I can make it, or why you think time spent flying missions/training is somehow "playing", while counting the widgets is "real" work?

Look, I have just so many hours to contribute; "X" amount of work has to be done in a sqdn or wing; it just doesn't matter whether the work is lumped under some aribitary category like "ES", or "Staff'.  Sitting in a cockpit, or laboring over a spreadsheet, it needs to be done.

You guys have this weird (to me) optic that "free" flying time makes  MP's work somehow sleazy, or low rent, like we're getting a free ride.  Like some kind of twisted Puritan ethic that any work that's enjoyable can't be worthy  - it's gotta hurt to count. If it helps any, I'm occasionally scared spitless?

Where I can best contribute is via my ES quals.  I can't speak for GT, but I wager the amount of time required to stay proficient as a MP exceeds that of quite a few "Staff" jobs, and several ES quals.  I'm pretty sure I'm more useful to my sqdn/wing as a competent MP, rather than as a marginally competent MP who also can certify the widget count.

IRT the OP - it was kinda about inefficiency, wasn't it? My CC is squished because he's loaded with some fairly useless nonsense to deal with. maybe keep the attention on the OP, talk it out a bit. . .

If you gave up 40 or 50 hours to CAP in April, good on ya, you know? That's probably about what I did, too.  If you did more, thank you for your service, and I truly wish I could match your contribution. But I can't. . .

It sounds like you're using your inability to manage a simple process like getting a form 5 as justification for not taking a role other than MP. If you don't want to help, just say so and be done with it. When I was DOS in NJ, we had a staffer who would spend the first 3/4 of a work night talking about "all the paperwork" that had to be done, and about an hour actually getting it done. Sounds like you have the same issue. Your list of "all the" just smack of inefficiency, coincidentally.....40-50 hours in April? Again, if you want to do it right, and be in the missions that you're training to fly, some staffers are putting in 40-50 hours per week. Figure out a way to streamline your process, move it to a less manual system and use the time savings to help out around the house.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I can make it, or why you think time spent flying missions/training is somehow "playing", while counting the widgets is "real" work?

I've got plenty of anecdotal and personally observed "I wish I could simply be an MP and do FUN stuff instead of this Squadron/Group/Wing Staff Job". It's not that these people think it stupid, or don't want to do it. It's just that a LOT of people want to do the GT/Flight Crew, and then at the end of the day, leave while the "staff wienies" are left to break down mission base, do the paperwork, and clean up the mess made by those who departed soon afterwards.


I just finished a two weekend encampment. Friday Morning to Sunday Night. As it ALWAYS happens, everyone takes off at graduation, and in the end it's a few of us clearing out of the compartments, taking our gear back to HQ, and offloading. Last year it was the Encampment commander and me (XO), alone. This year we had a few volunteer cadet staffers to offload the van and stow the gear. Most everyone else "did my job" and left after graduation.


It's the same at mission base. It's the same at meetings. Someone is left to pick up that "BS" safety leaflet off the floor at the end of the night. Typically it's the unit CC. So don't cry me a river over "I do all I can". A lot of members do a LOT MORE, and have a LOT MORE reason to complain about "THIS OR THAT", yet they get it done. They hold the same quals you do, they do staff jobs at various levels, and even hold command slots.


I just don't feel much apathy for your tale. Sorry, not sorry.

[SunDog]

AH, so THAT's where you were when I was flying back from Mission Base that night! I thought you were out for pizza and beer!

And I was torqued off you weren't there to help me re-fuel, and push that beast up the slope into the parking spot, put it to bed, do the close-out paperwork, and call the FRO.  I bet you were still there cleaning up after us when I was doing the 104 updates and finsihing up in WMIRS, adding the squawks, etc. Maybe you had time for a break when I was getting the trainees tasks updated?

Hey, light sarcasm aside, we were both working. . .not looking for your sympathy, or to bust on you, either. We all know some members have more time availble than others.  You do have control of how much time you can budget for CAP, too.  You want to carry a bigger than average load, you have my respect.  Just maybe back off a bit on the motives you ascribe to us lesser contributors.

[SunDog]

Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I can make it, or why you think time spent flying missions/training is somehow "playing", while counting the widgets is "real" work?

Look, I have just so many hours to contribute; "X" amount of work has to be done in a sqdn or wing; it just doesn't matter whether the work is lumped under some aribitary category like "ES", or "Staff'.  Sitting in a cockpit, or laboring over a spreadsheet, it needs to be done.

You guys have this weird (to me) optic that "free" flying time makes  MP's work somehow sleazy, or low rent, like we're getting a free ride.  Like some kind of twisted Puritan ethic that any work that's enjoyable can't be worthy  - it's gotta hurt to count. If it helps any, I'm occasionally scared spitless?

Where I can best contribute is via my ES quals.  I can't speak for GT, but I wager the amount of time required to stay proficient as a MP exceeds that of quite a few "Staff" jobs, and several ES quals.  I'm pretty sure I'm more useful to my sqdn/wing as a competent MP, rather than as a marginally competent MP who also can certify the widget count.

IRT the OP - it was kinda about inefficiency, wasn't it? My CC is squished because he's loaded with some fairly useless nonsense to deal with. maybe keep the attention on the OP, talk it out a bit. . .

If you gave up 40 or 50 hours to CAP in April, good on ya, you know? That's probably about what I did, too.  If you did more, thank you for your service, and I truly wish I could match your contribution. But I can't. . .

It sounds like you're using your inability to manage a simple process like getting a form 5 as justification for not taking a role other than MP. If you don't want to help, just say so and be done with it. When I was DOS in NJ, we had a staffer who would spend the first 3/4 of a work night talking about "all the paperwork" that had to be done, and about an hour actually getting it done. Sounds like you have the same issue. Your list of "all the" just smack of inefficiency, coincidentally.....40-50 hours in April? Again, if you want to do it right, and be in the missions that you're training to fly, some staffers are putting in 40-50 hours per week. Figure out a way to streamline your process, move it to a less manual system and use the time savings to help out around the house.

You may have gotten a wee bit confused about the Form 5 thing. No problem here managing it - just a fantasy to think it'll get done in 30 minutes, as someone mentioned. I guess the scheduling part could be. Chopping the onions is a small part of making the soup, though.  Anyway, scheduling a Form 5 doesn't prevent me from contributing - spending a lot of time on MP limits my hours for other tasks.

I'd suggest anyone with a job and a family who is also giving CAP 40-50 hours a week is a saint. And has some balance issues, truly.

But, again BACK to the OP; the poster suggested we are working on dumb stuff, more or less. It takes time. Lot's of it. Maybe look to clean it up some (a lot?).  Serioulsy, if a volunteer organization is spending that kind of time, routinely, on staff work, the organization has some serious efficiency probelms. Some real broken processes, right?  Working hard isn't the same as working smart, is it?

[FW]

CAP is can be many things to many people.  I just smile when members tell me about all the problems they have to "keep up".  I've spent many years "working" for this organization; many times without thanks or praise. To tell you the truth, I've enjoyed almost every minute!  The work is the work, flying is flying, but the friends I've made and the experiences I've had do not compare to the small "hassle" of the paperwork or regulations. 

Each of us determines the amount of time and effort spent on CAP.  I no longer complain about the differences in commitment; it's not worth the stress.  Do what you can, and enjoy it.  Put in that 100% of whatever it is.  Don't worry about what the other guy is doing, but help out as much as you can; it is worth the effort. 

YMMV, but I'm in my "happy place"; ready to help when needed.   

[SunDog]

Ah. . well said. Will endeavor to embrace this good advice.

[RiverAux]

Well, as pretty much everyone has veered off topic, I'll try to steer it a little back on course....

When I was a squadron commander (WIWASC) of a relatively large and active composite squadron the time commitment was not excessive, but that is pretty much because I had an active and competent Deputy Commander for Cadets who basically handled all of their issues, a competent Ops officer, and a competent Personnel/Admin officer.  The most stressful part of my job was that I couldn't find a Deputy Commander for Seniors and I had to come up with all the training topics for the unit.  I even had some good folks in some of the minor positions that required regular paperwork. 

I think that if you've got those primary positions covered, its not that big a deal.  However, I realize that I was quite lucky and that that most CAP squadrons aren't in that position. 

The other thing that made it easier was that our seniors met only twice a month, which I understand is a bit unusual.  Meeting weekly for seniors is I believe very unnecessary beyond those few seniors needed for the cadet program. 

Oh, and in response to an earlier comment -- you are required to have a PAO in every squadron even if you have to officially appoint the squadron commander to the position.   

[SunDog]

I believe you are correct, a PAO is required.  Maybe one of the myriad items in the CAP quagmire that doesn't always, or even often, make sense? 

[Майор Хаткевич]

I believe you are correct, a PAO is required.  Maybe one of the myriad items in the CAP quagmire that doesn't always, or even often, make sense?

You do know the "best kept secret in America" is a statement with a negative connotation, right?

[SunDog]

Just saying, CAP has real big problems with process, with procedure, with organization.  Our model for managment isn't working real well.  If we neeed constant heroics, in terms of hours required, to get the job done, we should be looking at the components of the job, get some serious analysis goping on the burden pushed down to the sqdn level. Bite the bullet, start looking at some business process re-engineering. Big time.

My thought was some staff functions are a drain on resources (people time), compared to the value returned.  One size fits all may not be smart; Riveraux mention once being CC of a good sized sqdn, and it sounded like they had a lot going on, plenty of moving parts.  Maybe a PAO and a PD officer provided a good return for that sqdn?

Smaller sqdn, maybe not so much?  Not completelty without value, just not worth diluting the hours available for things with more meaningful returns.  Not picking on PAO, or PD, for that matter, just a generic example of the bigger picture.

For my sqdn, it'd make sense to pass something up to a wing PAO, let them flog it around.  Lot's of things are "good ideas", stand alone, like flossing or washing your car.  Probably not as important as seeing to that pace-maker battery or replacing your brakes.  With limited resources (people, time), it seems like we should have some discipline about budgeting the FTEs we have, be smart enough to streamline our processes, tailor them to situations and reality.

It sounds like we're hurting for people, though I don't know the big picture.  I thinkj Eclipse mentioned we're loosing sqdns. We all know the books are cooked for membership count, at least regarding active, contributing members. 

My intutition is CAP is probaly well on the wrong side of the curve, as far as process management.  A glance at the list of Pubs, Forms, and Regs is a clear indication that we're in need of a makeover.  Whatever your area of interest, staff, ES, CP, whatever, you'll run into processes that wern't thought through for the last mile, or contain redundancy, or data collection that isn't used.

Tough to change a culture; some organizations try and fail, or resist and die. CAP will be here next year, change or no change. Probably be here in ten years, too, but perhaps with real tough changes made - imposed by circumstance, rather than self-initiated.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Smaller sqdn, maybe not so much?  Not completelty without value, just not worth diluting the hours available for things with more meaningful returns.  Not picking on PAO, or PD, for that matter, just a generic example of the bigger picture.

Smaller units are the ones that NEED a good PAO. Marketing, marketing, marketing. They need to get new members, not just "be", because that will lead to "were".

[raivo]

Tough to change a culture; some organizations try and fail, or resist and die. CAP will be here next year, change or no change. Probably be here in ten years, too, but perhaps with real tough changes made - imposed by circumstance, rather than self-initiated.

Indeed. The USAF ICBM community is experiencing this firsthand right now.

[SunDog]

Smaller sqdn, maybe not so much?  Not completelty without value, just not worth diluting the hours available for things with more meaningful returns.  Not picking on PAO, or PD, for that matter, just a generic example of the bigger picture.

Smaller units are the ones that NEED a good PAO. Marketing, marketing, marketing. They need to get new members, not just "be", because that will lead to "were".

Sigh. . .flip the binoculars around, forget the PAO thingy for now; Bigger picture issues, per OP? Deck chairs, Titanic, that sort of perspective?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Well that's the thing. There's only 5-6 required positions. Grow with the unit on the rest.

[JeffDG]

Well that's the thing. There's only 5-6 required positions. Grow with the unit on the rest.

Commander
Safety (CAPR 62-1, 3(a)(1))
Supply (CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Communications ((CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Public Affairs (CAPR 190-1, 3(a))


Any that I'm missing?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Finance?

[NC Hokie]

Finance?

Yep, that's one too.

[SunDog]

It isn't the positions so much as it is the work they do - the value/impact/necessity of the time spent.  SUI, other paper chases, forms, administirvia, blockers in the way of mission accomplishment.

I don't care if they add 20 required positions, or eliminate all but two; if the processes stay broke, CAP stays stuck in the rut.  And the churn. Good weekend on ya. . . all. .

[Eclipse]

Well that's the thing. There's only 5-6 required positions. Grow with the unit on the rest.

Commander
Safety (CAPR 62-1, 3(a)(1))
Supply (CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Communications ((CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Public Affairs (CAPR 190-1, 3(a))


Any that I'm missing?

Isn't AEO required now?

Though the nuance between "required" and "can't be the CC" is lost on smaller units, I think the only one that can't be the CC as ADY is Finance.
All the rest can just be the CC.

[Eclipse]

I went and checked, there's just under 80 CAPRs that commanders are responsible for complying with.

I can't tell you how many frustrating conversations I've had with a staffer at a higher echelon where they were woefully misinformed
about their specific lane, when all they had one one reg or process to deal with.

"All you need to know is one CAPR. I have to know >all< of them..."

[Eclipse]

If it takes you more than half an hour to set up a CAPF 5 ride, something is radically wrong.

Seriously.

Your pilot records should be current and why would you need multiple FROs?

[SunDog]

Need to scan the docs and email 'em every year. I don't  have the check list with me right now, but it's a few FAA, and a couple CAP docs. I do recall front-and-back for my ticket, and perhaps the medical. More than one, less than six?  Honestly, the Form 5 isn't the worst process, just another clunky one. . . anyway;

C12 to fly to and from the checkride airport, normal FRO, two releases, two WMIRS, two 104, etc. . .

"A"  something or other for the checkride, has to be an IC. I hear that's peculiar to a few wings.

So, three sorties in WMIRS, of course. . .it's not bugging me that much this time; it's my last Form 5, so just gonna enjoy the x-ctry and the checkride. Doing recon for some buds on a new CP, since I have nothing to lose!

I almost let the system trip me up on an AFAM recently; on an out and back sortie (4+ hours), weather got hinky, wind came up, and there was a big runway, into the wind, right under me. And Flight Service telling me it was all gonna be good in about two hours.

I almost pressed on to home-drome, since I knew it'd be a mess for the IC; multiple aircraft on the missoin, sorties gacked/changed already, etc.  Then I realized I didn't care, actually - not my problem!  And besides, we had bio needs.  I wasn't listening to the CAP FM, but the MO was still talking a rope when we entered the pattern. . .They wanted "clarification" and "intentions" and RSVP; I bailed him out, told him to hang-up and help me look for traffic and listen for ATC calls. We had burgers.

But gad! They're still sorting that one out six weeks later - I got an email regarding Hobbs and fuel this morning. . ..

If I'd pranged the beast on the x-wind at home-dome, I'd be under the bus (probably rightfully so, and upset with myself). . .

[Eclipse]

You've got a lot of "not related to F5" in there mixed in with your F5.

...not my problem!

This seems to be a mantra with your CAP involvement, and for the record, telling an MO to "hang-up" on mission comms
and listen to ATC calls, especially when you're making a descision which breaks your sortie plan is not only >NOT< proper procedure,
but an excellent way to not have to worry about flying CAP planes for a while.

[SunDog]

Sometimes I'm not sure when you're serious, and when you are not. . . are you just trying to wind me up, for the entertainment value? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when an IC whined about it: (not that ours did - he's a good guy, with common sense. He understood we were busy and he'd have to wait. And that it was my call to make).

IC:  "That danged pilot decided to make a precautionary landing for weather, etc., and I want that SOB 2B'ed TODAY!"

WK: "Did they call in and tell you their plan?"

IC: "Yes, the arrogant, communist inspired, Volvo driving, Brie eating, no good. . .and he and the MO stopped answering the FM!"

WK: "Wasn't he about to enter the traffic pattern at a busy airport?"

IC: "Just an excuse . .we still needed critical information regarding the sortie - some real 'can't-wait' stuff, like wheels up time. . .and such."

WK: "Didn't he call you from his cell after parking the airplane - like in five minutes or so?"

IC: "Correct - he delayed our critical decision making for his own convenience; he has to go Colonel!"

WK: "What were the winds at home-drome?"

IC:  "15, gusts to 24. But the x-wind component was only 19 or so; and that runway is 25 feet wide! I can park my Studebaker in my driveway, and THAT's only 8 feet wide!"

WK: "Heck, that car weighs more than the airplane; you must be a heck of a driver! This guy sounds lame. . How many aircraft were still up/"

IC: : "Uh, no others. He was last one in."

WK: "O.K. to summarize, this guy landed out for winds and bio break, after a 4 hour sortie, told you all about it, where he was, where he was landing,  then went off-line at or near pattern entry time? Then called you with down-safe, in something like less than 10 minutes or so?"

IC: "Sadly, it gets worse. Earlier, he made us wait while he was talking to Flight Service.  The MO told US to standby while the MP was yammering on VHF over weather or some other trivia. . .

WK: "Wow. Self absorbed jerk, sounds like. . ."

IC: "Exactly! AND - he skipped the change of command and always wears a polo and grays!"?

WK: "Oh yeah, he's gotta go. Gimme the form. . ."

[SunDog]

But we digress from OP again!

Someone, anyone, (other than Eclipse or me) suggest one process that is inefficient ot excessivley time consuming, a good candidate for re-engineering? 

[Eclipse]

Sometimes I'm not sure when you're serious, and when you are not. . . are you just trying to wind me up, for the entertainment value? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when an IC whined about it: (not that ours did - he's a good guy, with common sense. He understood we were busy and he'd have to wait. And that it was my call to make).

Both, since you make them conveniently accessible.

MO's are not "co-pilots" and don't need to be on ATC for any reason - that takes them >OFF< the radio
they are assigned to be on.  A PIC negotiating a complex pattern and talking to ATC does not in any
way impact or negate the MO's need to stay in contact with mission base, assuming that is part of the
sortie profile.

This kind of nonsense is why we have constant issues with radio panels being changed around
from the preferred configurations and less experienced MOs not being able to communicate and/or
Beckers tuned to commercial radio stations.

But we digress from OP again!

Actually this is pretty much on-topic.

One of the reasons the regulations are so complex and in some places convoluted is because of
members over the years "knowing better", forcing the leadership to add more verbiage
to accommodate the anticipated nonsense of people who can't jsut follow the rules and use
common sense without every action being a political statement about who's in charge,
or which procedures are actually "optional" in the eyes of a given "empowered" individual.

[Alaric]

Well that's the thing. There's only 5-6 required positions. Grow with the unit on the rest.

Commander
Safety (CAPR 62-1, 3(a)(1))
Supply (CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Communications ((CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Public Affairs (CAPR 190-1, 3(a))


Any that I'm missing?

Isn't AEO required now?

Though the nuance between "required" and "can't be the CC" is lost on smaller units, I think the only one that can't be the CC as ADY is Finance.
All the rest can just be the CC.

Safety can not be the CC

[Eclipse]

Safety can not be the CC

CAPR 5-4 Page 1
b. "Should" indicates a non-mandatory or preferred method of accomplishment
[nondirective].

CAPR 62-1 Page 2
(1) Every chartered unit (except region HQ and wing 000 and 999) shall formally
appoint a safety officer in eServices with qualifications appropriate to that unit's operational
activities. Members in command positions should not simultaneously serve as that unit's safety
officer. Whenever possible, and especially in flying units, members with flying experience
should be selected as a safety officer. Safety officers will report directly to the commander
(reference CAPR 20-1, Organization of Civil Air Patrol).

[JeffDG]

Well that's the thing. There's only 5-6 required positions. Grow with the unit on the rest.

Commander
Safety (CAPR 62-1, 3(a)(1))
Supply (CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Communications ((CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Public Affairs (CAPR 190-1, 3(a))


Any that I'm missing?

Isn't AEO required now?

Though the nuance between "required" and "can't be the CC" is lost on smaller units, I think the only one that can't be the CC as ADY is Finance.
All the rest can just be the CC.

Safety can not be the CC

Eclipse hit safety.

IG cannot perform any other duty position while being IG...only applies to the primary, IG, not assistants.

[raivo]

One of the reasons the regulations are so complex and in some places convoluted is because of members over the years "knowing better", forcing the leadership to add more verbiage to accommodate the anticipated nonsense of people who can't jsut follow the rules and use common sense without every action being a political statement about who's in charge, or which procedures are actually "optional" in the eyes of a given "empowered" individual.

True, but I think that at a certain point, more regulation actually makes that problem worse rather than better.

[Eclipse]

One of the reasons the regulations are so complex and in some places convoluted is because of members over the years "knowing better", forcing the leadership to add more verbiage to accommodate the anticipated nonsense of people who can't jsut follow the rules and use common sense without every action being a political statement about who's in charge, or which procedures are actually "optional" in the eyes of a given "empowered" individual.

True, but I think that at a certain point, more regulation actually makes that problem worse rather than better.

Agreed.  You can't account for every bone-headed thing people will do, our members are nothing, if not "creative" in this regard.

Absent strong leadership, consistent training, and ramifications when people are negligent, "know better", "empowered" or
otherwise make up things along the way, this is the result.

[SunDog]

Sometimes I'm not sure when you're serious, and when you are not. . . are you just trying to wind me up, for the entertainment value? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when an IC whined about it: (not that ours did - he's a good guy, with common sense. He understood we were busy and he'd have to wait. And that it was my call to make).

Both, since you make them conveniently accessible.

MO's are not "co-pilots" and don't need to be on ATC for any reason - that takes them >OFF< the radio
they are assigned to be on.  A PIC negotiating a complex pattern and talking to ATC does not in any
way impact or negate the MO's need to stay in contact with mission base, assuming that is part of the
sortie profile.

This kind of nonsense is why we have constant issues with radio panels being changed around
from the preferred configurations and less experienced MOs not being able to communicate and/or
Beckers tuned to commercial radio stations.

But we digress from OP again!

Actually this is pretty much on-topic.

One of the reasons the regulations are so complex and in some places convoluted is because of
members over the years "knowing better", forcing the leadership to add more verbiage
to accommodate the anticipated nonsense of people who can't jsut follow the rules and use
common sense without every action being a political statement about who's in charge,
or which procedures are actually "optional" in the eyes of a given "empowered" individual.

Geez, you were serious. . .but goofing aside. . .

There is a lot of back and forth now, in studying management, and command and control, very centralized, vs pushing tactical decision making down to the lowest level possible. Pros and cons, both ways.  Good comms figure in big, of course. Not just the technical aspects, but the cycles required at both ends of the link.

In practical terms, I think you'll get quite a bit of the situation we bantered about here; published doctrine can't anticipate all scenarios, and frankly, the corporate culture can't enforce all that is published.  There isn't a realistic way (or need) for the central C&C to prevent occasional break in comms, such as the one described. Not in CAP air ops, anyway. I joked about it, but truly, who would try and make an issue of a pee/weather divert? Or make a issue of the crew managing the cockpit as they see fit, per the tactical situation?

Uncontrolled airspace, with little traffic, day VFR, is very diffrent than operating in a FRZ, in Class B, night & IFR.  Bewteen the extremes, the crew requires flexibility. I can't say we did (or did not) break doctrine. I can say I was sure a few minutes didn't matter, and that in my experience with CAP, it wasn't going to be an issue. And I really shouldn't have cared if my decision was an inconvenience for the IC, given the facts.  We decided to land, for our comfort and saftey. Once that call was made, the IC wasn't part of the equation for the next few minutes.  Doesn't mean he wasn't still the IC, or that he wasn't in charge of the mission. Just didn't need him in the loop for a bit. 

I think you are right, that in reacting to more egregious examples, management propagates more lines of "code" that muddy the water.  But management isn't "forced" to do so;  it's just the best response they can imagine, lame as it is.  Human condition, to want more control, and aircrew are no exception. And CAP management definitley is no exception. And it's human to perceive what the "real" rules are, and fill the power vacuum. 

[raivo]

Well, to paraphrase Syndrome from The Incredibles... "when everything's important, nothing is." I've seen this extensively in my AFSC. We were at the point where we had so many "command directives" that it was virtually impossible to comply with all of them. Some of them are pretty important (weapon safety rules), some of them are less important (25mph speed limit on gravel roads, even when the posted speed limit is 40mph), and some of them are absolutely asinine (checkboxes must be marked with an "X", not a "✓"- and if the "X" extends outside the box, you must write a Memorandum For Record documenting the deviation.)

But when you set "100% compliance with every iota of every far-fetched HHQ directive" (or, to quote a former CAP wing commander, "COMPLIANCE = MISSION READY") as the standard, you're setting yourself up for failure because people aren't drones and don't react well to micromanagement - it becomes a game of "what can I get away with cutting corners on." CAP-wise, there's a wide spectrum between "fly your airplane safely," "comply with all relevant FAA regulations," and "fly your airplane at X' AMSL at all times, never bank past 5 degrees, obtain approval from the region commander before doing Y, Z, or A." (Disclaimer: Example is probably not realistic, I haven't done anything piloting-related in years.)

Back to my original thought, then... CAP has a unique challenge in that regard because we can't really hold people accountable for "being stupid" (barring actual criminal activity) beyond terminating their membership, which makes it harder to put someone in charge of a unit and say "Here you go. Don't mess this up." Whereas in the military, you can be removed from command, reprimanded, and depending on how badly you messed up, possibly court-martialed. (Which in itself, leads to a tendency to micromanage in order to avoid that, but that's a different conversation.)

Ideally, I'd like for commanders to be put in charge, told "Don't mess this up", have a staff of people who they can tell "Here's your specific job. Don't mess it up" and trust that they can all do that well and efficiently. That's a utopian pipe dream, obviously, but I feel like we should be able to do better than trying to micromanage a group of volunteers through CAPRs.

Edit: I'm not being deliberately redundant - SunDog posted while I was writing this.

[Eclipse]

Doesn't mean he wasn't still the IC, or that he wasn't in charge of the mission. Just didn't need him in the loop for a bit. 

Well, at least your "decision" didn't cause anyone else any issues or problems.

But gad! They're still sorting that one out six weeks later - I got an email regarding Hobbs and fuel this morning. . .

Oh, yeah...but "not your problem" right?

[SunDog]

Doesn't mean he wasn't still the IC, or that he wasn't in charge of the mission. Just didn't need him in the loop for a bit. 

Well, at least your "decision" didn't cause anyone else any issues or problems.

But gad! They're still sorting that one out six weeks later - I got an email regarding Hobbs and fuel this morning. . .

Oh, yeah...but "not your problem" right?

Was my problem a wee bit, since we're on the same team . . . I did answer Q's as best I good. . .But to your point, and to answer you honestly: Correct - not my problem.  That the process is gacked, I can do nothing about, except rant a bit here. And that's grown old.

Not dissing you, sincerely.  We disagree on process and management. So be it.  It is clear you've given much to CAP, and the organization is frustrating as heck for you. But you persevere, to the greater good of CAP, I think. 

But I'm out of cycles to spend on this. So I'm gonna shut up, fly out this summer, and slip away quietly at the conclusion of hurricane season.  I hope you see changes in CAP that make sense. 

[Eclipse]

Nice try!

A conciliatory tone will gain you nothing but respect here...

[Tim Medeiros]

Well that's the thing. There's only 5-6 required positions. Grow with the unit on the rest.

Commander
Safety (CAPR 62-1, 3(a)(1))
Supply (CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Communications ((CAPR 174-1 1-6(j)(1))
Public Affairs (CAPR 190-1, 3(a))


Any that I'm missing?

Isn't AEO required now?

Though the nuance between "required" and "can't be the CC" is lost on smaller units, I think the only one that can't be the CC as ADY is Finance.
All the rest can just be the CC.

Safety can not be the CC

Eclipse hit safety.

IG cannot perform any other duty position while being IG...only applies to the primary, IG, not assistants.

Unless of course the person who is or is looking to be an assistant IG is in a command spot.

Commanders, vice commanders, chiefs of staff or those serving in any other
command staff position will not serve as inspectors general, assistant inspectors general or
investigating officers. Command staff members may serve as inspectors on inspection teams.

[Wild Weasel]

My experience has been I am expected to spend much more time on CAP (to be a productive member) than as a a board member for other non-profits.  Weekly 2 hour meeting, finance officer duties, fundraising work, SUI prep, SarEx weekends....it's why most of my squadron's active members are retired: they have time available. 

Do I freely choose to commit the time? yes.  Will I decide at some point that my career, church & family life would be in better balance joining the board of directors of the local Literacy Council or Red Cross? likely.

It's in part a matter of how many hours a month one is willing to commit to volunteerism.  My current CAP role requires about 20 hour/month to do well.  Most non-profit boards require about 5-10 hours/month to do well. 

I could argue the time spent on a non-profit board is a much more efficient use of my time & leadership.  My CAP-time is 90% compliance work (file the form properly & timely) whereas my non-profit board member time is 90% thinking about strategy execution & efficient management. 

[Eclipse]

My experience has been I am expected to spend much more time on CAP (to be a productive member) than as a a board member for other non-profits.  Weekly 2 hour meeting, finance officer duties, fundraising work, SUI prep, SarEx weekends....it's why most of my squadron's active members are retired: they have time available. 

The problem is you're doing multiple jobs, as do most involved senior members at one time or another.

If CAP were properly manned and staffed, that list above would be 3-4 people, at least, not one.

How many jobs do you have on your non-profit board?  Also, sitting on aboard generally means strategic direction
for others to actually accomplish.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I have to call BS on the 90% mark...20 hours a month, and you spend doing 18 on paperwork? Clay tablets or something?

[Wild Weasel]

Large squadron.  Check requests, weekly deposits, updating Quickbooks with cash activity, budget monitoring, grant writing (after applying for wing permission), and finance committee meeting prep time & minute taking.  It's 12-15 hours/month of documentation to keep finance SUI squared away....more at fiscal year-end, less during the year.  I could be slow.

I'm also a GTL, and nobody leaves base without a good bit of paperwork completed about team members, assignments, weather, medical contacts; ORM checklist, van inspected, radios signed in & out, debrief report.....

I'm not complaining, but CAP volunteerism in my personal experience has required a commitment to good documentation.   

[AirAux]

unless i am mistaken, I believe squadrons are dropping of fthe charts instead of growing.  Much of this has to do with frustration and the confusion of the program.  What is CAP?  If a direvative of the Air Force, isn't it about flying?  Seemed like the thing used to be Search and rescue, with cadet progam and some aerospace education.  Well, the public no longer needs training on aerospace education.  Most people know more about aviation than we teach.  Drones are soon going to be the really big thing and will replace what we do without risk to life or limb.  Do we chase drug runners, do we fly target missions for protectors of the White House. do we photo areas of hurricane damage, do we become the weatehr keepers of the climate change, do we go camping once a month to develop Scout abilities, What is it we do?  As far as wasting time, a perfect example, the WING BANKER.  You will love it, you will never have to do another finance report.  Your money will always be available to you (unless Wing doesn't agree with your Finance committee on needs for expenditure).  Now we get dinged for not doing a monthly finance report by the IG.  We are to furnish a budget, however our budget showing we have $5,000.00 in the bank and will spend a $1,000.00 this year is not acceptable.  We have to show that we will be earning $1,000.00 this year also.  The cadets are doing testing on line.  We have no idea as to what is going on with them as far as why they are failing or passing.  Our Chaplains are activated to help the Reserves, but the rest of us can't even get on base anymore.  We used to get flights in 141's, C130's, refuelers, etc.  Now we can't even get on an Air Force base for a summer encampment for the Cadets.  The future doesn't look good and the presence sorta sucketh greatly.  And yes, I am grinding out my weekly hours and spinning my wheels, but it ain't gotten better with time.   Cadet in the 60's, senior since the 70's.   

[Spaceman3750]

Half of the GTL stuff you describe is one form. The vehicle inspection can easily be completed by team members. If it takes you more than 5 minutes to do ORM paperwork either you are doing it wrong or the form sucks.

Quick books what? Not saying finance isn't a PITA, but you shouldn't have to be maintaining Quickbooks anything...

[Майор Хаткевич]

The cadets are doing testing on line.  We have no idea as to what is going on with them as far as why they are failing or passing.

Probably the same reasons as before? Lack of studying? Have you tried asking...the cadets?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

One or more people in the CP team should be able to get reports on test attempts from eServices

[Eclipse]

unless i am mistaken, I believe squadrons are dropping of fthe charts instead of growing.  Much of this has to do with frustration and the confusion of the program.  What is CAP?  If a direvative of the Air Force, isn't it about flying?  Seemed like the thing used to be Search and rescue, with cadet progam and some aerospace education.  Well, the public no longer needs training on aerospace education.  Most people know more about aviation than we teach.  Drones are soon going to be the really big thing and will replace what we do without risk to life or limb.  Do we chase drug runners, do we fly target missions for protectors of the White House. do we photo areas of hurricane damage, do we become the weatehr keepers of the climate change, do we go camping once a month to develop Scout abilities, What is it we do?  As far as wasting time, a perfect example, the WING BANKER.  You will love it, you will never have to do another finance report.  Your money will always be available to you (unless Wing doesn't agree with your Finance committee on needs for expenditure).  Now we get dinged for not doing a monthly finance report by the IG.  We are to furnish a budget, however our budget showing we have $5,000.00 in the bank and will spend a $1,000.00 this year is not acceptable.  We have to show that we will be earning $1,000.00 this year also.  The cadets are doing testing on line.  We have no idea as to what is going on with them as far as why they are failing or passing.  Our Chaplains are activated to help the Reserves, but the rest of us can't even get on base anymore.  We used to get flights in 141's, C130's, refuelers, etc.  Now we can't even get on an Air Force base for a summer encampment for the Cadets.  The future doesn't look good and the presence sorta sucketh greatly.  And yes, I am grinding out my weekly hours and spinning my wheels, but it ain't gotten better with time.   Cadet in the 60's, senior since the 70's.

There's some legit issues in here, but you're mixing some things which are necessary and you didn't do correctly, and some things which are problems.

Ie. "We have $5k and will spend $1k" ois not a "budget".

[JeffDG]

There's some legit issues in here, but you're mixing some things which are necessary and you didn't do correctly, and some things which are problems.

Ie. "We have $5k and will spend $1k" ois not a "budget".

Yeah, but the insistence on zero-based "budgetting" is also a PITA...as a non-profit, you still do a P&L, but you just call it a "Surplus" or "Deficit", not a "Profit" or "Loss".

I guess asking folks to do appropriate financials, like a separate Cash Flow and P&L might be asking too much, God forbid a Balance Sheet.

[AirAux]

Jeff, we always did a balance sheet wjen we handled the finances, but since the WING BANKER, we have different hoops to jump through and no longer have access to OUR money which we raised to spend on CAP activities and supplies as we see fit, not as Wing feels appropriate.  We don't always know if we will want to spend 250.00 next June for a Sqdn BBQ or December for a Christmas party, but now they want this all figured out in the beginning of the year.  It is just BS.  More micromanagement and I get plenty of that at my real job.  (And yes, I know it is really CAP money even though we raised it with the idea that it would be spent locally).  For those of you that think making the program more like the military is a good thing because it makes you feel like you are in the military, let me clue you in, you are not a VET until you have been in the real military and had the opportunity to have your butt on the line or been where you can see the horrors of war.  It isn't a glorious game and being a CAP Captain will never give you the credentials a RM PFC has.  Some gave all, all gave some.  That is all there is to say about that.

[Eclipse]

You have 100% access to your money and the WBP has zero say how you spend it.  If anything is
different and you feel it is in violation of the program file a complaint. Experience has shown
that CC's and local finance people with unti credit cards or a checkbook in their physical hands
can lead to all sorts of "badness".  Like most things in CAP, bad actors brought us to where we are today.

You also don't >need< to know if you want to want to spend $250 on a BBQ next June.  If things change,
amend the budget, or simply put in the request, again, the WBP has no say over how you spend your money.
They may try and insinuate they do, but they don't BTDT.

No similar organization expects anything less - my wife is the Finance Chair for the scout troop - the money
is held more locally, but there's still the same committees and approvals needed.

[Eclipse]

Back to the OP's point.

The fix for every problem CAP has today is MORE PEOPLE.

Period.

Not money, not planes, not uniforms...people.

More people = more time, more hands and more contacts.

Get more people and everything else falls into place.

So simple, yet seemingly lost on NHQ.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Lost on many units as well. Recruiting is simply not a priority....at any level.

[RiverAux]

I could argue the time spent on a non-profit board is a much more efficient use of my time & leadership.  My CAP-time is 90% compliance work (file the form properly & timely) whereas my non-profit board member time is 90% thinking about strategy execution & efficient management.

Sort of an apples and oranges comparison.  Being a board member isn't equivalent to being a squadron commander.  Trying comparing how much time the Executive Director of your non-profit spends on their work vs a CAP squadron commander and I bet a lot of the issues and time requirements are similar. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

There are some people for whom CAP=LIFE=CAP.

Many of these (not all) are retirees/empty-nesters who can afford (financially and time-wise) to be at every mission, every training activity, every SUI (though I believe the SUI concept has merit, I believe that it is taken WAY too far to the Nth Degree) to do that.  I say "more power to them," except for the ones who openly try to use their involvement for sucking up political advancement.

However, most of us, for work/health/family/personal reasons, cannot give that kind of commitment.

[Eclipse]

There are some people for whom CAP=LIFE=CAP.

Many of these (not all) are retirees/empty-nesters who can afford (financially and time-wise) to be at every mission, every training activity, every SUI (though I believe the SUI concept has merit, I believe that it is taken WAY too far to the Nth Degree) to do that.  I say "more power to them," except for the ones who openly try to use their involvement for sucking up political advancement.

However, most of us, for work/health/family/personal reasons, cannot give that kind of commitment.

So...then we just don't do what needs to be done, and/or resent the people who do put in mondo hours?

I don't understand these responses - everyone contributes as they can, that's the nature of CAP, but
just because you have a restriction, whether physical, work related, family issues, whatever, that precludes
you from either putting in "more" or putting in "what you'd like" doesn't mean you should get defensive
about what you >can< do.

It doesn't matter, even a little, to the workload why a given person is or isn't engaged, it either gets done
or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, the pile is still there, left for someone else, usually the CC.

This calls back to the "more people" broken record.  If CAP units were properly manned and staffed,
and we could pry the dead fingers off some delegation by poor managers, we would not be having these conversations.

1 person working 40 hours a week on CAP is not the same as 40 people working 1 - because those 40 people will
all have "more" left, while that one person's cup is likely empty.

Unless they >want< to, no one should feel that their decision to participate in one area detracts from the
efficacy of another area.  Any time that happens, the "more people" issue is staring you in the face.

[raivo]

Well, having more people helps, but in my view that's more of a "band-aid" fix on the root problem of generating too much unnecessary work for people. Because (and this happens in the RM, and in the corporate world as well) the "higher-ups" look down and see a bunch of units that are getting everything done that they're required to... and don't think it'll be too much of a burden to add a little extra regulation here, or a few more "compliance" items there. And eventually it gets to the point where people start punching out because the "queep" has slowly but gradually crept up to the point that it's taking up so much time that it's just not worth dealing with.

Point in case: I took about a year and a half off from CAP, and while I was gone the concept of "safety currency" was introduced. Due to my work schedule, I ended up missing the meeting with the monthly safety briefing, then the next month got "restricted" from participating in the meeting until I went and did a safety module online. In what universe does it make sense that I, as a responsible adult (who happens to be a military officer who routinely has custody of nuclear weapons) am too dangerous to participate in CAP activities until I've taken a ten-question test on how to use a fire extinguisher? Now that's a fairly minor timesink, but that's the kind of thing that adds up over time.

So...then we just don't do what needs to be done, and/or resent the people who do put in mondo hours?

I don't understand these responses - everyone contributes as they can, that's the nature of CAP, but
just because you have a restriction, whether physical, work related, family issues, whatever, that precludes
you from either putting in "more" or putting in "what you'd like" doesn't mean you should get defensive
about what you >can< do.

It doesn't matter, even a little, to the workload why a given person is or isn't engaged, it either gets done
or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, the pile is still there, left for someone else, usually the CC.

This calls back to the "more people" broken record.  If CAP units were properly manned and staffed,
and we could pry the dead fingers off some delegation by poor managers, we would not be having these conversations.

So that's where I respectfully disagree - I don't think more people is the long-term answer to the workload, I think we should be looking at the workload and tossing out the things that are unnecessary.

[Eclipse]

So that's where I respectfully disagree - I don't think more people is the long-term answer to the workload, I think we should be looking at the workload and tossing out the things that are unnecessary.

So you would argue that CAP, on the average, is appropriately manned and staffed?

[raivo]

No, but I think if you solve the "queep" problem, then that will also solve (or alleviate) the retention problem.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So...then we just don't do what needs to be done, and/or resent the people who do put in mondo hours?

I am not suggesting resentment of anyone, unless it is of people within CAP who are shameless, self-promoting (in every sense of the word) operatives of the GOB/GN.

As I said, some of the people who are able/willing to put in those kind of hours are often people with very few other commitments in life - I used retirees and empty-nesters as a couple of examples.  I personally know one who is a Lieutenant Colonel, well-known at Group, Wing and Region level, the recipient of many well-deserved commendations and accolades, and who is one of the most ethical people I can think of.  This person would never try to ingratiate with any GOB/GN.  Said person is also divorced, with grown children and I think may be self-employed.  This Lt Col is at virtually EVERY CAP activity.  I have no resentment toward this person at all, nor to the many others like this one who put in such time in CAP - because they are able to.

I don't understand these responses - everyone contributes as they can, that's the nature of CAP, but just because you have a restriction, whether physical, work related, family issues, whatever, that precludes you from either putting in "more" or putting in "what you'd like" doesn't mean you should get defensive about what you >can< do.

No, but what I do tend to get a bit defensive about are those "shameless self-promoters" I mentioned who do try to belittle what others do to make themselves look "better."  However, you find those types of jerks in virtually any walk of life, whether employment or volunteer...the "Eddie Haskell" type.

It doesn't matter, even a little, to the workload why a given person is or isn't engaged, it either gets done or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, the pile is still there, left for someone else, usually the CC.

This calls back to the "more people" broken record.  If CAP units were properly manned and staffed,
and we could pry the dead fingers off some delegation by poor managers, we would not be having these conversations.

I think the answer, if there is one, is somewhere in the middle.

We do need more engaged-in-the-task people, but I think virtually any volunteer organisation would say that.

However, there is also a lot of "administrivia" (and I speak with experience, as I have a Master rating in Administration) that could be reduced, and a lot of positions that could be combined, because there is a lot of overlap.