Iowa Wing CAP

[RiverAux]

I really like the UMD concept and have tried something similar locally in the past -- it was really scary when you looked at readiness in that fashion and wasn't much different than the figures you posted. 

Personally, I think 3 deep in the aircrew and 2 deep in the ground team is too shallow.  It is probably good enough for a majority of potential missions, but not all. 

I think 5-6 deep for aircrew and 3 deep for ground team provides you a much better chance at being able to 100% guarantee a response, especially for multiple-day missions.  But, you've got to start somewhere. 

How do you post documents here anyway? 

[NEBoom]

How do you post documents here anyway? 

Right below the window where you type in your message is "Additional Options..."  Click that and you'll see "attach:" with a box and a browse button.

[Nick Critelli]

Attached is the IAWG UMD Document.  Creative credit goes to Capt. Jeffery L. Schwan of NCR-IA-043.

Have every unit complete a UMD analyze them all and you will have an objective and possibly shocking picture of your Wing's readiness and preparedness.

/s/ Nick Critelli
NICK CRITELLI, Lt Col CAP
Chief of Staff -- Iowa Wing
CIVIL AIR PATROL

[arajca]

On the staff side, do assistants/interns count? For example, a unit has one ESO and two other training for the position as assistants. How would this be recorded?

[Nick Critelli]

On the staff side, do assistants/interns count? For example, a unit has one ESO and two other training for the position as assistants. How would this be recorded? 

The situation never presented itself. It's up to Wing Leadership who is setting the Wing's readiness and preparedness standards to determine how they wish to handle it. 

BTW Let me explain Readiness and Preparedness as IAWG applies the concept.  The Wing is responsible for Preparedness which consists of all education and training for all members.  Squadrons are responsible for Readiness which consists of practicing those newly acquired skills. Training without consistent practice is a waste of time. Skills learned are quickly lost. Further squadrons are also responsible for ensuring that their component is ready to answer the mission call when made. In other words, they must be "mission ready".

NC

[cyclone]

This weekend Iowa Wing underwent its bi-annual Air Force Evaluated Operations Exercise. I am happy to report that Iowa Wing was given an overall "Excellent" grade.   Additionally IC and Comm was given "Outstanding Ratings" and Finance / Admin and Air Branch were given excellents with every other section being given "Successful" ratings.  The evaluators termed those ratings as "Successful Plus" as they debated making more of them "Excellent."

Noted items that the evaluators liked were:

1. Teamwork, they liked how well the staff and teams functioned together without bickering or disorganization.
2. Flexibility, winds at the base airport went out of the maximum cross-wind component for the aircraft and they had to be recovered 20 miles away at another airport.  The staff sent a staff detachment to manage that new staging area without incident or great interruption.
3. Follow-through.   The staff maintained regular hourly staff briefings to maintain continuity and communications.  Additionally, it was briefed that check ins were every 30 min on the half and top of the hour.  When the evaluators gave one ground team a communications blackout the staff caught it at the next checkin time and deployed assets to locate the team while trying to re-establish communications.
4. Information flow - the information flowed well between the staff.  Taskings went to Planning who notified the IC, wrote taskings, and handed them to Ops to be completed.   It worked very well.

Although a busy day, everyone had a good time and the wing was VERY pleased with its evaluation.   

[isuhawkeye]

IAWG was featured in this months issue of the volunteer.  the article highlited our mandatory leave of work legislation.  If anyone has any questions or comments we would happily answer them. 

[isuhawkeye]

I have heard that there is a new NOTF article about Iowa.  Has anyone sean it? 

[RogueLeader]

I have heard that there is a new NOTF article about Iowa.  Has anyone sean it? 

Nope, and not interested in NOTF. SIR!!

[CadetProgramGuy]

Yes I have.  I have a 2B ready if I find the source of the comments....

[RogueLeader]

I'll just say that it does NOT have anything to do with Testinggate.

[CadetProgramGuy]

Yes I have.  I have a 2B ready if I find the source of the comments....

Some people believe my 2B comments are too harsh.  If you feel that way... PM me directly.

[SARMedTech]

I think we've all been scammed by Iowa.  I read their papers.  There's nothing new in here.  They've just went behind the letter of the regulations and got into the spirit of the regs.  For example, their WTA. A voluntary monthy meeting where their whole wing gets together.  What's so wierd or controversial about that?  Look at the other side of the issue, what is really wierd is a wing that meets only once a year...at a Wing Conference. That's wierd.  Apparently my wing reads the regs to thing that the Wing Conference is the only time the wing is authorized to meet. We'll change that. 

They claim they invented "wing-centric" theory.  Wrong...that's what the regs say. The CC is the only corporate officer for CAP and the Wing is his unit. Of course the Wing is the main operational unit in CAP that's how it is organized. Squadrons as tactical tools?  Duh..what else would they be. That's what the structure in the regulations call for. The Wing establishes the squadrons.  Can't get anymore structured than that.  Field grade officers at wing, company grade at squadrons? Hardly innovative here. What is strange would be to have it the other way around.

Iowa has put one over on all of us. They read the regs understood the big picture and followed them.  Notice that nowhere in all of these documents did they call for a reg change?

Way to go Iowa.  :clap:

If this is the way that the regs say things are to be run, why is Iowa flourishing and the rest of CAP foundering? IAWG has repeatedly said its back to the basics and cut the dead wood. Its not necessarily that they have created anything that didnt already exist, its that they are running things as they are intended to be fun. As has been said, we need to get to the spirit of the regs and have people who truly understand and embody that spirit. If that means more SMs going "triple zero" than thats the way it should be. If it means having an officer who enforces uniform regulations rather than trying to use duct tape and bailing wire on inspection day, so be it. The fact is that IAWG has done something new in the modern era of CAP: they have demanded the excellence, qualifications, training and commitment that are the underpinnings of the entire organization. I venture to say that we need leadership who is not afraid to lead, which may from time to time involved stepping on a few toes or hurting some feelings. And (here come the black suburbans) we also need folks down at Maxwell who do more than take the ideas of others, slap their signature on them and send out a mass email. Semper Vigilans! That is all.

[RiverAux]

I've got an open mind about what Iowa has been trying to do and some of the things they're trying make a lot of sense, but have been waiting for evidence that their approaching is making a significant impact.  I'm not sure I would say that there is much evidence that they are "flourishing" just yet though its promising...

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of stats to go on, but here is what we've got from the 2005 and 2006 annual reports. 

In terms of membership numbers, Iowa grew by 3 members from 2005 to 2006.  Nationwide CAP membership declined by 2% and declined by 1% in the North Central Region (mostly due to loss in members in their largest Wing - Minnesota).  So, they're going slightly against the trend, but nothing astounding.  I know that Iowa is trying to focus on quality, but there is no objective way for an outsider to evaluate that.

What about flying hours? 
In 2005 Iowa flew 330 AF hours and flew 575 hours in 2006 an increase of 74% compared to the CAP nationwide rate of a 18%.  Actually, I suspect this increase could be because of missions that started out as state missions for which CAP was requested and that when we got it it was under an AFAM.  Just a hunch.

In 2005 IA flew 813 corporate hours (which I assume would include state missions) and flew 807 in 2006 -- a decrease of 0.7% compared to a nationwide decrease in corporate hours of 21%.  Iowa ranks 3 out of 7 in the number of corporate hours. 

Based on these numbers I think Iowa very well could be on the right track but I'm sort of a stats guy (who would have guessed) and would like more detailed info before I fully jump on the bandwagon for some things.   

[Nick Critelli]

Everyone wants to know about our numbers and it's a legitimate question.  Preliminary numbers look stable and support our programs...however I stress that they are preliminary. I will be more comfortable with another year of experience.  For example our previous two year new member retention rate was 54%.  However the  OTS the two year new member retention rate is 94%.  Unfortunately not enough time has passed to these numbers are extremely unreliable.

About all you can take from them is that OTS trained officers are much more likely to stay with CAP than non OTS trained officers.  This is probably because they have a greater investment in CAP and have a better focus on our mission.

The WTA has been an outstanding success.  Attendance percentages depend in large measure on the educational component being offered. However we usually have about 2/3rds of  the entire  active component (not the reserve squadron) Wing in attendance. 

Our gross membership numbers for officers and cadets has been stable for the past two years.  We have about 180 active officers and 115 active cadets.  We are comfortable with the 180 officers. They are highly trained,  motivated and dedicated. We are not  at all pleased with the  size of the cadet corps. It is far too low and  evidences that there is a chronic and systemic problem  with CAP cadet's program. Obviously we are trying to  remedy the situation.  Stay tuned, I am sure you will  hear more complaints  from the "make no changes" crowd.

                                     

[Dragoon]

The right metrics are critical.

For example, I personally could care less about the size of the senior member force.  You should have as many as you need to do the mission.  Bigger is not better.

Cadets are a different story - they are a product of our program, and bigger IS better.  But, of course, it needs to be balanced with quality training. 

I think the kind of metrics that matter include things like

1.  Results of higher level inspections, both SAR and Compliance types.

2.  # of missions.

3. To a lesser extent, number of successful missions.  The assumption being that while there's always an element of luck in finding a search target, better trained folks should be more likely to succeed.

4.  # of folks attaining level 4 and 5 - since these require significant effort on the part of the individual, it's a good indirect measure of both the health of PD and member dedication.

5. Number of MOAs in place with outside agencies AND number of MOAs that have actually been used recently.

6.  Retention

7.  On the cadet side, size of encampment, attendance at NCSAs, the Wing's results in the NCC and Color Guard Competition.

I specifically avoided Cadet Achievements, as the minute you measure those, you put pressure on commanders to promote cadets who aren't ready yet.

Anybody think of any others?

[RiverAux]

For example, I personally could care less about the size of the senior member force.  You should have as many as you need to do the mission.  Bigger is not better.

Well thats where it gets tricky.  Yes, raw total senior membership isn't the best metric, but I do believe it gives you a rough idea of how things are going on a squadron and Wing level.  Yes, yes, yes, I know that this will include members who don't contribute much (as we've discussed endlessly), but if you've got a unit that has had declining membership for many years, you're eventually going to have trouble.  However, if you've got a unit that is increasing for many years, you are going to be adding some capability even if some of the new folks aren't supermen. 

Just how many people do you need to be able to perform our missions?  I think that in many places CAP is on the edge of not being able to respond to all missions.  We talked about some Iowa numbers a few pages back. 

We definetely don't have anywhere near enough ground team qualified members to respond to all the potential missions we could be on.  I know of few squadrons that really have enough senior members to run the cadet programs.  Heck, there are plenty of towns without CAP units now that could have them if only we had the senior members to run them. 

[ddelaney103]

There are two parts of the "Iowa Experiment" that are major show stoppers:

Major support of the TAG.

and

Pull within the state lawmaking system.

One of the major pulls of the WTA's is they treat you like real military - they put you up in housing and feed you.  That takes money and facilities: both of which are in short supply in most wings.

Until we came come up with a national system that can replicate this funding, it's just a novelty.

[flapsUP]

The real novelty would be if national provided us with the funding.  Forget it. It hasn't happened in the past and it will never happen in the future. 

What are we really? A national organization waiting for a national disaster or a national organization that provides assistance to state and local government or both?  I get the impression that some of us think we are the first. Let's face it, national disasters come along infrequently. State and local emergencies and disasters happen daily. Who should foot the bill? State and local government.  Iowa  was right to grasp this and tapped deeply into it as a funding source.  Novelty? I don't think so. Genius is more like it.

[TDHenderson]

There are two parts of the "Iowa Experiment" that are major show stoppers:

Major support of the TAG.

and

Pull within the state lawmaking system.

One of the major pulls of the WTA's is they treat you like real military - they put you up in housing and feed you.  That takes money and facilities: both of which are in short supply in most wings.

Until we came come up with a national system that can replicate this funding, it's just a novelty.

The third is centralized facilities to do these things.  Iowa has it with Camp Dodge (an OUTSTANDING resource) which is almost in the center of the Wing geographically.  Other Wings do not have this luxury.